Category: Uncategorized

12 Rules for Life: A Catholic review

Sam Rocha does not think much of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life either, and reaches much the same conclusion about the charlatan that I have in his review of the book at the Catholic News Agency.

In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson makes a number of claims that obliquely relate to his opposition to the C-16 bill and to the points he has raised in his media appearances since then, but he does not credit any of this as contributing directly to this book. Instead, he cites his hero, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as articulating Peterson’s core idea for the book: an opposition to the view that human beings are created for happiness. In this respect, Peterson unwittingly picks a fight with Aristotle’s ancient and enduring ideas of human flourishing and the good life within the first three pages of his 2018 book about how to live.

Peterson also provides an early footnote explaining his usage of the capitalized word “Being,” a term he uses throughout the book’s nearly 400 pages. Peterson credits his repeated usage of this term to Martin Heidegger. Anyone who has read Heidegger’s Being and Time, however, will find no resemblance between Heidegger’s and Peterson’s notions of Being, including the undifferentiated spelling (Heidegger distinguished between Being and the beings). Peterson’s reference to Heidegger is ultimately an appeal to authority, attempting to justify his use of the term “Being” as an abstract neologism. But it is not remotely true that Heidegger was using Being as a neologism. After all, Heidegger did make up an abstract neologism, Dasein, to explain the way in which Being is experienced through our particular existence. Peterson’s repetition of the word “Being” throughout the book is impossible to understand on Heideggerian terms, and Peterson provides no explanation for it but this one, in his footnote. This example is par for the course: Peterson employs a litany of big names without substantive engagement, while missing the sources that his own ideas are in passive dialogue and conflict with.

In other words, Peterson’s book begins with an oddly incomplete account of its origins and motivations, followed by an unconscious dismissal of Aristotle’s most compelling account of the purpose of life, followed by a lazy attempt to justify using a specialized term as a mystical buzzword for the rest of the book. Yet in some respects, these are the most reasonable eight pages of the book.

In case you haven’t noticed, the more intelligent and the better-read the reader happens to be, the less he thinks of Jordan Peterson and the ludicrous pseudo-intellectual bafflegabbery that comprises Jordanetics. In case Sam’s review convinces you to give the book a pass, Sam has helpfully put together this list of twelve rules for approaching life as Jordan Peterson and his fans do.

Rule #1: Dominance Hierarchies Dominate, Hierarchically ( OF COURSE!), But They Don’t Really Know How to Make Upright Arguments or Provide Broad-Shouldered Reasons or Offer Serious Examples That Don’t Involve Psychologizing Crustaceans

Rule #2: “Postmodern Neo Marxists” Refers to Lacan But Not Jung, To Derrida But Not Nietzsche, To Foucault But Not Freud, But Please Don’t Ask Peterson About Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, Or Anyone Else Alive Today Who Is This Thing He Repeats Over And Over

Rule #3: If You Write One Book In 1999 With Routledge About Being Scared Of Nuclear War And You Cannot Get Enough Attention, Find A Good Culture War In 2016, Open a Patreon Account, And Get A Book Contract With Random House.

Rule #4: If Someone Critiques Peterson in 2017, Ask Them To Stop Being A Scaredy-Cat And Get In Touch With Him Directly; If Someone Critiques Peterson In 2018, Call Them Jealous And Bitter And Question Who They Are To Think They Could Debate JORDAN B PETERSON

Rule #5: As You Are Working As A Tenured Full Professor At A Major Research University, Convince Culture Warriors To Pay You Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars ON Patreon To Protect You From Something Bad From Happening To You

Rule #6: When You Are Promoted To Full Professor, Instead Of Writing An Opus Or Taking Joint Appointments Or A Chair Or A Distinguished Professorship, Publish A Rule Book Based on Your Quora Profile, YouTube Channel, And Your Only Other Book From 1999 Instead

Rule #7: If Jordan B Peterson Is Ever Criticized, Be Sure To Follow His Lead And Never Provide Reasons, Examples, Evidence, Counterfactuals, Arguments, Or Anything That Is Substantial Because You Are More Into The Phenomenon Of Peterson And His Effect On Society And He Is AMAZING

Rule #8: Quote Tons Of Philosophers In Your Books And Claim To Base Your Ideas Off Of Philosophical Ideas But Always Refuse To Debate Philosophers, Excepting Sam Harris Who Owned You In Your First Debate So Much You Wrote Him A Letter Afterwards—Debate Journalists Instead

Rule #9: Talk A Lot About IQ And Your IQ And Social Darwinism And Jungian Psychoanalysis And The Ying Yang And The Dragon Of Chaos And When You Get To The Book Of Genesis Christians Will Immediately Count You As An Exegete And An Evangelist For Their Cause

Rule #10: Anytime You Try To Defend Your General Position Against ALL Forms Of Marxism, Find A Way Back To Hitler And Stalin And Make Anyone Who Disagrees With You A Moral Monster, But Be Sure To Get VERY MAD About It And Show Them You Mean Business And Quote Adorno—Oopsies…

Rule #11: Talk More Than You Write Because It Is Hard To Be Pinned Down On What You Say, Also Use Your Professor Position To Add Credibility As A “Scientist” While You Try And Destroy The Corrupt Social Justice University—It Really Covers All Your Bases, Like The Salary + Patreon

Rule #12: Don’t Tell Marshall McLuhen, George Grant, Naomi Klein, Or Charles Taylor That Jordan Peterson Is Canada’s Greatest Intellectual And A Prophet For Our Time And When Someone Shows You Exactly How Nutty This Is Tell Them “Okay Man; I Only Think Peterson Is Just All right”

Foundation follies

The NGO class is comprised of high-level financial predators who have refined the art of capturing and converging new foundations and charities in order to control the resources they contain, as they’ve been doing this for more than 100 years. Not even the Left is safe from their rapacious predations:

In the Democratic Party’s reckoning following the election of Donald Trump, an unlikely feud has erupted inside an organization at the heart of the progressive movement. Earlier this year, the board of directors of Wellstone Action — an influential training group formed after Paul Wellstone’s death — dumbfounded Minnesota Democrats when it voted the late senator’s sons off the governing board.

Founded after Wellstone’s death in a plane crash in 2002, Wellstone Action has trained thousands of progressive candidates, campaign operatives and community organizers throughout the country, with alumni serving in local and state offices and in the U.S. House. In 2016, the last year for which tax filings are available, the group reported providing training to 2,135 data and digital strategists, 723 nonprofit leaders and community organizers, and 854 aspiring political leaders.

David Wellstone and other Democrats close to his father began objecting last year to what David Wellstone described as Wellstone Action’s abandonment of disaffected Democrats in the rural Midwest — the rural poor were an early focus of the late senator — with an increasingly narrow focus on gender politics and people of color.

“I said, ‘After Trump, we’ve got to figure out how we are going to go back after those Democrats that we lost,” David Wellstone said. “We can do all the stuff we do. We do great stuff on communities of color; we’re doing great stuff on gender identity politics. But we need to do some of these other trainings. … Nobody wanted to have a discussion about that.”

In a prepared statement, Connie Lewis, chairwoman of the Wellstone Action board, said the group’s “mission has not changed.” But the group’s staff and board of directors appeared to suggest a shift in the progressive movement since Paul Wellstone’s death, asserting in a statement on its website that “a lot has changed over the last fifteen years” and that “the progressive movement also looks different today than it did when we first started.”

If you’re a high-wealth individual, the world would be much better off if you left all your money to your cats or simply set it on fire instead of putting it into a trust or charitable foundation. It took the predators just 16 years to capture the Wellstone Foundation, and they did so despite the man’s own sons being on the board. It doesn’t matter how clever you think you are or what preparations you make, they’ve been doing it a lot longer than you’ve been alive and all it takes is one weak director to be bribed, bullied, or otherwise convinced to start packing the board with their people.

Massive immigrant fraud in Minnesota

Somalis and other African immigrants in Minnesota sent more than $100 million in welfare-provided cash back to Africa:

Last year, more than $100 million in cash left the Twin Cities airport in carry-on luggage, bound for the Middle East and Africa: As Kerns dug deeper, he found that some of the individuals who were sending out tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of remittance payments happened to be on government assistance in this country.

How could they possibly come up with such big bucks to transfer back home?

“We had sources that told us, ‘It’s welfare fraud, it’s all about the daycare,’” said Kerns.

Five years ago the Fox 9 Investigators were first to report that daycare fraud was on the rise in Minnesota, exposing how some businesses were gaming the system to steal millions in government subsidies meant to help low-income families with their childcare expenses.

“It’s a great way to make some money,” Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said.

In order for the scheme to work, the daycare centers need to sign up low income families that qualify for child care assistance funding. Surveillance videos from a case prosecuted by Hennepin County show parents checking their kids into a center, only to leave with them a few minutes later. Sometimes, no children would show up. Either way, the center would bill the state for a full day of childcare.

Video from that same case shows a man handing out envelopes of what are believed to be kickback payments to parents who are in on the fraud.

It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone is still able to publicly subscribe to any form of civic nationalism at this point. How can anyone possibly believe that a people who are capable of engaging in this behavior on such a massive scale are even remotely capable of living in peace and mutual harmony with other people who would never even imagine doing such a thing?

And how can anyone imagine that there is going to be any outcome that does not eventually involve a considerable amount of bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, and other serious unpleasantries, given the entire written history of human behavior?

A foundation of intellectual sand

This is the sort of basic historical error that Jordan Peterson commits with a surprising degree of regularity. From Maps of Meaning:

Prior to the time of Descartes, Bacon and Newton, man lived in an animated, spiritual world, saturated with meaning, imbued with moral purpose. The nature of this purpose was revealed in the stories people told each other—stories about the structure of the cosmos and the place of man. But now we think empirically (at least we think we think empirically), and the spirits that once inhabited the universe have vanished. The forces released by the advent of the experiment have wreaked havoc within the mythic world. Jung states:

How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe, encircled by the course of a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence. Such a life no longer seems real to us, even in our dreams. Natural science has long ago torn this lovely veil to shreds.

Even if the medieval individual was not in all cases tenderly and completely enraptured by his religious beliefs (he was a great believer in hell, for example), he was certainly not plagued by the plethora of rational doubts and moral uncertainties that beset his modern counterpart. Religion for the pre-experimental mind was not so much a matter of faith as a matter of fact—which means that the prevailing religious viewpoint was not merely one compelling theory among many….

Medieval people, unused to rhetorical speech, were easily seized emotionally or inspired to action by passionate words.

This is little more than a mystic’s poetic version of the false science-religion polarity put forth by historically ignorant atheists. Infogalactic:

After the breakup of the western Roman Empire, the study of rhetoric continued to be central to the study of the verbal arts; but the study of the verbal arts went into decline for several centuries, followed eventually by a gradual rise in formal education, culminating in the rise of medieval universities. But rhetoric transmuted during this period into the arts of letter writing (ars dictaminis) and sermon writing (ars praedicandi). As part of the trivium, rhetoric was secondary to the study of logic, and its study was highly scholastic: students were given repetitive exercises in the creation of discourses on historical subjects (suasoriae) or on classic legal questions (controversiae).

Although he is not commonly regarded as a rhetorician, St. Augustine (354-430) was trained in rhetoric and was at one time a professor of Latin rhetoric in Milan. After his conversion to Christianity, he became interested in using these “pagan” arts for spreading his religion. This new use of rhetoric is explored in the Fourth Book of his De Doctrina Christiana, which laid the foundation of what would become homiletics, the rhetoric of the sermon. Augustine begins the book by asking why “the power of eloquence, which is so efficacious in pleading either for the erroneous cause or the right”, should not be used for righteous purposes (IV.3).

One early concern of the medieval Christian church was its attitude to classical rhetoric itself. Jerome (d. 420) complained, “What has Horace to do with the Psalms, Virgil with the Gospels, Cicero with the Apostles?” Augustine is also remembered for arguing for the preservation of pagan works and fostering a church tradition that led to conservation of numerous pre-Christian rhetorical writings.

Rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the renaissance, but new writings did advance rhetorical thought. Boethius, in his brief Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, continues Aristotle’s taxonomy by placing rhetoric in subordination to philosophical argument or dialectic. The introduction of Arab scholarship from European relations with the Muslim empire renewed interest in Aristotle and Classical thought in general, leading to what some historians call the 12th century renaissance. A number of medieval grammars and studies of poetry and rhetoric appeared.

Late medieval rhetorical writings include those of St. Thomas Aquinas, Matthew of Vendome (Ars Versificatoria, 1175), and Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Poetria Nova, 1200–1216). Another interesting record of medieval rhetorical thought can be seen in the many animal debate poems popular in England and the continent during the Middle Ages, such as The Owl and the Nightingale (13th century) and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls (1382).

The historical truth is that the average medieval man was probably more cognizant of the distinction between rhetorical speech and dialectical speech than postmodern man is, and the average educated medieval man almost certainly had a far more sophisticated technical understanding of rhetoric than the average modern or postmodern academic. Including Dr. Jordan Peterson himself.

Moreover, note that while Jung’s erroneous assertion is limited to the medievals, Peterson’s is not, as he extends Jung’s false claim to includes all men prior to Descartes, Bacon and Newton. Anyone even remotely familiar with classical or Eastern philosophy will immediately recognize the absurdity of the statement. How could anyone who has read Outlines of Pyrrhonism possibly accept the idea that no one before Descartes thought empirically? Even if one hasn’t, the fact that the author’s name is Sextus Empiricus should provide at least a hint that something is seriously wrong with the notion.

Does Peterson genuinely believe people today do not respond emotionally to charges of racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, and now transphobia? Does he truly believe they are not “easily seized emotionally or inspired to action by passionate words”? As for the idea that Man today thinks empirically, one has only to review a few of the furious responses of Jordan Peterson’s fans to the revelations concerning his genuine beliefs and philosophy to wholly disprove that notion.

The chief problem, as near as I can tell, is that Peterson seldom bothers reading much actual source material, preferring to rely instead on what academics have written about it. In the case of his absurd claim concerning the unfamiliarity of medieval people with rhetorical speech, he refers to a 1967 study by Huizenga, while his failure to cite Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine or Cicero even once while discussing the subject strongly suggests that at the time he wrote Maps of Meaning, he had never read any of them.

From a review of Thomas Aquinas on Persuasion: Action, Ends, and Natural Rhetoric by Jeffrey J.Maciejewski.

Much has been written about the early Church Fathers and their efforts to adapt Classical rhetorical theory to Christian thought. The greatest focus here has been on the philosopher and theologian Augustine of Hippo (345-430), whose contributions to a uniquely Christian rhetoric have been described by George Kennedy and Calvin Troup to name but a few. The focus on Augustine has perhaps overshadowed another influential Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas. He also adapted Classical precepts, namely, Aristotelianism – and his impact on the development of the (Catholic) Christian CHurch has been as formidable as Augustine’s, if not more so.

What sort of architecture of belief can any man hope to construct without Aristotle, let alone Augustine and Aquinas? And what sort of belief system can be expected to stand when constructed upon on a foundation of such shoddy intellectual sand?

Larry Correia banned from Origins

This is almost unbelievable. SJWs are running completely amok.

It just goes to show that they will come for you eventually, no matter how minor your offenses against the Narrative may be.

Larry Correia responds:

So I’m no longer the writer guest of honor at origins. My invitation has been revoked. It was the usual nonsense. Right after I was announced as a guest some people started throwing a temper tantrum about my alleged racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever (of course, with zero proof or actual examples), and the guy in charge (John Ward) immediately folded. He didn’t even talk to me first. He just accepted the slander and gave me the boot in an email that talked about how “inclusive” they are. I actually heard about it on facebook before I even saw the email.

Oh well.

They did this to John Ringo at ConCarolinas a little while ago, and took a lesson from it. This is just another new way for bullies to target people who disagree with them. Throw a fit, make up some accusations, and cry about how you feel unsafe. Now that they know it works, it is just another tool in their tool box.

For the record, I’m not any of the things they accuse me of. Despite writing a whole bunch of books, and a ton of political articles, and all of my many personal interactions with fans (I’ve done up to 15 cons and events in one year), none of these people can ever find any actual examples of me being sexist, racist, or homophobic (and the Guardian looked hard and still came up with nothing).

That’s because in reality, I’m a libertarian who does not give a shit who you are, or what you do, and it is none of my business, as long as you stay off my lawn. ?

This time they kept calling me a “rape apologist”. They dug up that classic that John Scalzi created about me several years ago. It’s total nonsense. I spent many years teaching self defense to women, and I’m all in favor of every rape attempt ending with the rapist receiving a couple hollow points to the chest. But that just goes to show the power of lies, rumor, and narrative.

So years later, complete strangers come out of the woodwork to talk about how evil I am. Yeah… That does get tiresome. It is wearying.

I’m really sorry for any fans who were planning on seeing me at Origins. Hopefully I’ll get to meet you at some other event.

For me personally, meh. I go to enough events. I’ll just do something else fun that weekend.

The saddest person in all of this is my son, who was my plus one. He was looking forward to playing a bunch of games, and then we were going to go to the zoo on Sunday. (they have manatees there!).

One gets the impression that Larry is simply too worn out with the Culture War to feel like fighting the SJWs anymore. And, let’s face it, like John Ringo, he is too independently successful for their antics to do him any real harm. For now, anyhow.

I told you it was inevitable

Haaretz is displeased by Israel’s Alt-Right government.

Trump’s Embassy Move Intensifies America’s Immoral Support for Israel’s Alt-right Government.

Opening the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem escalates decades of America coddling Israel’s occupation, unopposed by a quisling Palestinian leadership and world powers who barely whisper their condemnation.

Do you still doubt?

Gentlemen, start your gambling

The crumbling of the American moral code continues:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of New Jersey in the state’s challenge to the federal law known as The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The law barred states from legalizing gambling on sporting events with the notable exception of Nevada and less notable exceptions for sports lotteries in three other states.

The court’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional, which came by a 7-2 vote, sets the stage for states to start allowing gambling on sports. How that will be implemented from state to state remains to be seen, but the amount of money on the table will lead many of them to make risking a few bucks on your favorite team a fairly easy undertaking.

What’s next? Prostitution and sex slavery, presumably. The good news is that since gambling is essentially a tax on stupidity, the ongoing decline in average US intelligence should help maximize the revenues.

When designing a government system for the future, remember that it is the judicial branch and the concept of “interpreting the law” that proved to be the weak point.

One-sided war

This is not what “winning the moral level of war” looks like:

Israeli snipers kill scores of Palestinians and wound 2,400 as 35,000 protesters rally against the US Embassy opening in Jerusalem overseen by Trump’s Middle East envoy Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka.

A 14-year-old was among 52 shot dead along the Gaza border on what is already the deadliest single day in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since a 2014 war between the Jewish state and Gaza’s Islamist rulers Hamas.

At least 2,400 more have been injured with hundreds of them by live bullets, according to Gaza officials as the Palestinian government accused Israel of committing a ‘terrible massacre’ and Amnesty International called the bloodshed an ‘abhorrent violation’ of human rights.

Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is the right thing to do. It is not the responsibility of the US government to decide where a nation’s capital is located. But whatever Israeli general is responsible for handling the protesters is making a complete hash of it. If Israel was looking for foreign support in its desired war-by-proxy against Iran, this is most certainly not going to help.

I don’t know why Israel hasn’t established a separate gendarmerie for handling the West Bank and Gaza, because military history strongly suggests that using soldiers as police tends to fail as brutally as using police as soldiers does. And, as Martin van Creveld has repeatedly observed, one-sided war tends to have a demoralizing effect on the winner.

And, of course, it is reprehensible that so many New Israelis should be treated so violently when all they are seeking is a better life for them and their children on the other side of the fence. Especially when the Israeli economy would benefit so greatly from embracing 35,000 new citizens.

Darkstream: Jordan Peterson is a globalist shill


A partial transcript of the Darkstream:

A lot of people have said, “well you know he’s doing so much good, you know, he’s helping these these poor young men who are assailed by feminism, under pressure from SJWs, and they don’t know what to do, they’re raised by single mothers, they don’t have masculine role models, and what he’s doing is really great for them.” The problem is that is nonsense! That’s absolute nonsense! What he is trying to do is he is trying to neuter them!

Jordan Peterson is not raising young men to defend the West, he is not raising young men to become heroes. He is teaching them that they are the measure of Man, they are the measure of Good and Evil, they set the standards, they do whatever they want. How is that any better than what the SJWs are telling them? The indoctrination that Jordan Peterson is providing through this philosophy of Jordanetics is poisonous. It’s like raising a kid on junk food. You can’t be surprised if all you feed a kid is junk food; he lives but he grows up to be fat and soft and weak.

People keep saying, “oh well, I like this about him and I like that about him.” So what? That’s totally irrelevant! The thing is, we now know that he is not only an intellectual fraud, he’s not only an intellectual charlatan, but he’s also a complete fraud when it comes to his own career. People are saying “oh but he’s so popular, and so many people like his videos and it’s just this organic  phenomenon.” That’s a total load of crap! Jordan Peterson is no more a self-made man than Ben Shapiro is.

Jordan Peterson was recruited to help write the UN’s Report on Sustainable Development, A New Global Partnership. He was brought in to polish the narrative for a report that put John Podesta on its panel of eminent persons, and this was back in 2012, this was long before Peterson got famous, and so if you look at the timeline you can see that this is somebody who was raised up in order to fulfill a mission. And what that mission was is to attempt to defuse the growing trend towards nationalism.

Bring it

I sincerely hope France, Germany, and the UK are dumb enough to listen to Obama’s ex-officials and call what they wrongly imagine is the God-Emperor’s bluff on the Iran deal:

Two former Obama administration officials suggested that America’s European allies should punish President Donald Trump for withdrawing from the Iran deal and levying additional sanctions on the Islamic republic.

The European Union and individual European countries are obligated to take aggressive steps to preserve the Iran deal, in order to avoid becoming Trump’s “doormat,” Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson argued in an op-ed that ran in The New York Times Thursday. Both Simon and Stevenson were directors on former President Barack Obama’s National Security Council (NSC).

“The European Union could, for instance, announce the withdrawal of member-states’ ambassadors from the United States. Isn’t this what states do when diplomatic partners breach solemn agreements, expose them to security risks and threaten to wreak havoc on their economies? That is, after all, what the administration is threatening to do by courting the risk of a Middle Eastern war and applying secondary sanctions to European companies,” they argued. “Depending on the American response, European capitals might even follow up with expulsion of American ambassadors.”

“It would be hard to fault these moves as irresponsible, given that they would not impair vital security functions like intelligence-sharing and law enforcement coordination. They would, however, symbolize a stark diplomatic breach that could extend to other areas in which the Trump administration needs allied support,” the former Obama officials wrote. “Thus, the White House would face the first hard choice in this whole process: a full-blown crisis in trans-Atlantic relations. If the administration’s next move were to impose secondary sanctions on Europe, the Europeans could slap its own penalties on American multinational corporations, which in turn would place additional pressure on the White House.”

It’s truly remarkable how these once-powerful bureaucrats simply don’t understand the power calculus involved. Or, as it should be phrased, the power addition. The US runs a big balance-of-trade deficit with Europe, so any such action on the part of the European governments would affect them much more severely than it would affect the United States.

We are rapidly coming to the end of the peaceful period when butter mattered more than guns. Which is why Europe is waning in influence as Russia, and particularly China, are waxing. What mattered more to the Syrian government, Germany’s cars or Russia’s anti-aircraft systems? What was more important to defeating the Islamic State, UK banking institutions or Iranian military advisors?

Any such move on the EU’s part will help break the illusion of its power and offer further encouragement to the rising nationalist movements seeking to free their peoples from the EU’s chains. In the meantime:

H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”

If Trump doesn’t already know them, he should offer the Iranians something to go public with those names.