The Senate and Iran’s Bomb
“I am Iranian by birth and of my Islamic Faith. I am also an American citizen and seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself.”
– Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s “handler”), Stanford University, 1977.
More from Judicial Watch (link):
“Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”
It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.”
Did Valarie Jarrett use her Iranian and Islamic connections to help CREATE Obama? Here is a blast from the past that says, “Maybe so.”
Susan Rice famously and falsely blamed Benghazi on a video. She has made major business investments in Iran. She lobbies for jihad. She and Obama reject the Constitutional role for Congress that it has long played on arms control.
Obama says: Iran won’t pursue nuclear weapons. It is against their faith. Here is the exact quote. President Obama said he believed a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons was possible because Supreme Leader Khamenei said it would be “contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon.” This is delusional at best and very dangerous, as Rep. Bachmann pointed out to him in an encounter at the White House Christmas party 2014.
Read more at http://conservativevideos.com/obama-iran-wont-pursue-nuclear-weapons-contrary-faith/#7DYMGHqMrEeGPzQu.99
WSJ OP ED – February 7-8, 2015
The ghost of Scoop Jackson is hovering over the Obama Administration’s troubles with the Senate and its nuclear negotiations with Iran. Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, a respected national-security Democrat from Washington state, was often a thorn in the side of Presidents who were negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. President Obama wishes Senate critics such as Democrat Robert Menendez and Republican Bob Corker would simply get their noses out of the deal. This President needs a history lesson: Senate involvement in arms-control agreements goes back at least 50 years.
Threatening vetoes of anything the Senate sends him on Iran, President Obama seems to think his job is to negotiate nuclear arms agreements unilaterally, while the Senate’s job is to keep its mouth shut.
It was never thus.
The idea of nuclear-arms agreements negotiated by an Administration with little or no input from Congress is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Clinton Administration unilaterally negotiated the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea to stop its construction of nuclear reactors. The George W. Bush Administration followed, producing five sets of Six-Party Talks with North Korea. They all fell apart because the North Koreans cheated by continuing to test nuclear devices and develop missiles capable of delivering a bomb.
The Obama negotiation with Iran is called P5+1, which asks everyone to believe that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, can be trusted to put Iran’s nuclear genie to sleep. That arms-control model may appeal to the Nobel Peace Prize committee, but it should not impress U.S. Senators.
The Senate’s experience with nuclear-arms control dates at least to the Kennedy Presidency in 1963 and the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which emerged after eight years of negotiations with the Soviet Union. Like virtually all Soviet-era arms agreements, that deal was a formal treaty and subject to the Constitution’s treaty-making process: The President may commit the U.S. to a treaty with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. The Senate ratified the Kennedy test ban 80-19.
With a few exceptions, that public process was followed for decades. The agreements were openly debated by Senators with input, pro and con, by national-security specialists from inside and outside the government.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated during the Johnson Presidency and ratified under Richard Nixon in 1969. Nixon then undertook negotiations for the first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I). That produced the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the Senate ratified 88-2. SALT I never became a formal, permanent treaty. It was a temporary deal, lasting five years, and Nixon submitted it to Congress for approval by votes in both the Senate and House.
President Obama’s Iran deal sounds like Nixon’s temporary interim SALT accord. But while Nixon understood the need to get Congress’s formal approval, the Obama White House refuses to note even the existence of Mr. Corker’s proposed up-or-down vote on an Iran deal.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and amid the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter withdrew the SALT II treaty with the Soviets, knowing the Senate would never ratify it. During the Reagan years, Senators were preoccupied with nuclear verification and compliance. How, the Senators asked, would we know if the Soviets were cheating, and what would we do about it if they did cheat?
As the Reagan team pressed in 1987 for ratification of the INF treaty on medium-range nuclear weapons, Senator Sam Nunn, then the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, “We are going to have a major debate on verification, in the context of both this agreement and the next one.” Leading national-security figures testified in hearings, all of it covered and debated in major newspapers and television. It was a valuable exercise in American governance. The Senate ratified INF in May 1988, 93-5.
George H.W. Bush concluded the START treaty on longer-range nuclear weapons in 1991, which the Senate also ratified, as it did START II in 1996 under Bill Clinton.
Barack Obama’s Iran project is the outlier in the history of arms control. His insistence that no one may interfere in his negotiations has only increased misgivings in Congress about the details. If Mr. Obama were pursuing the traditional route to gain approval of an Iran agreement, exposing it to formal public debate and a vote, there would have been no need for Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress.
Details matter. The Defense Intelligence Agency in its annual threat assessment last February said, “In addition to its growing missile and rocket inventories, Iran is seeking to enhance lethality and effectiveness of existing systems with improvements in accuracy and warhead designs.”
Missile delivery systems and warhead design were make-or-break issues during arms agreements with the Soviet Union. In Mr. Obama’s negotiations with Iran, they are virtually non-subjects.
Senators Menendez, Corker and Mark Kirk have led the effort for more accountability on an Iranian arms deal. President Obama’s response is a threat to veto any advice or consent the Senate may enact that doesn’t simply assent to whatever he signs. What an irony that his unilateral point man is former Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry .
This new Senate needs to re-establish its traditional role in letting the American people know what is in—and what is not in—these deals with the next generation of nations seeking nuclear bombs.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress infuriated Obama, but is a “must watch” for all Americans. Link * Full Speech
Please note that what Iran seeks is not just a capability to destroy Israel, but a full nuclear delivery system with missiles that can reach Europe and America. It already HAS missiles that can reach Israel.
In addition, it seeks a military capability that will completely upset the power balance in the Middle East and Africa. Obama is willing to give them a nuclear capability unless Congress can stop him.
Iran’s Emerging Empire: Link 1
Bachmann’s Christmas Warning + Raven’s Run story line: Link2
Appeasing Aggression: Will liberals never learn? Link3
Sage advice to the Senate on Iran. Will Congress confront Obama? Link4
Obama is determined (almost frantic) to bypass Congress and the American public, preferring to have the UN bless his deal and make it binding. The Constitution says he can’t, but King Obama intends to try. Link5
BREAKING NEWS 3/15/2015 — Team Obama wants to make it about the “horrible” letter from 47 Senators. Instead of about the HORRIBLE DEAL.
Obama airbrushed Iran and Hezbollah off the terrorist list this week. He also worked hard (using taxpayer funds) to influence the elections in Israel and topple Bibi’s government, but failed. He also declassified a Top Secret report about Iran’s nukes. Coincidence, I’m sure….
The problems raised by authorities ranging from Henry Kissinger, the country’s most senior former secretary of state, to Sen. Timothy M. Kaine, Virginia’s junior senator, can be summed up in three points:
● First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.
● Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.
● Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term.
“The stakes are as high as they come. But Obama cannot be candid about the terms of the ongoing discussions, especially now. The inevitable consequences of his dangerous position already are provoking widespread bipartisan disapproval in America. The White House most fears the effect Netanyahu will have on congressional consideration of further Iran sanctions if no deal is reached.
Obama is worried with good reason. Although Iran and the West have been negotiating since 2003, only Obama has made the massive concessions to Tehran that have brought a deal close at hand. And it is not just what Netanyahu will say in Washington but also his timing that set off Obama and his acolytes.”
— John Bolton
Pingback: Free Speech must die! Obama's campaign. | Freedom Writers
Pingback: Is it Real or is it Fiction? – Raven’s Run | Freedom Writers
Pingback: War on Terror –> Jobs for jihadis –> “Hand’s up, Don’t Shoot” for terrorists… | Freedom Writers
US Taxpayers Funding Anti-Netanyahu Campaign?
By John Waage
CBN News Sr. Editor
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Two U.S. lawmakers have sent a letter to the State Department, asking whether President Barack Obama has “launched a political campaign” against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and whether American taxpayers are helping to fund the campaign.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas and Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. sent a letter this week asking the State Department to explain whether a non-profit group called One Voice, supported by U.S. tax dollars, is working with a campaign called Operation Victory 2015 (V15) to influence Israel’s elections, to be held March 17.
The lawmakers called taxpayer funding for such a purpose “completely unacceptable.”
“State Department grants should never be given to entities working to overthrow strong allies like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” Zeldin said Thursday. “Today, I join with Sen. Ted Cruz in calling for a U.S. Department of State investigation into this important matter.”
In an article earlier this week, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz highlighted the work of Jeremy Bird, a political strategist who helped organize a door-to-door effort for the Obama campaign against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina. The effort was very successful, and it helped to break open a dead even race between the two candidates, eventually leading to Obama’s nomination and election.
This year, Bird brought a team of consultants to Israel to help organize Israeli political groups opposed to Netanyahu.
The 2014 version of anti-Netanyahu campaign is not without precedent.
The eagerness among former President Bill Clinton’s staff to defeat Netanyahu in his first term was so strong that top Clinton operatives James Carville, Bob Shrum and pollster Stanley Greenberg camped out in Israel to help Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak to a come-from-behind victory over Netanyahu in 1999.
This year’s activity comes amid charges by Democrats that Republican House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is playing politics by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress before the elections to report on the danger to Israel and the West from Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
On the Republican side, Cruz and Zeldin want to know how much money the U.S. government has given to groups working in the Israeli elections, including One Voice and Peace Works Network Foundation, who approved the funding, how much oversight and accounting is involved, and whether non-profit groups such as One Voice are violating terms of their tax exempt status.
“Of course private American citizens are free to engage in political activities according to their inclinations,” their letter stated. “But given the overtly partisan nature of this particular case, we are deeply concerned by the relationship that also exists between One Voice and the Department of State.”
Lost in the din of the political battle another question looms: as the diplomats spend years negotiating with Iran, how close are the mullahs to acquiring nuclear weapons and what are the consequences for Israelis, Americans and the people living in the Middle East tinderbox if they do?
Congress Deserves a Vote on Iran
Large bipartisan majorities in the legislature created the sanctions. Ending them warrants legislative review.
Joseph I. Lieberman
March 17, 2015 7:03 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
As the Obama administration moves closer to a diplomatic agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, a bipartisan group of senators—including Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and ranking Democrat Bob Menendez—has put forward legislation that would provide Congress with a mechanism to review such a deal. The White House has threatened a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a “nonbinding” executive agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an inappropriate intrusion.
Not so. The Constitution and history, not to mention common sense, argue that it is entirely proper for America’s elected representatives in Congress to review a far-reaching agreement with a foreign government of such national-security significance. The president as commander in chief deserves deference in devising national-security strategy, but Congress has clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process.
Each of the Constitution’s grants of foreign-policy authority to the president is checked and balanced by a grant of foreign-policy authority to Congress. For example, the two most explicit foreign-policy powers the Constitution gives to the president—selecting ambassadors and making international treaties—both require Senate consent.
The legislation now before the Senate, which may be taken up as early as next week, would allow Congress to assume its rightful role in a responsible, measured way. Rather than treating an Iran agreement as a treaty—which would require formal ratification by two-thirds of the Senate—the bill would adopt a less stringent standard.
Each chamber of Congress would have the opportunity to hold a vote of approval or disapproval of a deal under expedited rules of procedure; in the absence of a joint resolution of disapproval by both the House and Senate, the deal would automatically take effect. This would ensure there is a structured process for deliberation and debate.
The Obama administration instead intends to treat an Iran deal like a status of forces agreement, known as a SOFA, which spells out rules for U.S. soldiers deployed in a foreign country. These are typically nonbinding executive agreements that do not involve a congressional vote.
But the analogy is flawed. Unlike SOFAs, which tend to be administrative and technical in nature, a nuclear deal with Iran would represent a historic and highly controversial strategic commitment—precisely the kind of national decision in which congressional involvement is most warranted.
Congress should also review an Iran agreement because of the unusually extensive and direct role it has already played in formulating exactly those policies that a nuclear deal would alter and undo. Congress in 2010 designed and passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which sought to punish companies and individuals that did business with Iran’s petroleum sector. Legislation in 2012 added further restrictions.
The essence of any deal would relieve the Iranians from such sanctions in exchange for certain restrictions on their nuclear activities. The sanctions under negotiation, however, are overwhelmingly the creation of Congress—put in law through bills passed by large bipartisan majorities. Given that Congress built the sanctions against Iran, it is unreasonable to bar it from any review or oversight in how that architecture is disassembled.
Finally, what about the argument that Tehran would object to congressional review, thus making an agreement more difficult to reach? This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
If presidents of both parties during the Cold War could submit sensitive nuclear-arms-control agreements negotiated with the Soviet Union to Congress for two-thirds ratification—when atomic doomsday loomed—surely the same can be done today. While congressional review might be unpalatable to the Iranians, as it surely was to the Soviets, we should not ignore our Constitution or suspend our best democratic practices to win agreements with our adversaries.
The great political scientist Edward Corwin observed more than half a century ago that the Constitution is “an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.” It is exactly this struggle between Congress and the president—which is almost as old as our republic—playing out now over a possible agreement with Iran, reflecting the divided and often overlapping lines of responsibility for foreign policy that our Founders assigned to Congress and the president.
Presidents are rarely enthusiastic when Congress asserts itself in foreign policy. But our most successful leaders have recognized the need to win the support, or at least acquiescence, of Capitol Hill for their most ambitious national-security initiatives, because that is one of the best ways to ensure the support of the American people and to make it more likely those initiatives will endure.
Congress has every right to review any agreement with Iran that the Obama administration reaches. The administration would benefit greatly if any deal it negotiates passes muster on Capitol Hill as well as in Tehran.
Mr. Lieberman, a former four-term U.S. senator from Connecticut, is senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Pingback: Right to Work & Obama Neutrality Agreement | Freedom Writers
John Kerry — one of the two most hated people (along with Hanoi Jane) by our Vietnam Vets, and with an Iranian son-in-law — is Obama’s main man to negotiate a treaty to prevent Iran from getting nukes. What could possibly go wrong?
The Evil Mind of John Kerry
From Hanoi to Hamas, he wears blinders.
By Jeffrey Lord – 8.1.14
John Kerry sees no evil. The Israeli media is catching on.
Last night, the news arrived that Secretary of State Kerry and UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon had issued a joint statement announcing a 72-hour truce between Israel and Hamas. Reported the Washington Post:
GAZA CITY – Israel and Hamas have agreed to an unconditional, 72-hour humanitarian truce to begin Friday morning, diplomats from the United States and the United Nations announced Thursday, potentially paving the way for an end to the 24-day-old conflict.
Got that? John Kerry has brokered a truce that will be “paving the way for an end to the 24-day-old conflict” between Israel and Hamas, the latter who has openly sworn to “eliminate” Israel. If you believe that this is “the end” of a conflict that is a mere 24 days olds (???), there is always that bridge in Brooklyn for sale (these days waving a white surrender flag). John Kerry has brought peace in the Middle East? Really?
From the moment he burst on the national scene in 1971 as a young Vietnam vet, his family connections and anti-war views landing him a spot testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, right straight through to today as the U.S. Secretary of State, Kerry has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to grasp not only serious threats to the United States and the larger world as well.
What has been on display again and again in Kerry’s public career is a tone-deafness when it comes to the manifestation of evil. Unless, of course, in the style of that old comic strip character Pogo, he has met the enemy and he is us.
Famously in that televised 1971 testimony (seen here) Kerry attacked his fellow vets for “cutting off ears” and acting like “Genghis Khan.” He would pay a serious political price for this decades later when he ran for president and some of his still-infuriated fellow Vietnam vets came out to sink his White House bid. But there was more in that long ago testimony than imputing terrible deeds to U.S. soldiers. Said young Mr. Kerry of his view of the world in his testimony to an appreciative audience of liberal senators and anti-war protestors:
It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the creation of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable… but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to this question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial.
[…] There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. [Laughter.]
Got it? “There is no threat” Kerry said categorically. This assurance was less than a decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis in which, according to all those Kennedy books and movies, the world came within an ace of being blown up in a nuclear firestorm, a crisis launched by the non-threatening Soviets. It was after the Berlin crisis of 1961, yet another crisis that threatened nuclear war and launched the building of the Berlin Wall. But Kerry’s assurance came two years before the Soviets would bring the world to the brink of war yet again over the Middle East in October of 1973, and eight years before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. And it came in the middle of various surges of mass murder that characterized communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Afghanistan and more – episodes of horrendous violence The Black Book of Communism estimates to have killed 100 million people.
But young John Kerry saw “no threat” in any of this.
In 1984 Kerry finally made it to the U.S. Senate himself, representing Massachusetts. Over the next handful of years – which is to say the second Reagan term as Reagan determinedly set about ending the Cold War once and for all – Kerry opposed Reagan on the MX missile, the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars,” as liberals derided it), the U.S. invasion of Grenada to halt a Communist coup in America’s backyard (Grenada was a year before Kerry was elected to the Senate, but Kerry had described Reagan’s actions as “a bully’s show of force”), the Reagan build-up of NATO (Kerry was for a nuclear freeze) and support for the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters (Kerry predicted Reagan was starting another Vietnam).
All of which is to say, John Kerry – as he himself could not make plainer – looked at the Soviet Union, at Communism, and said “there is no threat.” The real problem was American “paranoia” about Communism.
But the fundamental difference between Ronald Reagan and John Kerry was Reagan’s unblinking recognition that in fact evil existed in this world. There was no negotiating with it – period. The only way out was to defeat it. Or, as Reagan famously said about the Soviets, whom he called “the Evil Empire”: “We win – they lose.”
Back in June of 2004, the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger wrote with his usual perceptiveness about John Kerry and evil, Kerry then approaching that year’s Democratic presidential nomination. In the headlines was more ghastly news from the Middle East. Three men – Americans Nicholas Berg, Paul M. Johnson Jr. and South Korean missionary Kim Sun-Il – had all been kidnapped in Iraq and beheaded. With video tape rolling on the gruesome spectacle. Henninger wrote this: Conservatives do believe in evil, and liberals either no longer do or they don’t wish to allow the idea of evil to be explicit in our politics.”
He went on to muse that the liberals on Kerry’s staff “would never ask Mr. Kerry to say in public that the beheadings are `evil.’… The events that are coinciding with this election may be forcing a referendum on the nature of radical Islam similar to an earlier one on Soviet Communism. Is radical Islam a political problem to manage with our allies and the U.N. or an implacable enemy, a radical evil, that is simply trying to kill us?”
Henninger turned out to be right – in 2004. But by 2008 the Kerry view of the world had a comeback, this time with then-Senator Obama. The view that radical Islam was simply a “problem to manage with our allies” won the day. Today, John Kerry’s view of the world has been implemented, with first Hillary Clinton and finally Kerry himself riding herd on Obama’s leftist foreign policy as Secretary of State.
And confronted directly – and yet again – with evil, this time in the form of Hamas, Secretary of State Kerry doesn’t understand. If one reads the Hamas Charter the language is quite plain: Israel is to be “eliminated.” While it is Hamas at the forefront of this latest battle with Israel, this goal is typical of Jihadist groups who openly proclaim their objective as – in the words of neighboring Hezbollah in Lebanon, “the destruction of Israel.” (And the Jerusalem Post is reporting that Hamas is now inviting Hezbollah to join Hamas in the current war.) Earlier this week Mosab Hassan Yousef, the dissident son of the founder of Hamas, was on The Mark Levin Show patiently explaining to his American audience that after killing the Jews, his father’s Hamas is about establishing a global caliphate. The Jews may be the first target, but the Hamas objective is radical Islamic world domination.
In the face of this, what was Kerry doing? Over at Fox Charles Krauthammer captured the moment well, saying of Kerry that the Secretary of State “returns [from a trip to Paris where he met with representatives of the Hamas-friendly Qatar and Turkey] essentially as the lawyer for Hamas.”
Now the Israeli media is furious with John Kerry. Earlier this week Politico pulled together a sampling of Israeli media comment about Kerry. Among other things the Israeli press is saying “Kerry’s mistakes are embarrassing. … Kerry just doesn’t understand who’s playing against whom in the Wild Mideast” (Times of Israel), that Kerry (and Obama) “did not understand the depth of the cynicism and cruelty of the factors that they are dealing with?” (Maariv), Kerry is like a “blind person” and should be fired because he is “pathetic and confused” (Maariv). There’s more.
What all of this comment is saying, even if not in so many words, is that Israel is having to face evil – this time in the form of Hamas – and John Kerry is at work playing the game of moral relativity.
In Kerry’s lifetime (he was born in 1943), the following events have occurred. In the wake of the Holocaust and the mass murder of six million Jews, surviving Jews flocked to the Middle East to formally establish the State of Israel in the ancient Jewish homeland. South Koreans fought a life and death struggle against the North Koreans and Chinese. Hungarians revolted, the revolt crushed by the Soviet Union. Between 1961 and 1989 some 5,000 East Germans raced across rows of barbed wire or scaled the Berlin Wall, with over 100 recorded as being killed in the attempt – shot to death by East German communist guards with a shoot-to-kill order. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese fled after the fall of South Vietnam, many becoming known as “the boat people” for their dangerous attempts to flee in small boats to neighboring countries or into the open sea with hopes of being rescued by larger vessels. Thousands died in these attempts.
Why were all these people – and many more from different nationalities in different countries around the world – spending their lives running, fleeing, escaping or revolting?
All of them were on the run from what they perceived – clearly and alarmingly – as evil. John Kerry, meanwhile, has spent a career blithely ignoring evil. Indeed, as was pointed out in that Dan Henninger piece, this is presumably because John Kerry and “liberals either no longer do (believe in evil) or they don’t wish to allow the idea of evil to be explicit in our politics.”
So here we are. Evil is on the march yet again, this time in the form of Hamas. But don’t worry. John Kerry wants to negotiate.
Obama lies about everything – from ObamaCare and “You can keep your doctor” to Benghazi to Ferguson to “ISIS isn’t Islamic” and beyond.
His most interesting lie so far was in his strange recent speech “Pleading with Iran” – one directed at the young population of Iran. Once again, Obama is betting on the youth vote. In this case, Iran’s.
There is much bizarre about this speech. No doubt he depends on youth to not be paying attention. He hopes young Iranians have forgetting how in June 2009 he met their appeals for support after the Iranian election was stolen by then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who run the country. Iranians took to the streets in numbers not seen since the 1979 revolution and were crushed even as they looked to America for moral support. Not until the violence was too blatant to ignore did Obama say he was “deeply troubled” by what he was seeing.
The reality now (as WSJ says) is that his recent speech is not really meant for Iran’s young, who have NO say over what their leaders do or Norruz, the Iranian new year. It’s a political speech targeted at Iran’s leadership.
And here’s the weirdest thing about Dear Leader’s speech. In it Obama said, “As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI HAS ISSUED A FATWA AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND PRESIDENT ROUHANI HAS SAID THAT IRAN WOULD NEVER DEVELOP A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran-if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps-to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.”
Ok. Fatwas, being a VERY legal thing in Iran is a serious business. So, is there a nuke Fatwa in Iran? H(*)(*)(*), no. Is Obama that naive to not know that? Sure he is, but then his people should have pointed to him, there’s no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nuke fatwa, and they did not. Why?
My friends, Obama is counting no one will notice that we’ve been Gruberized once again. It will be interesting to see what the Obama left and media have to say about this HUGE LIE. Typical Barry…..
“U.S. leaders should not fall into the trap of blindly assuming that just because our enemy Iran hates our enemy ISIS, it means that Iran is now our friend.”
– – – Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
TELL CONGRESS: LISTEN TO BIBI! WE WILL NOT STAND BY AS
OBAMA DELIVERS ISRAEL TO ENEMIES, BETRAYS JEWISH STATE!
SUPPORT S. 2650 – DEFEND U.S. AND ISRAEL NOW
URGENT ACTION ALERT: Amid a flurry of communiqués touting “progress” and “break-through” with Iran on reaching a nuclear deal, comes confirmation that Iran’s military leaders have an official, comprehensive strategic “playbook” for ATTACKING the United States via nuclear EMP, an electromagnetic pulse explosion designed to obliterate our nationwide electrical infrastructure and grid supply – leaving us literally powerless.
Yet Obama has REMOVED Iran from the official U.S. list of terrorist states, and is proceeding at break-neck speed to close his “deal” with the Ayatollahs! And BITTER over critic Bibi Netanyahu’s re-election as Israeli Prime Minister, Barack Obama – ally of Iran – is THREATENING SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL!
If Netanyahu does not SUBMIT to Obama’s indefensible “two state solution” negotiated with TERRORISTS, the U.S. just might ABANDON Israel at the U.N. and fail to oppose Palestinian attacks there against the Jewish State.
These include dragging Israel before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for trumped-up “crimes against humanity” for DEFENDING against Hamas and Hezbollah terror attacks last summer! Worse, Obama is “edging closer” to abandoning years of blocking U.N. Security Council resolutions seeking to ILLICITLY IMPOSE so-called peace talks and a multi-lateral mandate for creation of an Islamic-Arab Palestinian State – in total violation of Resolution 242 and decades of U.S. diplomatic commitments.
Congress MUST STOP Obama…
367 Traitors: Majority of U.S. House signs letter to Obama warning of opposition to Iran deal
posted at 3:21 pm on March 23, 2015 by Noah Rothman
For liberals, opposition to Republicans is as much about defending President Barack Obama’s honor as it is in opposing the GOP’s policies. The left’s antipathy toward the GOP is shared by many in the political press, which spent the better part of the last two months defending the president’s patriotism, his devotion to the Christian faith, and examining the basis for charging 47 Republican senators with violating the Logan Act. The president’s good name, not his policies, moves the left to rise to his defense.
It was this impulse that inspired the Democratic base and their allies in the media to embrace the logic behind the asinine “47 traitors” campaign. This month, the left’s most historically illiterate supporters claimed that the decision by these senators to send an open letter to Tehran reminding them (and the administration) of their constitutional role in ratifying international agreements was met with disproportionate condemnation from the left. Those who did not irrationally insist that this maneuver amounted to treason against the United States insisted that it was historically unprecedented. Neither was true, and this tantrum said more about the left than it did Republicans.
It seems like those liberals who gnashed their teeth over the Senate GOP’s impertinence will have many more lawmakers to attack for their sedition. On Monday, a massive, veto-proof majority of the U.S. House of Representatives signed an open letter addressed to the president warning that their consent will be required for any nuclear deal the administration secures with Iran.
The letter, which was signed by 367 members of the House and released Monday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, follows a similar one, issued to Iran’s leaders and signed by 47 Republican senators, warning that any deal with Iran could be rolled back by a future president.
That letter sparked fierce criticism from Democrats, who said it was inappropriate meddling in delicate diplomatic talks and meant to undermine negotiations, and even some Republicans expressed reservations over the tactic.
The House letter lays out lawmakers’ concerns in more diplomatic terms, hitting on the potential time restraints as a key sticking point for a final deal. The emerging deal would lift some restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in a decade, which critics say could allow the country to resume its pursuit of a nuclear bomb at that point.
The lawmakers’ letter does not focus on the constitutional necessity of the upper chamber’s ratification of international treaty, as the Senate GOP’s letter did. Instead, the House version dwells on the fact that the Congress has had a significant role in constraining Iran’s path to a bomb in the past, and they will not be sidelined by this administration merely due to its myopic obsession with securing a legacy achievement for Obama before his second term in the White House expires.
The United States has had a longstanding interest in preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Over the last twenty years, Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation imposing sanctions on Iran to prevent that outcome, ultimately forcing Iran into negotiations. Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation. In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief.
Resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran remains of grave importance to our nation’s security. As the Administration continues to negotiate with Iran, we are prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine its long-term impact on the United States and our allies. We remain hopeful that a diplomatic solution preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon may yet be reached, and we want to work with you to assure such a result.
If you’re keeping track, we’re now up to 414 of the 535 members of Congress whom the left would consider traitorous rebels merely because they oppose the president’s approach to nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic. The left should ask itself why it is increasingly surrounded by enemies on all sides, even among members of its own political coalition. Liberals would be equally well-served if they were to consider that it might be the president rather than the vast majority of the American Congress that is jeopardizing American national interests.
Pingback: The Orwellian Obama Presidency | Freedom Writers
This from a friend, sourced from Brietbart:
“Look what else this insane disgusting Obama Administration is doing……. “The Pentagon has declassified a document that was once labeled “top-secret,” which goes into sophisticated detail about Israel’s nuclear weapons program. The document was released quietly just prior to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to a joint session of Congress. Israel has never officially confirmed or denied the existence of a nuclear weapon’s program within its borders. The Pentagon declassified sections covering Israel’s nuclear program, but “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document…..”
Wow!!! Catch this one.
A close aide to Iranian President Rouhani has just defected during the height of nuclear talks, and leaked very disturbing information about the United States’ so-called “negotiating” team.
He revealed that the European powers are opposed to the weak deal Obama is pushing, and that the Obama team is acting as if they were agents of Iran.
In addition, Obama is reportedly threatening key allies who are against the insane deal that would permits Iran to continue to enrich nuclear material in bomb-proof bunkers, beyond the eyes of inspectors.
The Telegraph reports:
“A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.”
Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA)….
In his television interview, Mr. Mottaghi also gave succor to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.
“The US negotiating team is mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.
This is a disaster. Obama is determined to give us a “Neville Chamberlain moment” as he says, “by hook or by crook.”
When is Congress going to stop this madman before he caves to the Mullahs?
What Truly Motivates Obama’s Love Affair with Iran?
By: Daniel Horowitz | March 31st, 2015
In November 2013, Barack Obama agreed to lift sanctions on Iran as part of an interim agreement with the largest terror-supporting state in return for curtailing their nuclear weapons program and agreeing to negotiate a permanent deal.
“When Congress reconvenes in two weeks, Democrats will face the following test: are they weaker in combating Iranian terror than the France’s governing socialist party? ”
The negotiations have been extended twice over the past year, allowing Iran to reap as much as $700 million in unfrozen assets per month.
The entire premise of these negotiations were immoral as the Islamic terror state was given a gratuitous bailout at the very moment they stepped up their support for Hezbollah on Israel’s border and began taking over other parts of the Middle East. Yet, faux pro-Israel Democrats said they just wanted to allow the negotiations to run its course before they agree to re-impose sanctions. Well, that deadline has come and there are no more excuses. Now, the Administration is calling for another extension.
When Congress reconvenes in two weeks, Democrats will face the following test: are they weaker in combating Iranian terror than the France’s governing socialist party? Republicans will confront the question of whether they are willing to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire on something as critical as national security.
Which brings us to the broader question: what is motivating Obama and his party to engage in a breathtaking embrace of Iran and alienation of Israel – to the point that an Iranian defector recently said the American negotiation team is essentially there to “speak on Iran’s behalf.”
Let’s zoom out and take a broader look at what this Administration has done over the past year in the Middle East:
•The Administration has essentially ceded Yemen to Iran’s Shiite proxy, almost risking another Benghazi in the haste to evacuate American personnel.
•They are using our Air Force to bail out Iran from a humiliating defeat against ISIS in Tikrit, even though the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are engaging in the same atrocities and ethnic cleansing as ISIS.
•They are turning a blind eye to Iran’s massive buildup of troops near Israel’s Golan border and arming of Hezbollah with guided warheads.
•They expunged any mention of Iran and Hezbollah in the annual assessment of terror threats.
•They have gone out of their way to not to offend Iran and to pander to all of their sensibilities, despite their chants of “Death to America.”
•At the same time, Obama has declared a cold war on Israel by leaking details of their nuclear program and threatening to leave them hanging at the UN.
•He has also openly opposed the new Egyptian government, led by a pro-American leader who is fighting ISIS and other terror groups and is cooperating with Israel.
•Last summer, Obama imposed a de facto arms and travel embargo on Israel to stop them from dismantling Hamas, even though Israel was being cheered on by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
“When you are outraging the Europeans and other Arab countries over your backwards treatment of Iran and Israel, there is clearly a more sinister motivation.”
Taken as a whole, this goes well beyond credulous appeasement. When you are outraging the Europeans and other Arab countries over your backwards treatment of Iran and Israel, there is clearly a more sinister motivation.
Putting the pieces together, there is only one sensible explanation for Obama’s historically immoral realignment of American foreign policy. It’s all about the creation of an Arab (so-called Palestinian) state in the heart of Israel.
If socialized medicine is the crown jewel of liberal socialism for domestic policy, the creation of an Arab Palestinian state – at any cost – has always been the raison d’etre of liberal foreign policy-makers in America and Europe. It has been the ultimate goal of all globalist elites since the failed Oslo Accords. The “two-state solution” has consistently been promoted as the consummate solution to all foreign policy problems in the world, much like some American politicians promote “comprehensive immigration reform” as the fix-all for domestic problems.
Frustrated by 20 years of the failed pursuit of this goal, as a result of endless terror on the part of the Palestinian Arabs, Obama has decided that he will use the terrorism of Iran’s proxies as the weapon, not the obstacle, to the creation of the Palestinian state. He figures that by pretending to solve the issue of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, in conjunction with strengthening Hezbollah and isolating Israel, he can force the creation of the new state with brute force.
Republicans must step in and stop Obama’s dangerous double game before he does irreparable damage. The House should immediately pass sanctions on Iran and defund any effort on the part of the State Department to push a Palestinian state at the UN.
As for the so-called pro-Israel Democrats, there is no longer anyway to straddle the fence between Obama and our national security and support for Israel. It’s time for them to internalize the words of Elijah in Kings 18:21 “Until when are you hopping between two ideas? If the Lord is God, go after Him, and if the Baal, go after him.”
Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.
– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/03/what-truly-motivates-obamas-love-affair-with-iran#sthash.DTL8sLP4.dpuf
Pingback: Congress takes a stand on a nuclear Iran? Not really, but….. | Freedom Writers
Pingback: The Iran Deal — May have harmful side effects…. | Freedom Writers