The Pathological Dishonesty And Deceit Of Hillary Clinton And Democrats Revealed In NBC’s Commander-In-Chief Forum On Iran

It’s hard to watch a Democrat speak while drinking or eating.  At some point, stuff will shoot out your nose when you hear something that is so outrageously false it is frankly beyond your body’s capacity to function in a proper manner.

Last night, while watching Hilary Clinton answer questions in NBC’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum,” I heard this amazing answer from Hillary Clinton:

LAUER: I’m going to jump in. Thank you very much for your question. Let me ask you about the Iran nuclear deal. It was signed under Secretary Kerry; it was begun under you. You started those talks.

CLINTON: Right, I did.

LAUER: You have said you expect the Iranians to cheat, you think they’ll buy time, and perhaps stay along their course to building a nuclear weapon. If they cheat, Secretary Clinton, will you have any course of action other than a military course of action? Would you enter into negotiations with again (ph)? Would you go back to economic sanctions knowing they cheated and are then closer to a nuclear weapon?

CLINTON: Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward.

What was our decision? Our decision was to try to put together an international coalition that included Russia and China to exert the kind of pressure through sanctions that the United States alone could not do.

So it was Bush’s fault that Iran was moving toward nuclear weapons, Hillary tells us.

There are only a five things wrong with her characterization: history; reality; facts; truth; even the remotest shred of human decency that Hillary Clinton proved she is pathologically incapable of manifesting.

Let me show you where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in 2007 when they were doing everything they possibly could to handcuff George W. Bush from doing a single damn thing to do anything about a problem that they denied even existed when Bush said otherwise and now blame on the Bush who tried in vain to deal with the party of demonic possession otherwise known as the Democratic Party:

December 4, 2007 5:31 PM
Democratic candidates slam Bush over Iran in staid debate 
Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Matt Stearns – McClatchy Newspapers

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using carrots and sticks,” New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a two-hour debate in Des Moines.

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden warned that Bush’s position is “like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier.”

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said “it is absolutely clear that . . . President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.”

All pledged aggressive, broad-based diplomacy with Iran and a break with what several of them termed the Bush administration’s “rush to war.”

Bush had argued earlier Tuesday at a White House news conference that the new intelligence report showed that Iran had formerly had a nuclear-weapons program, that pressure from the outside world had helped persuade Iran to abandon it and the lesson he drew was that Iran remains dangerous and pressure against it should continue.

At the Democrats’ debate, the other candidates continued their weeks-long criticism of Clinton for supporting a Bush-backed resolution in September that labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said “there’s only one candidate who voted for this legislation, and it’s exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted.”

Clinton responded that the resolution had caused “changes in their behavior,” because Iran is no longer as active as it was in shipping arms and advisers to factions in Iraq.

The debate on National Public Radio focused on three areas: Iran, China and immigration. It tended to emphasize the candidates’ agreements with one another on broad policy issues, and their unanimity in opposing Bush administration policies. […]

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — participating in his first debate after being excluded from recent ones — provided the most spice of the afternoon, declaring that “Iran is not a problem, never has been, never will be” and that there was nothing wrong with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard supporting the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah because “these people are fighting for their rights. There’s something wrong with that?”

That was a summary of a debate that happened in 2007.  Let’s look at the question and see what Democrats said back then:

ROBERT SIEGEL [Moderator]: But the Democrats are here, and they are, from left to right on your radio dial, Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Mike Gravel, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Joseph Biden, former Senator John Edwards and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Governor Bill Richardson could not join us. He’s attending the funeral of a Korean War soldier whose remains the governor recently helped repatriate from North Korea.

So we’re going to get started with the debate, and let’s stipulate in advance what I know many feel obliged to say. We’re grateful that all of you are here, and we expect that you’re grateful to the Iowa State Historical Museum, the people of Iowa, public radio in Iowa and NPR News. And we appreciate that and hope we can move on to the topic of Iran.

The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.

For all of you — and let’s go left to right across the radio dial — do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat? And do you agree that the NIE’s news shows that isolation and sanctions work?

Senator Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.

I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using both carrots and sticks. I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson. But we’re not going to reach the kind of resolution that we should seek unless we put that into the context of a diplomatic process.

SIEGEL: Thank you, Senator Clinton.

Senator — former Senator Mike Gravel.

MR. MIKE GRAVEL: Iran’s not a problem, never has been, never will be.

What you’re seeing right here is something very unique, very courageous. What the intelligence community has done is drop-kicked the president of the United States. These are people of courage that have watched what the president is doing, onrush to war with Iran.

And so by releasing this information, which is diametrically opposed to the estimate that was given in ’05 by showing that there is no information to warrant what the White House has been doing, they have now boxed in the president in his ability to go to war. So, my hat is off to these courageous people within the bureaucrats — bureaucracy of the intelligence community.

Now let me replay two statements from last night and from 2007 and you tell me who nailed it and who was demon-possessed STUPID:

• Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward. — Hillary Clinton, last freaking night on national television
• 2007 debate question: “The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world…. do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat?”
  Hillary Clinton’s answer: SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.”

To be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed slandering liar and a demon-possessed coward; it means blaming your opponent for causing a problem that YOU created.

Hillary Clinton openly acknowledged in the Commander-in-Chief Forum last night that “the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon” and “that had happened the prior eight years” before she and Obama started screwing up planet earth far more than it already was.

We have it in FACT and in HISTORY and in TRUTH and in REALITY that George W. Bush was RIGHT and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were filled with demons that spouted lies through the anal orifices under their noses.

And now this craven, cowardly, lying, dishonest, deceitful witch wants to blame George Bush for not doing anything about a problem he TRIED to deal with but that every single Democrat did everything in their rabid, treasonous little cockroach brains to prevent him from dealing with.

And now it’s suddenly “Bush’s fault” again.

Bush said, “Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons” and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and every single Democrat said “I vehemently disagree.”

And now this abject moral and intellectual disgrace wants to take her incompetent stupid to the White House which she has proven she will sell out to the highest foreign bidder.

This is a trend that happens over and over again.  In 2012, and exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama demonstrated to anyone with current knowledge that to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot radically incapable of comprehending the real world:

Let’s revisit the final 2012 presidential debate, the moment Romney explained himself and the president went for the lulz. Here’s Obama.

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

And here’s Romney:

Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe… and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.

Romney was right.

Barack Obama is and always has been an arrogant fool who has the ability to persuade other utter fools to his morally idiotic views.  And to be a “journalist” today means to be a criminal co-conspirator with Democrats to murder truth the same way they have murdered sixty million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.

The smug self-assuredness that often suffices for expertise on cable news was perhaps never more smug than when former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public that Russia was rapidly positioning itself as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Among the worst offenders were the hosts and guests who provide MSNBC with content on a daily basis.

In early 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in his dealings with Russia. Romney reacted strongly to that comment. Appearing on CNN, the GOP nominee said that the United States should regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and should work to limit Russia’s flexibility rather than to secure it. His observation was soundly criticized by the president’s defenders who, at the time, were still attempting to rehabilitate Obama’s floundering “Reset” with Russia.

There were few who defended Romney’s comments. Even snake-bit Republicans, chastened by the swift backlash in the media, hedged when asked to back up Romney’s assessment of the challenges posed by Moscow. But MSNBC’s wagons circled particularly quickly in defense of the president. Volley after volley of snark was lobbed in the GOP nominee’s direction.

“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

“This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” University of Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined on-the-air. “It made Romney look dumb. He’s not a dumb man, but he said something that was clearly dumb.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney, should he become president, would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement.

Do you realize how completely WRONG you have to be about EVERYTHING to be a Democrat???

Donald Trump is taking heat – ostensibly for being against our heroic generals – for claiming that UNDER Obama and under Hillary Clinton, “our generals have become a pile of rubble.”  It doesn’t matter that Obama has proven that true over and over and over again by rejecting the generals’ advice EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY OFFERED IT.  You go back to January 2009 when Obama took office and utterly rejected the generals’ unanimous plea to remain in Iraq.  Obama gave up EVERYTHING we fought to win there and we now have an Iraq bloodbath with Iran dominating most of it and Islamic State being able to rise in the rest of it as a direct result.  Obama gave his infamous and stupid “red line” warning to Syria – an Obama threat that Syria has walked over dozens of times and just walked over two days ago and walked across at least twice in August – which MASSIVELY undermined U.S. credibility and directly led to the rise of Islamic State in the ensuing power vacuum Obama created.  It is an unwavering trend: every general gives Obama military advice and Obama listens to Lucifer instead.

General Jack Keane described what Obama has done to our “heroic” generals last night on Megyn Kelly’s program in answering the question about Trump’s “pile of rubble” remark:

KEANE: …We may have some politicized generals if that’s what he’s implying, but the reality is that every major force level decision, Megyn, that our generals have made, this president has rejected. In the early 2009, a campaign plan developed by Petraeus and General McChrystal to defeat the Taliban, they required a minimum force of 40,000.

President Obama rejected that recommendation and provided 25 percent less. He also decided he would pull the force out in 12 to 15 months. Those two decisions doomed Afghanistan to the current state we find it now, a protracted stalemated war and robbed us of the opportunity for victory. In 2011, General Alston, four-star commander in Iraq, recommended to the President, a force level of over 20,000. The President rejected it and pulled out all the forces with what is now known as a disastrous consequence in Syria.

In 2012, General Dempsey, General Petraeus directed the CIA, Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton recommended to the president robustly arm and train the Syrian moderates. He says no. In 2013, conduct a military strike, same national security team, against the Assad regime because he violated the chemical red line. He says no. In Afghanistan —

KELLY: I get your point. You could go on.  But your point is Trump is not wrong that, if you think about it, the generals have been reduced to rubble. In other words, they’ve been reduced to almost useless because whatever they tell this commander-in-chief, he disregards.

General Keane could go on, and he did:

KEANE: Yes, and then in 2014, what happened is as opposed to asking him what are we going to do about ISIS? He says, I want to destroy ISIS after they beheaded our Americans and invaded Iraq. He tells them what they’re not going to do. No boots on the ground. The minimum 300 advisors. Of course he’s changed that nine times. An air campaign with no civilian casualties and we’re not going to be able to provide an air/ground team to help make that campaign more effective. We have never, ever have those kinds of restrictions placed on us in my understanding of military history in this nation. That’s the truth of it. Those kinds of restrictions are unprecedented.

In other words, it’s the TRUTH that Obama has reduced our generals to a pile of useless rubble by rejecting their military expertise every single time they offered it, but it’s evil to tell the truth.  Because probably the quintessential essence of being a Democrat today is finding the truth to be evil.  It is absolutely immoral for Democrats who spent the last eight years rejecting every piece of military advice the generals gave to say that Donald Trump just insulted the generals who HAVE BEEN reduced to a pile of rubble by a pathetic fool commander-in-chief.

This nation is in great danger of pursuing the very same kind of abject moral idiocy that has led us down such a steep hill under Obama that will race with even greater speed to total disaster under Hillary Clinton.  By the time Barack Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed by one-thousand nine-hundred percent.  We will go from 3,000 terrorist murders a year globally to 60,000 terrorist murders a year under Obama’s failed watch, just as we watched Islamic State become a powerful terrorist caliphate because of Obama’s failed watch.  Just as we today have more refugees than we have ever had in he entire history of planet earth because of Obama’s failed policies.  Do you understand how horrifying that is???

Meanwhile, the Democrats – with all of their “professing themselves to be wise but becoming fools” (Romans 1:22) and their “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) arrogance – continue to claim that their way of folly is the only way and that we should disarm America’s military so we will be helpless against our foreign enemies (see also here) even as they work to take away our 2nd Amendment rights to protect ourselves and render us helpless domestically.  Abroad, we are only marginally capable of projecting military force and the dominant Russians Obama mocked are bullying him because they know he is a weak coward who will do NOTHING and humiliating our military at every imaginable turn.  The Chinese just humiliated Obama and treated him like the worthless chump that he has proven himself to be.  And what’s the coward little turd going to DO about it???  This fool will burn America to the ground to fight the slightest Republican manuever, but will sell this nation out to our very worst enemies and rub this nation’s nose in our own feces every chance he gets.

Democrats tell us that the Trump slogan “Make America great again” is somehow hateful and anti-American.  Because in their warped, wicked view, America is “great” when it is weak and disgraced and punked by every rogue dictator and totalitarian nation on earth.

Seriously, you want to see what a quivering piece of rabid hypocrite slime looks like?  It looks like Bill Clinton, who says “Make America Great Again” is clearly a racist slogan.  You know, in spite of the fact that he used the EXACT SAME SLOGAN REPEATEDLY when he was running for office himself.  Bill Clinton – who offended Ted Kennedy by telling him that the black Barack Obama “would be getting us coffee” ten years ago.  Because he’s a black man, and we all know the negro is at his best when he is serving his white massah.  Bill Clinton isn’t merely a racist by his very own standard; he is vile hypocrite.  But that’s exactly what you have to be to proudly say “I’m With Her!”

Meanwhile, at home, the Democrats have warred against our police departments and labeled them as racist death squads while amazingly simultaneously trying to disarm the people so the very police they demonize are our only protection.

Because Democrats are trying to set up a national internal police force apparatus – an NKVD or a Gestapo – that they will be able to “fundamentally transform” into a political weapon against conservatives much the way they have already weaponized our court system against conservatives.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of fool.

America will never be safe until every single Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive, I tell you.

 

 

Liberal Lie Machine Refutes Itself: Trump Too Dangerous To Be Trusted With Nukes, But At Same Time Russia Wants Him To Be President?

Hillary has told us over and over again that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear weapons codes:

“He loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he’s challenged in a debate. When he sees a protester at a rally.

Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” she charged.

Never mind the fact that her husband Bill actually LOST our nuclear trigger codes and left them vulnerable to foreign powers; just as Hillary proved she would do with her incredibly incompetent use of an unauthorized personal server because she was so fascistically determined to avoid any transparency or accountability.

So on the one hand, Hillary is telling us that if we were to elect Donald Trump, it would mean World War III as Trump loses his cool and starts a nuclear war with our enemies.

But on the other hand – at the same time she’s claiming this – Hillary ideologues claims that Donald Trump is cozying up to the Russians and that Vladimir Putin.  And that the Russians are actually trying to help Donald Trump win over Hillary.  And these attacks are delivered with frothing. rabid innuendo:

Until Friday, that charge, with its eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald J. Trump, has been only whispered.

But the release on Friday of some 20,000 stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, many of them embarrassing to Democratic leaders, has intensified discussion of the role of Russian intelligence agencies in disrupting the 2016 campaign. […]

Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess. […]

Okay, so here’s what we are to believe:

1. Donald Trump is a mentally unstable man who would fly into a rage and push the nuclear button and start WWWIII if he becomes president;
2. Vladimir Putin and Russia desperately want to be nuked and agonizingly and miserably in a hellfire of bubbling atomic ruin.

How does it not sound like anything short of INSANE to maintain both of these hypotheses???

Even committed leftists, when they analyze this crap, are forced to realize that it’s basically a load of crap.

The left suggests that maybe Trump has business deals with Russia.  WHEN IT IS A FACT THAT HILLARY AND BILL HAVE CORRUPT BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA THROUGH THEIR FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION.

Let me point out that TWO can play at the “can’t be trusted [with nuclear weapons or anything ELSE] game:

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Is Incompetent Liar Who Is Mentally Unstable (VIDEO)

How in the damn hell can you maintain that Hillary Clinton is mentally stable or trustworthy when she not only lies, but lies about her lies and then doubles– and triples-down, quadruples-down, quintuples-down, so on and so on ad infinitum, to lie about her lies about her lies?  What do you say about the crazed psyche about such an easily demonstrable pathological liar???

So allow me to make a far more likely theory as to what is actually going on here:

1. As the Democrats clearly state, Vladimir Putin and Russia is behind the hack of the DNC and her personal emails that she illegally purged while under House subpoena.  Hillary lied like a lying whackjob claiming that the same Russia could not have hacked her email server that clearly had such supersecret U.S. national security emails on it that even the highest-level FBI agents on the case were not allowed to see those emails.  But yeah, Russia has them.  Putin has seen them.
2. And in reading through Hillary’s illegally purged 33,000 emails, Vladimir Putin has horrifyingly come to realize that Hillary Clinton is truly insane.  These 33,000 emails that she purged and only Russia and our enemies have reveal that she has a soul more evil than even Hitler and Stalin.  And if she were elected World War III would be the certain result; and Putin is acting to save the world from that terrible end, because a Hillary Clinton presidency and the WWIII that would go with her presidency is not good for anybody.

You see, that hypothesis actually holds water.

Hillary Clinton was revealed to be “a congenital liar” all the way back in 1996.  She has been caught on the record lying about big things and little things, personal things and policy things, pretty much everything under the sun.  And absolutely NO ONE can now reasonably question that she is in fact a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  And there comes that point where she crossed the line and demonstrated that she is a truly mentally unstable person who is incapable of acknowledging reality.

There actually IS one other hypothesis, and it is this: that this isn’t about mental instability, it’s about Russia’s determination going back to the 1940s to mess with the United States every chance it gets.  And a pathological incompetent fool like Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated that she will put on a kick-me sign by allowing our worst enemies to penetrate her secret fascist server, just as the Democratic National Convention has proven that they are pathological incompetent fools because they had linked themselves to the Hillary servers the Russians so easily penetrated.

Russia’s got Hillary’s emails.  The 33,000 permanently purged emails that even the FBI weren’t allowed to look at along with the numerous emails that they found that had all kinds of vital national security secrets that Hillary gave away to our worst enemies.  And there are two and only two terrifying scenarios, with the second being even more terrifying than the first: that either the Russians will leak one embarrassing and incriminating email after another or will use the emails to blackmail Hillary into favoring Russia over her own people; or worse yet, that the emails reveal that Hillary Clinton is an insane psychopath who will blow up the world if elected president.

You pick.

Don’t worry.  The media will be honest and will question Hillary’s sanity every bit as much as Trump’s.  Yeah, I know.  That was a joke.  Of COURSE they won’t.

Just as they won’t fixate on the stories that prove that Obama has been an utter disaster for our economy while doubling our national debt and literally racking up more debt than every single past president (George W. Bush included) COMBINED.  They won’t talk about the fact that not only in spite of but BECAUSE of that massive government spending that sucked the life out of our private economy, entrepreneurship is at an all-time LOW and “For the first time in over 30 years, more businesses are dying off than being created.”  They won’t talk about the fact that small-business start-ups are at an ALL-TIME LOW.  Just as they won’t talk about the fact that under Obama terrorism will skyrocket by 1,900 percent over when George W. Bush was president; or that we can know FOR A FACT that Barack Obama just did something that makes the “Iran-Contra scandal” look virtuous in comparison.

Seriously, WHO SHOULD BE UNELECTABLE???

Will you get the facts you need to make a sound decision about whether you want another four more years of Obama as Hillary becomes his third term or whether you want CHANGE???

They won’t talk about that; they’ll slander Trump with talk about being a bully and throwing out babies.  I’ve got a screenshot to the Politico smear here and here’s the link to the article they will likely purge now that it’s been proven to be an ideological and biased attack.

We continue to get these incredibly bogus stories like the gold star Muslim and the baby Trump kicked out of his event garbage.  To the extent they can, the mainstream media can be “trusted” to depict Trump as badly and terribly as possible.  Sometimes – as in the baby that no Trump did NOT kick out – they will go so over the top they have to correct the record.  But most of the time they will just continue to create a narrative that they would never turn against Hillary even though there is a hell of a lot more evidence to do so.

 

As Greece Votes Itself Into Collapse, It Is Following The Same Wicked Stupidity That American Voters Followed In Electing Obama

I’ve pointed this out before: there is NOTHING more dangerous than the right to vote when a people becomes sufficiently depraved.  Democrats tell us that we should round-file the 2nd-Amendment-guaranteed right of the people to keep and bear arms even as they tell us that ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants and dead people from voting is “unconstitutional.”

I pointed out the fact that the NAZI Party was elected by the same big-government worshiping socialist fascists who elected Obama twice.

If you put a gun in the hands of a wicked fool, whatever he does with that gun, he will pay the consequences for his foolishness.  At least, if decent people are allowed to also keep and bear arms so they can put an end to that wicked fool.  But let a wicked fool vote, and he can do so over and over again with impunity and never be held accountable.

In Greece – rather obviously a nation filled with wicked fools – we just saw the results of a vote.  It’s kind of interesting.  In the Lost Angeles Slimes we have the following account.  Allow me to post what I believe is the true gist by selecting a few passages and discussing that.  At the very bottom of the article I will have the entire LA Times article available:

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

[…]

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

[…]

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

[…]

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Let’s understand some basic facts: Greece owes – and promised to repay when it borrowed – $270 BILLION.  To be extravagantly wasted on a tiny nation of 10,775,557 people.  That massive government borrowing allowed Greek government to provide benefits that far and vastly exceeded the country’s ability to pay for its largesse.  And as Margaret Thatcher once famously put it, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  It’s like that saying, “Your mouth is writing checks that your ass can’t cash.”  Greek socialists, like ALL socialists EVERYWHERE (especially here in the U.S.), want to live high on the hog and force somebody else to keep paying the tab.  And so when the check comes due for that fancy meal in the high price resort, they angrily refuse to pay the tab they racked up.

The European Union is saying, “You’ve got to pay for this.”  And the Greek socialist liberal progressives are like, “oh, hell no.”  And a major problem now is that if Greece can weasel out of its debt with some stupid vote, then why can’t the OTHER P.I.G.S.?  Why can’t Portugal weasel out of its debt that they compiled with the same insanely wicked socialism Obama and the Democrat Party preach here?  Why can’t Ireland weasel out of its debt?  Why can’t Spain say bye-bye to its debt payments?  If the EU allows Greece out of its debt, the entire system will necessarily massively collapse.

These are simply facts.  And facts ought to matter.  The European Union simply cannot possibly allow Greece to do what Greece insists on doing without basically cutting the throats of every single person in every single member-state of the European Union that would go broke paying for Greece’s AND therefore Portugal’s AND therefore Ireland’s AND therefore Spain’s massive self-inflicted debt addiction.  Which again is no different from the debt-addiction of Barack Hussein Obama and every single member of the just-as-socialist Democrat Party machine.

But liberal progressives, and let’s just call them what the hell they are – socialists – are pathologically immune to facts or reality or consequences.

So how did the EU view this referendum (emphasis on “dumb”)?  Another article says it all in two sentences:

Tsipras dismissed harsh criticism from other European countries on his decision.

“The referendum will take place as scheduled, next Sunday, whether our partners want it or not,” he said.

Allowing this to go to the people was an act of insanity and demagoguery, not an act of leadership.  But demagogic delusion with a complete abandonment of true moral leadership is the heart and soul of leftism.

So you have the leftist Greek prime minister just flat-out flagrantly campaigning on a completely altered state of reality.  You have this leftist turd Alexis Tsipras – or as I prefer to call him, the Greek Obama – making the most insane promises in the history of the world.  And like the American Obama, the Greek Obama is leading his nation and his people straight to a very painful hell.

Just like the United States is headed straight to a very painful hell.

When Obama deceitfully campaigned for president, he told a lot of the same kind of sick lies and made the same sort of delusional fool promises.

Obama promised a “reset in relations” with Russia.  He said a weak America that would not pose a threat to Russia would be the foundation for this reset, and that Russia would obviously respond to the fact that America was no longer any kind of a threat to Russia with love and a determination to disarm and become weak in response.  He said the same thing in relationship to Iran and that nation’s steadfast determination to possess nuclear weapons with the ballistic missile capability to deliver those missiles at both the little satan Israel and the great satan America.  He said the same thing in relationship to the “war on terror” which he renamed “the overseas contingency operation” to broadcast how minimal it would be under his regime.  He promised us that the only reason our enemies hated us was because we were too strong and too dominant and pushed our weight around too much.

History has already proven what an abject fool Obama was in every sense of the word in terms of his foreign policy.

In the same way, on the domestic front, Obama made all kinds of fool promises about his giganotosaurus-government stimulus package.  Obama demanded – and got – a $3.27 TRILLION stimulus that he promised would fire up the engine of American growth.  Over and over and over again, Obama promised his stimulus would create “shovel-ready jobs.”  History proves that it in actual fact did the precise opposite.  Ultimately Obama actually admitted that:

“Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

Obama’s promise to pay back the $3.3 trillion he demagogued America into putting on its credit card bill is as good as Greece’s promise to pay that $270 billion they wanted but just didn’t want to actually pay back.

Greece’s $270 billion of other people’s money worked just as well for them as Obama’s $3.3 trillion in other people’s money worked for us.  It didn’t.

We now have a Great Depression level of actual unemployment that isn’t counted as month after month, basically TWICE as many people abandon hope of getting a job and drop out of the rigged-statistical-shenanigan that is our “unemployment rate calculation” for everyone that actually gets a damn job.  Just as Obama has created only one job for every two immigrants he allowed to flood into this country:

  A record 93,626,000 Americans have stopped looking for work in an economy that managed to create only one job for every two immigrants the government let in from 2000 to 2014.

But what the hell: just keeping making those, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor and if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan” promises, you lying turd.  What we have now is an ObamaCare failed system – characterized by the five billion dollars that couldn’t even build a successful damned website – that is a true socialist-fascist crony capitalist system that enriched the giant insurance companies at the expense of millions of Americans.  Which is why that LA Times article titled “Obamacare cash fuels healthcare merger mania” begins by pointing out:

A gusher of Obamacare money is fueling a merger frenzy in U.S. healthcare.

The latest jolt came Thursday when Woodland Hills insurer Health Net Inc. agreed to be bought by Medicaid insurer Centene Corp. for $6.8 billion.

And more billion-dollar deals are in the works as health insurers, hospitals and drug companies bulk up in size so they can seize on government spending in Obamacare exchanges, state Medicaid programs and Medicare Advantage for the baby boomers.

Riding high on Wall Street and flush with cash, big health insurers in particular have been on the prowl for deals. Atop the shopping list are companies that boost their government business.

“The Affordable Care Act is really driving this merger mania,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are billions of dollars pouring into the system, and it’s money to buy insurance.”

These giant companies, both big pharma and the giant insurers, supported Obama, and paved the way toward his never-seen-in-all-human-history more than two billion-dollar campaign warchest that he used to destroy all political opposition.  And now they’re really going to let us have it, points out CNN.

Everything about Obama and his supporters and his political party -EVERYTHING – is based on and built upon LIES.

The same kind of lies based on the same flagrant disregard for reality and the consequences of reality ignored that we’re seeing unfold in Greece.

Just thought I’d point that out to you as you watch Greece crash and realize it’s a preview for what Obama has done to America.

Here is the entire LA Times article on the Greek ‘no’ vote:

In landslide 61% to 39% vote, Greece says ‘no’ to bailout deal
By Henry Chu  contact the reporter
July 5, 2015, 7:50 PM |reporting from Athens

The resounding rejection of an international bailout deal by voters in Greece raised fears Sunday of the collapse of the country’s banking system, a catastrophic government default, an eventual exit from the euro and potential social unrest.

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

The EU is now confronted with one of the gravest challenges to its mission of “ever closer union” between member states.

How deep a hole is Greece in?

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

An emergency summit of Eurozone leaders is to be held Tuesday.

More urgently, officials at the European Central Bank are to meet Monday to review the emergency aid that has propped up Greece’s nearly depleted financial system for the last few months.

If the European Central Bank decides to cut off that lifeline or make it costlier, Greek banks are likely to run out of cash within days. Business would grind to a halt, shops could run short of basic supplies and increasingly agitated residents could find it hard to buy fuel and medicine.

Greek banks have been closed since June 29 on order of the government, and customers limited to about $67 a day in ATM withdrawals. Officials insist that the banks will reopen Tuesday, but analysts doubt this can happen unless the European Central Bank maintains or increases its assistance.

“Our immediate priority is the rapid restoration of the functioning of our banking system and the restoration of our economic stability,” Tsipras said in a nationally televised address Sunday night. “I am certain that the ECB fully understands not only the general economic situation but also the humanitarian dimension which the crisis has taken in the country.”

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

Financial analysts say that this is not a threat in the next few days, but warn that the probability of a “Grexit” down the line has increased considerably because of Sunday’s vote.

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Merkel and other European leaders must now ponder whether to let Greece go bust and drop out of the Eurozone or whether such a course would inflict irreparable damage to the credibility of the euro and to the project of greater European unity. The Greek debt crisis is the severest test the euro has faced since it was introduced more than a decade ago.

To try to entice his Eurozone partners back to the bargaining table, Tsipras is apparently considering shuffling his negotiating team to include a broader spectrum of members. Several European officials have said openly that they no longer trust Tsipras or his Syriza party; a Greek delegation with some members drawn from other parties could be more palatable.

“That will show that Greece does not want a conflict,” said political commentator George Papageorgiou. “If there is a consensual approach from the Greek part, that could facilitate a consensual approach from the other part.”

Dijsselbloem, the Eurozone finance ministers’ chief, said the first move was Athens’. “We will now wait for the initiatives of the Greek authorities,” he said.

The size of the victory for the “no” campaign came as a surprise both inside and outside Greece after a flurry of opinion polls showed voters to be split down the middle. Bitter disagreement over the significance and possible effect of the plebiscite cleaved living rooms and workplaces across the country.

Just over 62% of the country’s 9.9 million voters cast a ballot, easily surpassing the mandatory threshold of 40% for a referendum to be considered valid.

Surveys suggested that young people voted “no” in droves. Many agreed with Tsipras’ contention that the bailout proposals on offer from Greece’s lenders demanded too much austerity on top of years of brutal spending cuts and would hit the poor and elderly disproportionately hard.

“These measures would worsen the situation,” said teacher Paula Andriotaki, 33, after casting her vote in a local school on a bright and warm afternoon. “We try to see light, but we get worse and worse.”

“Yes” supporters had urged Greeks to join them in order to guarantee Athens’ continued place in the Eurozone. They said that membership in the wider European Union could also be at risk and that Greece could not afford to be isolated.

A 40-year-old man named Giorgos, who declined to give his surname, blamed Tsipras for passing the buck.

“I would have preferred the referendum not to have happened,” he said. “I believe it is a political alibi. We are being asked to take a decision that should have been taken by someone else.”

The ballot paper was the subject of some criticism, because the question it asked was wordy and couched in jargon and the check box for “no” was above that for “yes.”

Moreover, the bailout deal referred to was technically moot. The offer from Greece’s creditors expired Tuesday night, after talks with Athens collapsed over Tsipras’ surprise decision to call a referendum. Creditors say that negotiations on a new agreement must start from scratch.

Because of the convoluted ballot question, and the conflicting claims of whether the real issue at stake was the future of Greece as a member of the Eurozone, many Greeks complained of confusion over just what was being asked of them.

“I don’t know what result I would like to see,” said a 19-year-old voter named Dimitris, who was still undecided as he prepared to enter a voting booth. “It would be a disaster to leave the euro, but it would also be disastrous to accept more austerity measures. ‘Yes’ is a bad choice, but ‘no’ is also suicidal.”

Sunday’s referendum was Greece’s first in 41 years. In 1974, Greeks were asked to decide whether their country should retain its monarchy.

The answer then: also a resounding “no.”

Special correspondent Pavlos Zafiropoulos contributed to this report.

One of the things that the left loves to do is hang all the consequences of “austerity” on the heads of conservatives.  On their view, the crisis has NOTHING to do with the $270 billion they borrowed in Greece and now refuse to repay; it’s because of “austerity” that the economy has collapsed.

Every leftist is a morally sick individual who essentially whines, “I want a mansion and a yacht, and if you don’t give them to me, it’s your fault I’m poor.”

And then there are the lies from the liars: at the heart of the “austerity” that the European Union is imposing on Greece is the demand for Greece to raise taxes.  HOW MANY CONSERVATIVES DO YOU HEAR CALLING FOR TAX HIKES????  This has NOTHING to do with conservatives, either the sick and diseased and insane borrowing or the attempts of the lenders to get their fool money back.  Rather, this is socialists European Union liberals trying to get their money back from socialist Greek liberals who are crazier than they are.

Conservatives call for LOW TAXES because LOWERING TAX RATES PRODUCES MORE REVENUES.

It’s like I have always said:

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

Please keep in mind that true conservatives like myself write articles such as this one that is particularly relevant given what is happening right now in Europe:

If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

So from now on, any fool who blames Republicans or conservatives for failed “austerity” seriously needs to get a punch in the mouth.

What we are seeing in Greece is nothing more than the abject failure of socialism to deal with the crisis created by socialism.  Which is of course hardly surprising to anyone who is capable of thinking.

Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.

Allow me to simply start with the reporting today from the Los Angeles Times on Iran:

A year later: Iranian nuclear talks go from promise to doubt
By Paul Richter  contact the reporter
SHARELINES
▼What went wrong? Diplomats wonder a year after Iranian leader’s U.N. visit held such promise for improved ties
▼Analysts suggest Iran’s supreme leader may have decided he can live with no nuclear deal and more sanctions
September 17, 2014, 2:40 PM|Reporting from Washington

Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived at the United Nations General Assembly in New York as Iran’s new president, speaking of reconciliation and offering a new era in relations between his nation and the West.

But when Rouhani arrives next week for this year’s U.N. session, diplomats will be pondering a different question: What went wrong?

A year after that auspicious beginning, tensions with the West are as high as ever, and 10 months of negotiations over the toughest issue in the relationship — Iran’s nuclear program — are at an impasse. Now Western leaders want to know Iran’s intentions and if Rouhani is even calling the shots in Tehran on the nuclear issue and overall foreign policy.

Since November, when Rouhani’s team signed an interim nuclear accord that seemed to promise a breakthrough, “we’ve actually gotten further away from a deal,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive diplomacy.

Negotiators from Iran and six world powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — will meet Friday in New York in an effort to break the logjam and complete a deal before the Nov. 24 deadline. Next week, foreign ministers from the nations will take up the issue.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared last year that he was giving his full support to Rouhani to negotiate a nuclear deal that would ease international economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for commitments to keep its nuclear program peaceful.

But in recent months, signs suggest the staunchly anti-Western Khamenei is directly managing the negotiations. He appears determined to sharply increase the country’s uranium enrichment capability in seven years, and not roll it back, as the West demands.

Rouhani, who has lost a series of domestic political battles to conservatives, has taken a harder line on the nuclear talks. In a news conference two weeks ago, he expressed doubt that the U.S. has enough “goodwill” to negotiate an end to the standoff.

In an indication of the changing mood, President Obama plans no contact with Rouhani during the U.N. session, according to White House aides. Last year, the two leaders spoke by phone while in New York, the highest-level contact between the two countries in decades.

The central question for diplomats is whether Iran’s tougher line is only negotiating theatrics, aimed at gaining better terms, or whether Khamenei has decided he can survive a collapse of the talks despite Western threats of tighter sanctions.

Increasing evidence suggests Khamenei believes he can get by without a deal, say diplomats and analysts.

In recent comments, Khamenei portrayed the U.S. as beset by crises, including the standoff with Russia over Ukraine and the conflict with Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq. He may view American efforts to solicit Iran’s cooperation, at least on nonmilitary matters, in the fight against the militants as a sign of weakness.

At the same time, the conservative Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is hostile to a deal, is wielding greater public influence because of fears of the Islamic State threat.

Many Western analysts argue that if negotiations fail to produce a deal, U.S and European sanctions would intensify, not collapse, choking off much of Iran’s sales of 1.2 billion barrels of oil a day.

But Khamenei may believe that if the talks collapse, he could persuade Russia, China and perhaps other nations to abandon the sanctions and resume buying Iranian oil, providing the cash his government needs.

“Khamenei is preparing his country for a no-deal outcome,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who is with the Eurasia Group risk consulting group.

Diplomats say they expect Iran will try to blame the U.S. during the U.N. sessions for the deadlock in talks, and will try to build support for ending sanctions and allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure.

Wendy Sherman, the chief U.S. negotiator, predicted in a speech Tuesday that Iran would try to convince the world that “the status quo, or its equivalent, should be acceptable.”

Gary Samore, Obama’s former top advisor on nuclear proliferation, said Khamenei “seems to be very stubborn and very confident that he can retain his enrichment capability.”

While the Iranian leader may be wrong, “what matters is what he believes,” said Samore, who is now with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Robert Einhorn, another former member of Obama’s inner circle on nuclear issues, said nuclear negotiators won’t be able to resolve complicated secondary issues by the Nov. 24 deadline unless they solve the bigger question of how much enrichment capability Iran can keep.

“They’re still light-years apart,” said Einhorn, now with the Brookings Institution.

Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.

As always, whenever liberals are talking, it’s bullcrap, bullcrap and bullcrap to the nth power -NUCELEAR POWERED BULLCRAP, for that matter.  As John Bolton’s article from A YEAR AGO documents.

Notice how this article from the leftist Los Angeles Times begins as I post it below: “Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived … and offered a new era in relations between his nation and the West.”

It’s not Obama’s fault.  Nope.  It’s not the Democrat Party’s fault.  Nope.  It sure can’t be liberalism’s fault.  Uh-uh.  After all, the whole world was fooled by this weasel.

But there’s also the rhetorical question they ask, “what went wrong?”  Well, NOTHING “went wrong.”  From the point of view of any morally intelligent westerner, IT WAS WRONG FROM THE VERY START AND IT’S BECAUSE OF SUCH STUPID UNDERTAKINGS THAT YOU CAN KNOW THERE’S A PERSONAL SATAN BLINDING DEPRAVED LIBERAL HUMAN MINDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE INTELLIGENT.  From the point of view of Iran and of every other country that truly hates us and wants to see our beheaded corpses burning in flames, nothing went wrong because everything has worked out beautifully for them.

Let’s contrast the Los Angeles Times’ incredibly idiotic reporting on this Iranian disaster ALL ALONG with what John Bolton predicted for Fox News a year ago:

Hasan Rouhani is no moderate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program
John R. Bolton | Fox News
June 18, 2013

Within days of Hasan Rouhani’s election as Iran’s president, the White House and several European governments were already ecstatic at the possibility of resuming negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear-weapons program.

Of course, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps actually make key military policy decisions, not Iran’s president, but mere political reality is unlikely to slow down the Obama administration and its European Union (“EU”) counterparts.

Before even more irrational exuberance breaks out over Rouhani’s pledge to make Iranian’s nuclear program more “transparent,” however, some history is in order.

Rouhani’s long, uninterrupted devotion to Iran’s Islamic Revolution includes heading its National Security Council for sixteen years, and he was Tehran’s key nuclear negotiator in 2003-2005.

His actions during that period reveal much about him and the regime.

In September, 2003, Britain, France and Germany (“the EU-3”) made several overtures to open talks with Iran, including offering Iran nuclear-reactor technology on the precondition that it cease uranium-enrichment activities, which the EU-3 believed would effectively halt the nuclear-weapons program.

This proved to be a disastrous mistake.

Iran was to use the next three-and-one-half years to make steady progress, overcoming the scientific and technological difficulties of uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, and other key elements in its nuclear-weapons effort.

Rouhani was central to Iran’s strategy of using protracted negotiations to buy time and legitimacy under diplomatic cover. […]

Bolton’s predictive and frankly even prophetic article ends with these words that points out how the past that liberals are too stupid to comprehend show us the future:

But the catnip effect on Western diplomats of negotiating with Iran never lost its allure, which Rouhani understood as well or better than anyone.  In March, 2006, the New York Times reported on a speech Rouhani made after stepping down as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.  Said the Times:

“…in a remarkable admission, Mr. Rouhani suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them…..  ‘While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan [the uranium conversion plant], but we still had a long way to go to complete the project,’ he said.  ‘In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan.’  As a result of the negotiations with Europe, he added, “we are in fact much more prepared to go to the U.N. Security Council.’”

Rouhani deceived, mocked and disdained the West during his time as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program continued to progress.  There is every reason to believe he will do exactly the same once inaugurated as Iran’s president.

In other words, was there ever any real chance this was going to work?  Only in hell, which is where Obama and the Ayatollah and Rouhani will all one day reside together.

Who was right?  Who was completely WRONG?

To the extent that the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever the hell you want to call these vicious murderers, had anything to do with Iran’s new hardline stance, just recognize that this terrorist army grew up and became the powerful terror army that it is completely under Barack Obama and entirely due to his failed policies.

Obama was WRONG.  Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were WRONG.  The Democrat Party was WRONG.  Liberalism is WRONG.

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen?  Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement.  So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

Business Insider nailed what it’s easy to now see since happened and what will continue to happen in their article from July:

Obama Is Now Boxed In By The Iranian Nuclear Negotiations

Iran is playing the long game in negotiations over its nuclear program. And it may have already boxed in U.S. President Barack Obama, with help from an increasingly tumultuous state of world affairs.

Iran and six world powers officially agreed on Friday to extend negotiations for at least another four months. Iran has agreed to dilute additional stocks of nuclear material, in exchange for access to nearly $3 billion in assets that have been frozen in the U.S.

Some American officials are skeptical that even a four-month extension in talks will be enough to resolve some of the major sticking points among negotiators. And the reality is that as time goes on, the West will continue to lose leverage as Iran’s economy slowly crawls toward a recovery with limited sanctions relief.

“The extension was expected because Iranian nuclear intransigence is being further emboldened by the reality that Western negotiating leverage is diminishing,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider.

“The Obama administration’s mid-2013 decision to de-escalate the sanctions pressure, and the direct relief offered at Geneva, have sparked a modest albeit fragile Iranian economic recovery and increased the economy’s resilience to sanctions pressure,” Dubowitz told BI. “Tehran may believe that it can sustain these negotiations for many months if not years, provide only limited and reversible nuclear concessions, while extracting additional direct sanctions relief and solidifying its economic recovery.”

Dubowitz says that if Tehran’s bet turned out to be true, then the nuclear concessions would continue to swing Iran’s way.

“Then the Obama administration is left doing more of what it has done already — namely, defining downwards its nuclear demands until Iran’s leaders have deal terms that give them an industrial-size nuclear capacity, relative immunity from any new sanctions, and the essential elements they need to build nuclear weapons at a time of their choosing,” he said.

And yep, that’s pretty much exactly the way the following year plus has unraveled under the leadership of our Chump-in-Chief.

Look at my own title from a year ago as I asked in September of 2013:

Obama Won’t Negotiate With GOP. So WHY Is He Negotiating With Terrorist State Iran (Declared Terrorist Since 1984)???

Does it sound to you like I was optimistic about this the way the fools of the Los Angeles Times and the Obama administration were?

If you want a more direct statement about that time of a year ago, here’s what I wrote in a different article:

As for Iran, Obama has guaranteed that Iran will be in an economically stronger position to announce that they have joined the nations with nuclear weapons as soon as they have successfully developed the ballistic missile system they need to give their nuclear threat any real teeth.  There is frankly no reason for Iran to develop nuclear weapons until they have the means to deliver those weapons especially to Israel and the United States.

The Iranian president announced that the deal Obama made allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.  And of course it does because Obama won’t do a damn thing to stop it.

Another true statement is that Obama’s deal – again in the Iranian president’s own words – isolates Israel.

Obama is a “leader” who leaves America’s allies twisting in the wind while he makes desperate deals to appease our enemies.  And as a result he will have “peace in our time.”  A completely false and naïve peace just like the last damn time we had such a “peace,” but Obama couldn’t give less of a damn as long as the world doesn’t blow up until he’s out of office.

Let me ask you, WHO WAS RIGHT???  Was I right or was Obama right?  Was I right or was Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry right?  Was conservatism right or was liberalism right?

And for the record, this is what I’ve been pointing out all along:

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

It’s liberals’ fault that we even have to be dealing with a nuclear Iran now.  Their weakness and the weakness that liberalism imbued into America emboldened Iran to build for Armageddon and to keep building and building.  Iran can know with certainty that as long as there remains one liberal who has not been hunted down with dogs and burned alive that America will never have the resolve to stop them.

The fact of the matter is that Iran already has sufficient nuclear material to produce five nuclear bombs.  That’s enough to wipe out Israel, which Iran and terrorists refer to as a “two-bomb country.”  Obama has already given Iran the nuclear bomb; this is just a question of how many more bombs they will be able to build and how quickly they will be able to build them.  But to wipe out Israel, Iran wants to first have the means to terrorize and intimidate the United States out of direct retaliation.  Which means they need ballistic missile capability which would give them the ability to strike major U.S. cities and kill tens of millions of Americans.

So Iran invited a man they knew to be a coward and a fool – Barack Obama – to rebuild their economy for them by ending the sanctions and the pressure those sanctions had on their nuclear ambitions and their plan to destroy Israel and start Armageddon.  And thanks to the United States under Obama Iran has been completely free to keep working on the successful ballistic missile technology that will allow them to kill millions of Americans should America ever attempt to stop Iran from carrying out their Armageddon scenario.

I have frequently used “Democrat” as what it truly is: a portmanteau meaning “DEMOnic bureauCRAT.”  That’s what Democrats are: demon-possessed bureaucrats who worship the State rather than God and impose their godless State upon the rest of us with all their government control and their taxes and their regulations and their bureaucracies and their totalitarian fascist crony capitalist ambition to be able who will be winners and who will be losers.

The Bible nails the essence of liberalism:

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

and as a result they are:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. — 2 Timothy 3:7

Liberalism is the demonic hostility to the truth.  They hate the truth because it exposes them as the liars and frauds and deceivers and slanderers and demagogues that they are.  They constantly fabricate their own realities and when those realities are exposed as false they blame their opponents even though their opponents clearly had warned what would happen if liberals got their way.

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally — to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Just ONE Of The Armageddons The Failed Obama Presidency Has Given America: North Korea Can Strike America With Nukes Now

I saw Megan Kelly interviewing an expert in the Far East on North Korea.

He pointed out that just two years ago Obama’s Defense Secretary stooge was saying that North Korea wouldn’t be able to strike us with nuclear weapons for five years yet.

And sure enough, that’s what Obama’s Secretary of Defense said back in January 12, 2011 – just two years ago:

BEIJING — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Tuesday that North Korea was within five years of being able to strike the continental United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile, and said that, combined with its expanding nuclear program, the country “is becoming a direct threat to the United States.”

Mr. Gates is a former director of the C.I.A., and his statement, officials said, reflected both a new assessment by American intelligence officials and his own concern that Washington had consistently underestimated the pace at which the North was developing nuclear and missile technologies.

And the same expert who reminded us of that fact pointed out that if you can put a satellite into orbit, you can strike any damn place on earth.

And North Korea under the Obama regime did precisely that.  And is about to stick its thumb in America’s eye with further nuclear tests.

It’s funny.  I vividly recall Obama mocking and attacking George W. Bush’s policy on North Korea.  Because Obama clearly didn’t believe Bush was failing enough and thought he could fail bigger and faster than Bush could ever dream of failing.

But Obama has also given America a fun new game to play.  Remember “The Lady Or The Tiger?”  Obama’s version is “The Tiger Or The Bigger Tiger.”

I warned you repeatedly that Obama would preside over a nuclear-armed Iran.  I pointed out the DOCUMENTED HISTORIC FACT to you that the Democrats mocked and attacked George W. Bush for declaring that Iran was a nuclear threat.

And of course, with the Obama-regime enabled Iran already having built 24 nukes, well, they’re pretty damn nuclear – in stark contrast to the demon-possessed bureaucrats who make up the DemoCrat Party.

So do you prefer being nuked by the psychotic Allah fanatics in Iran or the psychotic atheist fanatics in North Korea?

I love all the possibilities the Obama regime is giving us.

When Iran decides to assemble its nukes – because it already has an arsenal that it could assemble within weeks at any point in time – it will be able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz with absolute impunity and drive up gasoline to $15 a gallon unless we want to face several of our cities destroyed with nuclear weapons.  It will be able to launch wave after wave of global jihad against the West with impunity for the same reason.  And it will be able to assemble a coalition to attack Israel with impunity for the same reason.

If our “chickens havn’t already come home to roost” in Obama’s God Damn America, it surely will on that day.

In a sick, twisted way, it is a “blessing” that Obama was reelected.  Because the disasters that are coming because of Obama’s first four years of failed and dishonest leadership will be impossible for him to demagogue to the shoulders of George W. Bush or anybody else.

Joe Biden Mocked Iran’s Growing Nuclear Capability In Debate: Because He’s A Fool And Ignorantly Mocks Just Like The Fool He Is

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night.  He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course.  But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

Psychologist and brilliant political commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Joe Biden’s debate preparation clearly consisted in watching the movie “The Shining”:

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate.  In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

CNN (which for the record declared Ryan the winner in their polling by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin) had an interesting find that was somewhat surprising: it said that women thought that Paul Ryan had won the debate by a larger measure than men did – which is exactly the opposite that one would expect given that women are considerably more likely to vote Democrat than men.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot.  And they didn’t like it.  And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

That said, one of the things that Joe Biden mocked was Iran getting a nuclear weapon.  It was frankly amazing how dismissive he was of what pretty much every expert in the field says is a frighteningly real possibility.

But those who dismiss Iran’s capability are as stupid as those who dismiss their resolve.

Let me give you a very real example as reported by the extremely überleftist Daily Kos:

The Christian Science Monitor reports that an Iranian engineer has told a reported what we suspected:  That they hijacked the drone and fooled it into landing in Iran.  The fact that it landed intact seemed suspicious.  But how could they have defeated the super power that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the world combined?

Simple:  They jammed the control signals forcing it into autopilot mode, then overrode the GPS signals to fool it into landing in Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone’s GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.

Read all about it here.

The article goes on to say that the US will continue to fly over Iran.  But based on this information it seems likely that future flights will meet a similar fate.

This seems like a huge vulnerability.  Makes one wonder if a big chunk of our military budget has been wasted.

What you need to understand is the Obama administration talking heads and the intelligence and military brass that serve at Obama’s pleasure basically said at the time Obama lost one of his drones over Iran that there was no way in hell Iran had the capability to comandeer a drone and the thing must have crash landed.

They also dismissively said this:

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can’t explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: “There are a lot of human resources in Iran…. Iran is not like Pakistan.”

RECOMMENDED: Downed US drone: How Iran caught the ‘beast’

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said “circumstantial evidence” pointed to a “state-driven attack” coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Well, guess what that “ox-cart technology culture” did with the Ferrari Obama gave them?

They reverse-engineered it and built their own model so successfully that it overflew most of Israel (via their proxy puppet Hezbollah) and netted themselves all kinds of photographic intelligence (most useful for target acquisition) with it.  When Israel shot it down they discovered that it was built with stealth technology – which was why it had been able to penetrate Israel’s defenses.

Now, if you are a complete and abject fool the way Joe Biden and Barack Obama are complete abject fools, then you will keep dreaming your naive fool’s dream that Iran is a bunch of technological retards who are actually being cowed out of their holy war by some stupid sanctions.

If you’ve got a functioning brain in your head, you won’t think that way at all.

Experts say Iran is very close to having a nuclear bomb, as USA Today back in November of LAST YEAR pointed out:

There’s time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

“With each time we have used sanctions, they’ve had more impact, but ultimately if Iran wants to pay the cost, it can get nuclear weapons,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The question is, can we raise the cost enough?”

Western diplomats and nuclear experts who reviewed intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program say Iran has continued work on nuclear weapons with the help of foreign scientists, despite sanctions organized by the Obama administration, a report in The Washington Post said.

Iran IS close to a nuclear weapon.  And for Joe Biden to smirk and mock like the damned fool he is was just one of the numerous examples of Biden not only mocking, but doing so at incredibly inappropriate times.

And not merely “close”; DANGEROUSLY close.

I have pointed out REPEATEDLY that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb in will be ENTIRELY Democrats’ faults and particularly Obama’s and Biden’s fault.  You can go back to the 2008 debates for the Democrat presidential nomination and you can see every Democrat mocking George Bush for saying that Iran was a growing nuclear threat.  They dismissed it and mocked it and cited a report that turned out to be completely false and Iran has been the little nuclear bomb-making engine that could on Obama’s watch.

And the only thing – the ONLY thing – that has slowed Iran down was the Stuxnet virus that the United States and Israel developed UNDER GEORGE BUSH.  And Stuxnet was just one of the many secrets that the Obama administration treasonously leaded to try to make Obama look good on national security to compensate for his failed economy.

Speaking of secrets, Obama has apparently held a not-quite-secret enough negotiation with Iran via Qatar letting Iran know that Obama will suspend the hardest sanctions later if Iran will suspend production on enriched uranium until AFTER the election in November.  Which is another way of saying to Iran that if they hold off production for a month or so Obama will give Iran its nuclear weapon and not do anything to stop it.

Folks like me call that high treason.

Another development is almost as bad.  When Iran gets the nuclear bomb – and if Obama is reelected I guarantee you that Iran will get the bomb – they will not have to use it directly to hurt us badly.

Once Iran becomes a nuclear power with the bomb and the means to deliver it, they will be off-limits to any kind of attack.  It will be not only too late, but WAY too late to deal with the threat they pose.  And one of the things they will be able to do is block the Strait of Hormuz – and send oil prices to $12 a gallon – with absolute impunity.

Here’s another thing that Barack Obama has endowed America with: the threat of a Chinese missile capable of wiping out every single aircraft carrier in our fleet and transforming the naval balance of power in the world:

A new ‘smart missile’ threatens to tip the balance of power towards China, US military analysts say.

The latest generation of the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D) [Photo] is a supercarrier killer according to experts on China’s armaments. The missile can be launched from land and strike an aircraft carrier 900 miles away.

China has 11,200 miles of coastline. That fact coupled with the range and accuracy of the new missile could spell doom for any US or allied carrier fleet.

Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program that is part of the Washington, DC Center for a New American Security organization admits the DF 21D is designed to kill carriers—specifically US Naval carriers. “The Navy has long had to fear carrier—killing capabilities. The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post—Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”

China and Iran are allies.

If we try to end a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, will we be surprised to find out that China has given Iran a few aircraft carrier killers?

Joe Biden smirked and mocked his way through the debate.  But this is a terrifyingly real possibility that is no laughing matter to anybody but the most deluded of fools.

Unless Iran is told – AND UNLESS IRAN BELIEVES – that the United States will launch a massive military strike that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear capability and as many damned Iranians as get in the way of our wiping it out, they will soon have a nuclear bomb.

And you can read all about the war that the Bible told us would happen in the Book of Revelation.

Why Are Iranian, Syrian, Russian And Chinese Warships Planning ‘War Games’ In The Middle East? I Think I Know.

First, the report which was first revealed by the Iranian Fars News Agency:

Iran, Russia, China and Syria are planning to hold
the largest war games exercise in the Middle East in less than a month, Iran’s
Fars media reported Tuesday.Citing “informed sources,” the report said
that 90,000 soldiers from the four countries are to take part.The
massive war games drill will include air defense and missile units as well as
ground, air and naval forces. It is scheduled for early July.

A total of
400 planes and 1,000 tanks are said to be taking part, among them “12 Chinese
warships… Russian atomic submarines and warships, aircraft carriers and
mine-clearing destroyers as well as Iranian battleships and
submarines.”

All of the above are to arrive shortly in Syria, according
to the report.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com
– 6/19/12

Russia denies that any war games will take place.  While it is certainly possible there won’t be any 90,000 troops and hundreds of ships, etc. flooding the Syrian coast, I personally don’t have much more trust in Russia (especially under Putin) than I had for the U.S.S.R.  So allow me to entertain the notion that the FARS report is accurate.

Given the environment (I mean, Syria has now brutally murdered way, WAAAAAY over 14,000 of their own citizens while Egypt is in political meltdown), why on earth would anybody be doing a war game?

Consider one other rather massive “elephant-in-the-room” development: Iran has clearly used the just-suspended-as-futile UN talks as nothing more than a way to keep stalling for time while developing their nuclear weapons program – a program that never would have existed in the first place without Russia and China.  Which of course is exactly what Israel and American conservatives said was the case from the very beginning.

And Syria is nothing more than a puppet state of the Iranian regime.

So let me answer my question: why on earth would Iran, Syria, Russia and China conduct “war games” while war that is very definitely NOT a game looms everywhere?

Because they want to deter Israel from launching its attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, that’s why.  How could Israel attack Iran with the Russian, Chinese, Syrian and Iranian navies massed off her coast???

Heck, it may have been Obama’s idea.  Obama is more desperate to stop an attack by Israel that could hurt his re-election campaign than he is about Iran getting the bomb.

I wrote an article back in February of 2009, shortly after Obama took office, titled, “It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.”  As we speak, Iran is racing toward nuclear weapons, and by all accounts already has the uranium to make at least five bombs whenever it wants to under Obama’s regime.

The fascist powers that be – Syria, Iran, Russia, China and the United States of God damn America under Obama – do not want Israel to be able to defend her right to exist.  Fortunately, God has other plans.

The Bible amazingly predicted 2,600 years ago that in the last days Russia would lead a massive invasion of armies that incredibly correspond to most of the Islamic states against Israel.  And we’re getting closer and closer to the kick-off of violence.

One of the few Old Testament prophecies that was never fulfilled – YET! – is that the city of Damascus would be utterly destroyed.  I look at the incredibly wicked state of Syria today recently murdering over fourteen thousand of her own people as a puppet state of Iran, and the one thing I can tell you as a certainty is is that Damascus has it coming to them.

Iran Is On The Verge Of Having Nukes Because Of Barack Obama

Let’s go back to 2007:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Five years later, what is Obama saying as everything he believed has turned out to be wrong and Iran is closer than we can possibly know from having nuclear weapon capability?  He’s STILL saying that Republcians are talking too tough.   What is frankly amazing is that Barack Obama went from saying that he had Israel’s back one day to saying America had no “military doctrine” to lift a finger to help Israel the very next day.  He’s not willing to go to war against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program, but he’s all too willing to launch a vicious pre-emptive nuclear strike on his Republican challengers.

And as for whatever lip service Obama is mouthing to Israel that he will support them, Obama’s own Secretary of State just got through saying:

“… a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”

Well, that’s comforting.  Particularly given the fact that Hilary Clinton has no right whatsoever to speak for anyone or anything other than Democrats and the Obama administration.

Only WAR will deter Iran from its determined history of developing nuclear weapons.  You know, the very same damn nukes that Obama and Democrats treasonously demonized Bush for seeing coming.

Barack Obama is a weakling and a coward, and the ONLY thing in the way of Iran becoming a nuclear power is Israel.  Obama has no intention of lifting a finger to help Israel; rather, he will sit back like a gutless fool and demonize Israel for the aftermath of an Iran attack that is more Obama’s fault than ANYBODY’S.  You watch: Israel will attack Iran, gas prices will soar, economies will tank and Barack Obama will demonize Israel for creating a crisis that he refused to stop.

Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out some frightening facts in his speech last night: if Iran gets the bomb, you can guarantee that it will shut down the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices and that it will launch a wave of international terrorism far beyond what it has already done.  And all we’d have to do to stop them would be to sacrifice a dozen of our largest eastern cities in an atomic firestorm.

“No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!” — Jeremiah Wright, personally selected by Barack Obama to be his reverend and personal spiritual advisor for over twenty years.

More and more, Obama reminds any historically-intelligent observer of Neville Chamberlain.  The British prime minister who allowed Hitler to rise and grow too powerful for England – and who has rightly been judged to be the worst appeaser of all time – was absolutely ruthless in his cutthroat approach to dealing with his own domestic political rivals.

This is God Damn America.  And Iran gets the bomb in God damn America.

Transcript And Video Of Benjamin Netanyahu Proving The Case For Preemptive War Against Iran In AIPAC Speech

Link: http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/05/transcript-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-speech-at-aipac-2012/

Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel.

More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight.

I deeply appreciate your being here.

Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you,
the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government.

Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself.

And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

I’d like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently….Iran.

Every day, I open the papers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do.

Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent this from happening. He stated clearly that all options remain on the table, and that American policy is not containment.

Well, Israel has the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. Ad containment is definitely not an option.

The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal. A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.

Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right. A country that builds underground nuclear facilities, develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and absorbs crippling sanctions – is doing all that in order to advance…medical research. So you see, when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s only carrying medical isotopes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck –but this duck is a nuclear duck. And it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Yet incredibly, some are prepared to accept an idea only slightly less preposterous: That we should accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.

Sure, they say, Iran is cruel, but it’s not crazy. It’s detestable but it’s deterrable.

Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world’s most dangerous regime won’t use the world’s most dangerous weapons. And I promise you that as Prime Minister, I will never gamble with the security of Israel.

From the beginning, the Ayatollah regime has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays and stones women. It supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.

Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous.

There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. If you’re worried about the price of oil today, imagine how high oil prices will be when a nuclear-armed Iran starts blackmailing the world.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would set off a mad dash by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The world’s most volatile region would become a nuclear tinderbox waiting to go off.

And the worst nightmare of all, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism. It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city. Think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals who lead millions in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons!

The best outcome would be if Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran actually dismantled its program. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran.

I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before.

In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….”

And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote:

“Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.

My Friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here’s my point.

The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.

But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East. The only place where minorities enjoy full civil rights; The only place where Arabs enjoy full civil rights. The only place where Christians are free to practice their faith; The only place where real judges protect the rule of law; And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.

This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In Synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman – Esther.

In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself.

Thank you for your friendship, Thank you for your courage, Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state.