Netanyahu And Republicans Rub Obama’s Nose In His Own Filthy Mess

We now know why the legion of demons inhabiting Obama’s wicked soul became so rabid when he found out that Republicans had invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in a forum where Israel’s plight against Iran would get major attention.  And that is because he knew that if people knew the truth they would begin to turn against his incredibly wicked and foolish foreign policy – and hell, it might even help Netanyahu (whom Obama was actively community organizing against) get reelected such that Israel would continue to have a strong leader rather than the weak puppet Obama wanted there.

There is absolutely no question that Barack Hussein Obama hates the state of Israel.  Oh, yeah, the dishonest mainstream media propagandists would have you believe that it’s really just a personal issue between Obama and Netanyahu (and clearly Netanyahu’s fault for immorally believing that he should represent Israel rather than follow Messiah Obama).

But this pretty much puts the kibosh on that one:

President Barack Hussein Obama, a pathetic creature who is trying to arrange for Iran to develop their own nuclear weapons and who actively sought the defeat of our closest ally in the Middle East, has a tremendous amount of egg on his face. Despite Obama sending his minions to Israel to underline Netanyahu by pumping up the Arab vote via Saul Alinsky-community organizing tactics, Patriots of state of Israel beat back the Leftist Obama-Arab hoards at the ballot box.

And, oh yeah, the same Obama that told us that he couldn’t have the decency to listen to the leader of America’s greatest friend and ally give a speech because he didn’t want to influence the elections was dishonestly trying to influence the elections even as he lied about not wanting to influence the elections:

The Obama campaign strategist who could break the Israeli elections wide open
The group V15, which denies that its motto is ‘anyone but Bibi,’ is working with U.S. political strategist Jeremy Bird to replace the government in March.
By Haaretz   |  Feb. 7, 2015 | 9:11 PM

… With the help of American money and a former campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, V15 is trying to replace Israel’s government. The money and organization comes from V15’s partnership with OneVoice….

And on further investigation we find that it’s NOT just Jeremy Bird, but a TEAM of Obama campaign strategists who went over to help turn Israel against Netanyahu:

A team of President Barack Obama’s political operatives arrived in Israel to campaign for the defeat of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the March elections just days after the White House complained about the Israeli leader’s plan to address Congress over Iran’s nuclear program.

The five Democratic consultants are led by political strategist Jeremy Bird, who was the field director for Obama’s key 2008 South Carolina Democratic primary election when he beat Hillary Clinton, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported this week.

Bird and his team are working with a group called Victory 2015, which aims to promote opposition candidates in the March 17 parliamentary elections.

Just in case you’re not sure, Jeremy Bird is a TOP Obama campaign strategist who was sent by his master to help the devil win Israel for him.  And the financier behind Bird is a “very proud” Obama supporter and openly boasted – albeit in a pissy manner – about serving as “Obama’s money machine.”

So anybody who wants to claim that Obama wasn’t interfering in Israel’s elections by actively community organizing against Benjamin Netanyahu is just a flat-out demon-possessed LIAR just like the demon-possessed lying Obama they support and serve.

And just how was Obama trying to community-organize the election?  By busing in ARABS to throw out JEWS:

In a video message Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that left-wing NGOs and foreign governments are attempting to influence the election by busing Arabs to the polls. The Joint List of Arabs parties announced that so far Arab turnout is more than three times larger than in previous elections.

“The right-wing government is in danger,” said Netanyahu in a video message posted on Facebook Tuesday. “Arab voters are going en masse to the polls. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses.”

Netanyahu later underscored that Arab citizens voting is not the problem, but the “massive funds from abroad from left-wing NGOs and foreign governments” being use to bring Arab voters “en masse to the polls in an organized way, thus twisting the true will of all Israeli citizens who are voting, for the good of the left.”

Likud sent a similar message to voters that the “concern is coming true: The call by Abbas and American money are bringing Arabs to the polls. Go vote!”  The message linked to a report that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas encouraged Arabs to form one party and push for members to vote for Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog.

Which is just how Obama won the elections in 2008 and 2012 – by busing in every single fool and every single tool he could find who would sell their vote for a cigarette butt.

And we can now safely claim that Obama’s message to Israel is pretty much, “Die, Jew!  My goal is to bury you in Arabs until they drive you into the Sea!”  Because that is EXACTLY what he sent his political operatives to accomplish.

Well, eat cat poop, Obama.  You lost.  I know, you’re too arrogant and way, WAY, WAAAAYYY too narcissistic to ever acknowledge – probably even to yourself with all the demons screaming lies in your head – to admit you lost.  But you lost and you lost big in your hope to undermine the hated Little Satan as much as you’ve dismantled your Great Satan machine for your Muslim masters.

You know that had Netanyahu lost this election, every mainstream leftist propagandist joke-for-a-journalist would have been crowing about the Republicans creating their own disaster by inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress where he could tell the American people and the world the TRUTH about the disgraceful deal Obama is desperate to arrange with Iran to guarantee them nukes in ten years.  They would have gleefully written up the story as being the Republican Party’s fault Bibi lost.  So all we can do is gloat over the silence as a dishonest media machine refuses to report the truth over what a major disaster this was for an Obama who publicly demonized Netanyahu and tried to turn people against Netanyahu’s speech before he even gave it.

We just found out that Obama mysteriously removed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism just as the negotiations to grant Iran nukes if they just wait a few years was about to bubble over.  And we know he did so in a brazenly dishonest way:

Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah have been removed from this year’s terror list, despite being on it for the past several years.

Fox News Channel reported Tuesday that the office of National Intelligence Director James Clapper blamed the omission on a formatting change in the way the document is printed.

Fox’s Greta Van Susteren called it “a little bit insane that they changed the format and suddenly the two worst terrorists, Iran and Hezbollah, disappear.”

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said the omission may be tied to nuclear negotiations currently underway between the United States and Iran.

“The people who would say this is a format change are weasels,” Bolton said on Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

“It’s a flat lie. The format of this year’s report is exactly the same as last year’s report. Don’t believe me? Go look on the web. Compare the two of them. It’s exactly the same.”

Bolton said he believes the Iranian negotiators told the American negotiators they have to ease up on labeling the country the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Bolton said he doesn’t believe the details of the arrangement will show up in the final nuclear deal, which is troubling, he said, because it raises questions of what other concessions might have been made, but will never be made public.

That’s always how this pathologically dishonest administration that is trying to impose this deal on the American people works.  And the Constitution and the Congress that has a constitutional role in any such treaty be damned as Obama vows to literally veto BOTH the Congress AND Article 2, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.

You tell ME when the last time a US President forced this kind of a nuclear treaty with an enemy down America’s throat without the consent of Congress, you treason-loving liberals.

John Kerry, Obama’s Stooge of State, argued it’s not a treaty “because it’s not legally binding.”  Well, that’s just great.  Because it means Iran is free to cheat all they damn well want to and it’s nothing but a bunch of meaningless words to make the world look the other way while Iran continues to build nuclear weapons along with the ballistic missiles to deliver them.

This is the same pathologically dishonest weasel who just got through blaming George W. Bush for the rise of the Islamic State that barely even existed as a fringe group when Bush was president and in fact was only a tiny fringe group in Syria (NOT Iraq) throughout Bush’s presidency.  It was not until AFTER Obama’s pathetic and despicable “red line” fiasco in Syria that Islamic State was allowed to metastasize into the full-fledged stage 4 cancer that it is now.  It was not until AFTER Obama withdrew ALL US forces out of Iraq despite EVERY GENERAL’S WARNING that Obama’s foolishness would end in disaster.  It was not until AFTER Obama ignored the rise of Islamic State and idiotically called them “JayVee” even AFTER they had seized major cities in Iraq that Islamic State rose.

But it’s Bush’s fault that Democrats are pathologically demon-possessed liars who will one day burn in hell for their cockroach wickedness as angels sing with joy that justice has finally prevailed over earth.

And now this same Obama is pleading with Iran that their terrorism means nothing to him because he hates America and freedom as much as they do, and that if they just work with him he will guarantee Iran a nuclear bomb in ten years (when he thinks it won’t be traced to him) to balance what he views as the threat of Israel.

Obama is playing so many underhanded games with America’s national security in so many places and in so many ways that it ought to terrify you.

He just got through demonizing the 47 Republicans – whom I call “the 47 Ronin” because they are heroically trying to overthrow a truly evil tyrant – for “sending a letter to the Ayatollah.”

I mean, literally, Obama had to JOIN FORCES WITH THE AYATOLLAH in order to slam that letter –

Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama slammed Republican senators who penned a letter attempting to warn Iran that any pending nuclear agreement will face their scrutiny, claiming they were aligning themselves with Iranian “hard-liners.”

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition,” Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk.

“I think what we’re going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we’re going to get a deal or not. Once we do, if we do, we’ll be able to make the case to the American people, and I’m confident we’ll be able to implement it,” Obama said.

Nearly every Senate Republican has signed on to an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning that without their approval, any Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama will be null and void after he leaves office.

But a top Iranian negotiator and Democrats slammed the letter, calling it a purposeful attempt to undermine the delicate negotiations as they reach a pivotal deadline later this month.

“We believe this letter has no legal value and is indeed just a propaganda ploy,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in a statement provided to and translated by CNN. “Whats more, while the negotiations have not yet borne fruit and there no agreement yet, pressure groups in the U.S. are so worried that they are using extraordinary measures to prove that they, just like Netanyahu oppose any kind of agreement.”

– so who is actually on whose side here????

And notice that the Ayatollah and Obama both share a common rabid hatred for Netanyahu.

The fact is clear: the hard liners who run Iran are very clearly on Obama’s side and Obama is very clearly on the side of the Iranian hard liners and both are teaming up to demonize the 47 Ronin who are heroically trying to fight the tyranny that would be advanced by this wicked deal.

When you look at the history of Iran THERE ARE NO MODERATES ruling Iran.  THERE IS NO MODERATE FACTION of Iranian government.  It is the Ayatollah who gets to pick who even gets to run for any government position.  Which means that the monster can decide to wear a nicer mask or an uglier mask, but he is the same monster either way.

Rich Lowry points this fact out in his statement:

It is Obama who has been wooing — cozying up to, in Kaplan’s phrase — the most powerful hard-liner in Iran, unless we are supposed to believe that Khamenei himself is now a moderate.

Iran has been since 1979 and remains to this very day a country that ends every official prayer with, “Death to America!”

I just laugh until I cry with the mainstream media’s constant inference that the Republicans wrote this letter, put it in an envelope, and mailed it “to whom it may concern” in Iran.  The letter was NEVER SENT ANYWHERE, you deluded fools; it appeared on Sen. Tom Cotton’s WEBSITE and was NEVER SENT ANYWHERE.

The above article documents at length the false narrative that Republicans sent the letter to Iran when that is a flat-out lie.

If you are a Democrat, you are a liar who lives in an ocean of lies.  And you would literally perish if you were exposed to truth.

Would you like to know which Senator actually DID send a letter to Iran???

Yeah, that’s right.  Then Senator and candidate for president Barack Hussein Obama.  And look at what Obama did:

 … in 2008, a Democratic senator sent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

Don’t sign an agreement with Bush, Obama said.  I promise to give you a better one that will help you and harm the Great Satan America so that we can achieve our common goal of “Death to America.”

And for the record, that’s just ONE of the SEVERAL secret letters that Obama has sent to the Ayatollahs in Iran.  And unlike the Republicans yes Obama DID send those letters to Iran.  Obama ought to be embarrassed for HIMSELF.

Barack Obama is a traitor guilty of treason and collaborating with the enemy according to his own demonic rhetoric.

Obama has this in common with the Ayatollahs in Iran and with Hillary Clinton who wants to be the next American Ayatollah: they are all dishonest fascists who view themselves as ABOVE the laws that they want to impose on everybody else.

 

 

 

Obama Completely Unworthy Of Trust When It Comes To His Toxic Nuclear Deal With The Ayatollah

Pardon my confusion here, but I need someone to please explain to me how Obama knows everything – and I mean absolutely everything – that is going on inside Iran’s incredibly secretive nuclear program, but he had no clue that Iraq and Iran were about to launch an attack against the Islamic State on Tikrit???

Iraq’s Attack Against ISIS Catches U.S. ‘By Surprise’
03.02.15
Nancy A. Youssef

The biggest offensive against ISIS so far happened without American help—but with plenty of assistance from Iran.

The Iraqi military launched a major campaign to take back a key city from the self-proclaimed Islamic State over the weekend—a move that caught the U.S. “by surprise,” in the words of one American government official.

The U.S.-led coalition forces that have conducted seven months of airstrikes on Iraq’s behalf did not participate in the attack, defense officials told The Daily Beast, and the American military has no plans to chip in.

Why does Obama ignore crystal clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency such as this one –

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has “further corroborated” information indicating that Iran “has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog says in its most recent report on Iran.

– and inherently trust Iran and his own ability to verify with certainty what a demonstrated dishonest and duplicitous regime is up to, while inherently distrusting key historic US ally Israel???

I  mean, would any of you Democrat Obama worshipers explain this to me, please?  Because I believe I’m on pretty damn solid ground to point out the FACT that Obama is a freaking demon-possessed LIAR to argue that we can verify ANY-DAMN-THING Iran is doing when we can’t even know what they’re doing in a country where we’ve got  all kinds of people in.

And just what are the details of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran?  You don’t get to know, because Obama is hiding it.  He knows how horrible it is.

And the Israeli people know how horrible it is, given the fact that nearly three-fourths of them know that Obama does not have their interest in his heart and is siding with their most bitter enemies.

Arab nations know how horrible it will be, too.  Which is why everyone who isn’t a terrorist or a sponsor of terrorism is opposed to Obama’s deal.  We can pretty much guarantee a nuclear arms race in the craziest part of the world, thanks to Obama.

For 2,000 years, Jews were stateless, voiceless, defenseless and therefore passive to the threats to annihilate them.

Obama looks back to those good old days when Jews silently went to their graves without being able to defend themselves or speak out.

He wants to offer Iran – notwithstanding that Obama is such a weak, pathetic, gutless negotiator with America’s most terrifying enemies that the Ayatollah literally mocks him for it –

“Are Americans afraid of getting casualties on the ground in Iraq?” asked Rouhani, referring to the Obama administration’s crystal clear pledge that it will not send American combat troops to fight ISIS. “Are they afraid of their soldiers being killed in the fight they claim is against terrorism?”

“If they want to use planes and if they want to use unmanned planes so that nobody is injured from the Americans, is it really possible to fight terrorism without any hardship, without any sacrifice?” he continued. “Is it possible to reach a big goal without that? In all regional and international issues, the victorious one is the one who is ready to do sacrifice.”

…

“When we say the red line we mean the red line,” said Rouhani…

– a sweetheart deal that will guarantee that Iran ultimately gets nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile technology to deliver them.  Obama will allow Iran – a country floating on oil that doesn’t need nuclear energy aside from the fact that it’s leaders have called Israel a “one bomb country” – to continue to enrich uranium; continue to build centrifuges; operate previously banned nuclear reactors – which will probably include the one that was secretly built and only now being revealed; and yeah, build ballistic missiles which are frankly useless unless they have nuclear warheads to put on them.

Oh, any any actual limits on Iran’s nuclear weapons plans have time limits to give Obama time to get out of office before his betrayal of America and Israel is obvious.

Why on earth should ANYONE trust a president who ran promising the most transparent administration in history but has in actual fact ran the LEAST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY????  What do you say to explain this?

A review of every official exchange President Barack Obama has had with the press in 2014 in addition to interviews with more than a dozen reporters “reveals a White House determined to conceal its workings from the press, and by extension, the public,” the report reads.

What do you say about a president who looked every single American citizen in the eye over and over again and repeatedly told them lies such as “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it.  If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too.  The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”

Barack Hussein Obama pompously and self-righteously delivered this lie a minimum of 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar of any human being who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.

Obama is the liar who over and over again stated that he did not have the power or the right to impose amnesty for illegal aliens before saying he never said what he said and then doing what he clearly is an “emperor” and

• “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself,” Obama said.  “But that’s not how our democracy works.”
• “Believe me — the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you.  Not just on immigration reform.  (Laughter.) But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.”
• “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency.”  The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.”
• In September 2013, Obama was asked by Telemundo if he would consider freezing deportations of the parents of students benefiting from the administration’s 2012 action.  Obama replied that if he broadened his protective orders, “then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.  So that’s not an option.”

So, yeah, by Obama’s own words delivered to his supporters, Obama IS in fact a lawless emperor thug who ignores the law, abolishes democracy and perverts the American system.

The next question is, “Did Obama change the law which the Constitution specifically states no president has the authority to do?”

Again, Obama’s own words to one of his supporters whose only problem with Obama is that Obama isn’t even MORE of a treasonous fascist tells us the truth:

Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.  (Applause.) So that’s point, number one.”

So it shouldn’t surprise you that Obama has said frankly warped things about peace and national security such as these gems as 200,000 human beings are murdered in Syria (after Obama’s pathetic and despicable “red line”), as Islamic State takes over Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and counting,

• [T]he truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.”
• Obama:  “Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”Remnick: “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.”

This is the most pathologically dishonest president with the most pathologically dishonest administration that ever existed.

This is a president who destroyed Iraq and exposed America to the threat of a giant terrorist caliphate by a Muslim terrorist army that barely existed when Bush was president.  This is a president who falsely has tried to blame his abandonment of Iraq on some “status of agreement” treaty when it is a known damned fact of history that Obama planned to cut-and-run and abandon Iraq from the very moment he took office, if not even before then.  Just as it is a fact of history that top generals predicted YEARS AGO that Obama’s plan for Iraq would end in the very sort of disaster that it has in fact ended in.

But Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically dishonest LIAR without shame, without honesty, without decency, without virtue and without integrity of any kind aside from the integrity of the devil to be wicked.

I mean, this is a dishonest, lying weasel who claimed that he was deporting more illegal immigrants than any president when in fact all he had done was dishonestly switch the statistic to make it artificially seem like he was doing precisely what he was not doing.  This is a criminal thug who used the IRS as his “Internal Revenge Service” to target and destroy conservative organizations and successfully disrupt their ability to prevent his 2014 re-election.

This is a man who cynically and dishonestly claimed that his would be the most transparent administration in history.  And instead – and this according to New York Times reporters who are decidedly left-leaning – that Obama is “THE greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”  Obama has created a Stalinist “climate of fear” among journalists.

And please don’t think for one nanosecond that this is a president or an administration who gives a flying damn about you or your family; rather, this is a reckless demagogue who is so vile that he refuses to prepare any contingency plan whatsoever if his ObamaCare is struck down by the Supreme Court as any responsible leader would do.  Rather, he’s holding the fact that he’ll ruin the country’s healthcare system like a terrorist over the Supreme Court’s head and basically letting Republicans know that he will intentionally inflict as much suffering on the American people while trying to blame them for the “fundamental transformation of the United States” that not one of them voted for if he doesn’t get his damn way.  He’ll happily destroy your health care system and blame it on somebody else.   Just as he showed that display of contempt for the American people when he imposed his above – again by his own words – “emperor’s unconstitutional and undemocratic power grab that violates the American system” – immigration amnesty this past week.  Or when he intentionally caused as much damage as he possibly could while demagoguing the future effects of the last time the Republicans tried to show some backbone and stop this “emperor” from his endless fascist tyranny.  And he pulled the same fascist scaremongering tactics this time around, too.

So now here we are, with Obama and his lying cabinet assuring us that this horrifyingly bad nuclear deal with Iran – which to obtain Obama has repeatedly violated his own promise to impose sanctions if he didn’t get aforementioned deal and now dogmatically refuses to impose any sanctions whatsoever – is great for America and great for Israel and that the three-out-of-four Israelis who believe Obama would screw them are nothing but the stupid descendants of apes and pigs.  I mean, why the hell else would three-fourths of a people understand that Obama is wrong and evil and therefore clearly on the side of evil?

I mean, why on earth wouldn’t Jews trust our current Führer when he says he won’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons – YET.

So Obama is spurning the leader of the state of Israel and at least FIFTY Democrats are joining him in his fatwa against the Little Satan.  Because our pissy little malignant narcissist-in-chief thinks that everyone should come crawling to him for permission to do anything and that no one should have permission to oppose his plans to abandon Israel and the world to a nuclear Iran.

Democrats and their punk president are acting like junior high school students trying to bully an unpopular kid (the state of Israel).  Netanyahu wants the American people to understand the actual facts of the matter in this incredibly wicked deal; Obama and the Democrat Party want him to shut the hell up and go to the Auschwitz deal they’re preparing for him and his people with a country that has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

The Bible predicted Obama nearly 3,000 years ago.  It predicted that a horrible, evil man would one day say peace, peace when there WASN’T any peace.  Jeremiah 6:14 was written just for Obama and his administration:

They offer superficial treatments for my people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace.

And the Bible pointed out that the coming Great Tribulation under the demonic world tyrant known as the beast would officially begin when Israel signed a seven-year peace covenant with the Antichrist.

And I am simply stating the FACT that Obama has been without any question THE most anti-Israel president in the entire history of America and that Israel will have no one to turn to BUT the Antichrist thanks to what Obama has done.  Obama’s treatment of Israel is shocking.  Obama is Israel’s most dangerous enemy.  Obama is treating Israel the way you would treat an enemy.

There was a time when Democrats bitterly complained that under Bush, we had a two front war.  That was ultimately false because Bush WON in Iraq.  But now, under Obama’s disgraceful and corrupt and wicked administration, we face a TWENTY FRONT war with a terrorist enemy that is bolder, larger, better equipped, better funded, better trained and more active than it EVER was under Bush.

Obama is arguing that he will be able to produce a treaty by which the U.S.A. will be able to micro-verify Iranian activities toward any nuclear weapons.  Pardon my language, but that is a load of bull feces; as we SPEAK, Iran is refusing to comply with previous agreements and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is publicly saying that Iran “has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” that Iran is continuing to “deny inspectors access to a key suspect site, it has carried out work there that the agency says will make it more difficult to determine what has been going on there, should they ever be admitted in the future.”  And the IAEA says, “The agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”  If it is possible, Iran is even less trustworthy that Obama who is a proven liar without shame.

Obama constantly plays the game of the fallacy of the false dilemma, in this case saying we must either follow his plan to the letter or else the only other possible alternative is total war with Iran.  Which is total baloney, given the fact that before Obama decided to pretend to keep Iran from getting nukes while in fact assuring that they would get their nukes after he leaves office, we had incredibly painful sanctions that were punishingly effective.  Which Obama swears by Allah’s beard he will veto if anyone tries to reinstitute them.  After repeatedly refusing to hold up his word to impose sanctions if no deal came through and instead extending the talks for months and even years on end.  Meanwhile, free of the crippling sanctions, Iran’s economy has rebounded and they are ready for some jihad.  Furthermore, we don’t need to go to war; we could just release Israel and organize flyover rights for their world class air force.

But like I keep saying: Obama is a LIAR.

And now – based on lies as everything this liar has ever did has been – Obama has a deal with Iran that is defeat on steroids.

Barack Hussein Obama hates Israel.  The Democrat Party is now proving that it too hates Israel.

I believe that we are in the last days.  I believe that when Obama’s reverend for 22 years screamed, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!” that he spoke as a prophet.  And this has become a nation under God’s curse because of an incredibly wicked man’s incredibly wicked policy against God’s people Israel.

 

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.

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.

Obama Says He’s Not Bluffing With Iran (Note: His Own Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Says He’s Bluffing)

Obama recently said:

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let describe very specifically why this is important to us.

But as I have previously pointed out, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had an exchange with a student in Tunisia that very much says otherwise:

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that 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. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Hillary most certainly wasn’t speaking on the behalf of the Republican Party, which has always supported Israel and no president of which has EVER so blatantly snubbed an Israeli Prime Minister as did Barack Obama.

When Netanyahu comes to visit Obama today, I hope it is the same Benjamin Netanyahu who sat stunned with shock and outrage that an Israeli Prime Minister could ever be so contemptuously disrespected in an American White House.

And I hope that Netanyahu knows about Hillary Clinton’s words that we shouldn’t really trust a damn word this administration says when it comes to – how was it described again for Hillary Clinton? – “the Zionist lobbies.”

Obama wants to push this crisis back until after he gets re-elected so he can hang Israel out to dry without having to worry about it.  Obama knows that Israel doesn’t have the capabilities that the United States has, and that Israel therefore has a much narrower winder to effectively strike than does the U.S.  He should have dealt with this years ago but – as he has done his entire career – he just kept voting “present.” And he’s going to CONTINUE voting “present” until it’s too late for Israel unless Israel does something about it themselves. 

We can easily go back to 2007 when George Bush was dead right about Iran and Obama and his two senior stooges were dead wrong about Iran.  Obama hasn’t learned a damned thing since then because his worldview insulates him from reality.  All Obama understands is the politics of blame and demonization; and just as he’s spent the last three plus years blaming Bush for all of his failed policies, now he will begin to blame Israel for all the results of his failed policies when Israel is forced to attack Iran because of Obama’s history of “voting present” on Iran as all the fecal matter truly starts hitting the nuclear powered rotary oscillator that Iran has been building during the entire Obama presidency.

So I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu remembers that Israel was forged out of the Holocaust under the principle of “Never again” – meaning the principle that never again would the Jewish people be forced to depend on the failed promises of other nations to ensure their survival.  For Israel to lose control over their military destiny because some posturing fool made a bunch of empty promises would be the nadir of foolishness.

I stand with you, Israel.  I stand with you, Mister Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And I urge you to remember the repeated contempt and hostility that this president has demonstrated toward the only Jewish state in the world as you consider whether he will stand with you now.

Hillary Clinton In Tunisia: Don’t Worry, ‘Zionist’ Haters, Hillary Clinton And The Obama Administration Have Your Jew-Hating Back

This would be beyond belief if it wasn’t coming out of the Obama administration.

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that 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. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Now you know why Israel would be the greatest collection of fools in the history of the world to trust the Obama administration as their very survival becomes an issue as Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear state.

I frankly don’t know what more the Obama regime can do to assure Israel that they don’t dare trust the United States under Obama not to stab them in the back and screw them if Israel trusts them.

Notice: Hillary Clinton doesn’t bat an eyelash at the mention of “Zionists.”  She literally assures the questioner not to worry what (Democrat politicians) say because they are only mouthing what people want to hear with no intention of following through on their promised support of Israel.

So Obama came out and said that “he doesn’t bluff” when it comes to Iran.  But, hey, if you hate Israel and want to see her wiped off the map by nuclear Iran, don’t worry: that’s just a bluff – according to Obama’s own Secretary of State.

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to visit the White House; let’s not forget how Obama contemptuously disrespected Bibi the last time he came to town.

So maybe now you can understand why Israel announced that when it came time for them to attack Iran, they would most definitely not warn the most dishonest and depraved administration in the history of the United States of what they were about to do.  Especially given the fact that  Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has already spilled the beans once about Israel’s plans to defend her right to exist.

You can go back to December 5, 2007 when Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all attacked George Bush for believing that Iran’s nuclear program was a threat:

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.

[…]

When – not if – Israel attacks Iran and ignites massive tensions and possible global war, nobody will be more to blame than Barack Obama and the other two stooges Biden and Clinton.

These Democrats – who demonized President Bush for trying to do something about Iran’s growing nuclear program before it was  too late – have had three full years to do something to prevent Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  And they couldn’t have failed more.

I keep saying it: the beast is coming.  And Barack Obama will be the Antichrist’s most useful idiot.

Obama Deceitfully Says He Has Done More For Israel Than Any Previous US Administration. Reality Screams Otherwise.

Barack Obama came out yesterday and said something that flies in the face of any reason or credibility:

“This administration – I try not to pat myself too much on the back – but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,” he added.

Yeah, don’t pat yourself on the back, you wicked liar.  You might pull a muscle and harm your golf swing.

Barack Obama is not unlike a rapist who says of his latest victim, “I loved that woman more than any previous man.”

Just a few short months ago Obama showed us what it looked like to do more for the security of Israel than any previous administration:

Yesterday, President Obama called on Israel to go back to its borders of 1967, which put the Jewish State at just 9 miles wide. Netanyahu immediately rejected that call yesterday and rejected it again in front of the world today.

“Israel cannot go back to 1967 lines,” Netanyahu said. “We can’t go back to the indefensible lines.”

Throughout his remarks, Obama claimed the goal of his administration is for Israel to be a secure state living in peace next to a contiguous Palestine. In order for Palestine to be contiguous, Israel would have to be divided into two.

But that’s what friends are for, right?  Divide them and leave them utterly defenseless while saying you’ve done more for your good buddy than anybody ever ever.

It is incredibly frustrating to deal with a Barry Hussein.  He’s the kind of man who will put his arm around you even as he stabs you in the back.  And then he’ll proceed to either completely deny that he in fact stabbed you in the back, or claim that stabbing you in the back was actually somehow good for you.  And you’ve got a Joseph Goebbels media machine which then does an even better job justifying the Obama rhetoric than Obama did, along with millions of progressives who have successfully inoculated themselves from ever being exposed to actual truth. 

Here is the reason why Obama is making such amazingly outlandish statements: he’s losing the Jewish vote big-time, as a recent election in an overwhelmingly Jewish and Democratic district demonstrates:

But it’s undeniable: a major problem for Weprin is that, despite being a pro-Israel Orthodox Jew running against a non-Jewish Republican in a heavily Jewish and Democratic district, he is being hurt, perhaps fatally, by President Obama’s unpopularity in the district, which is in parts of Brooklyn and Queens, in part due to Israel. A new poll yesterday confirmed one from last week that showed Bob Turner, the Republican, up six points. More specifically, 37 percent of voters said Israel was “very important” to their decision, and of these, 71 percent are supporting Turner; and meanwhile only 30 percent approve of Obama’s handling of Israel—and only 22 percent of Jews. Put these numbers together and a clear picture emerges: to those who care about Israel (and particularly to Jews who care about Israel), Obama is not pro-Israel.

Obama more pro-Israel than Bush?  Not according to Israelis, who presumably have a pretty good idea who is pro-Israel and who isn’t:

Just 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think US President Barack Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.

Forty-eight percent said that the Obama presidency favored the Palestinian side, 30% said his administration was neutral and 13% chose not to express an opinion for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

[…]

The May poll found that Israelis’ views of Obama’s predecessor in the Oval Office, George W. Bush, were nearly the opposite. Some 88% of Israelis considered Bush’s administration pro-Israel, 7% said he was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.

Add to that the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the most dishonest and dishonorable rat bastard who has ever inhabited the White House.  The man simply lies without shame, as does the Joseph Goebbels-inspired mainstream media machine:

Obama Administration Apparently Leaks Misleading Story To Seem More Pro-Israel Than Bush
Posted by Matthew Knee    Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:04am

The News Beast reports that Obama sold Israel bunker buster bombs that the Bush administration had previously blocked in 2005.

The problem: In 2007, the Bush arranged for the bombs to be delivered in the 2009-2010 time period, which they were. Newsweek of course dutifully spun the story to emphasize Bush’s original refusal, rather than the fact that the bombs arrived when Bush had promised they would.

Obama doesn’t deserve points for every agreement with Israel he doesn’t break. He deserves criticism for each one he does break, such as the agreement that promised Israel US support for building in certain parts of East Jerusalem.

But maybe I’m just too cynical. Surely this “leak,” conveniently spun by a friendly publication, has nothing to do with Obama’s “I’m not anti-Israel, now please give me your money so I can have four more years of being even more ‘not anti-Israel’ than I am now ” campaign to shore up his Jewish support. No, that would be crazy talk.

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama’s policy toward both Israel and the entire Middle East is morally and rationally insane:

A Must-Read Essay By Israeli Physicist Haim Harari on the Arab Spring and Barack Obama’s Incoherent Policy
Posted by Joel B. Pollak Nov 30th 2011 at 12:51 pm

Israeli physicist Dr. Haim Harari, former president of Israel’s world-renowned Weizmann Institute of Science, recently laid forth an analysis of the Arab Spring and its aftermath that is a must-read as Egyptians elect a new government this week.

Harari points out that the only stable and powerful political forces in most Arab countries are the military and the Islamist movements, with some tribal forces playing a role in certain Arab states. The outlook for true liberal democracy–with individual rights, respect for opposition, and checks and balances of power–is therefore grim, Harari concludes.

In addition, Harari offers an analysis of the Obama administration’s foreign policy that summarizes its incoherence (emphasis added):

The American attitude of the Obama regime, during the evolving events in the Arab world, is truly amazing and baffling. One might understand and applaud an idealistic American attitude based on the principles of supporting freedom, justice and democracy everywhere. One could also understand a less honorable, but very pragmatic, American policy of supporting its friends in the Arab world, regardless of their own attitudes towards freedom and democracy. But there is no explanation, either idealistic or pragmatic, for a policy which works against dictatorial friends of America and does not oppose, in any significant way, all dictatorial foes of America.

Harari’s full essay is available here.

And that full essay is very much worth reading.

Egypt was Israel’s most solid ally in the Middle East.  Yes, Hosni Mubarak was a thug, but he was a pro-American and pro-Israel thug. 

A UK Telegraph headline says it all:

Egypt protests: America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising

For what it’s worth, there is a far more significant reason that Barack Obama is responsible for the incredibly euphamistically-titled “Arab Spring”: it was Obama’s policies and the reckless Obama Federal Reserve that devalued the currencies of Arab oil-producing states.  The evidence is simply undeniable.

And so where is Egypt now, thanks directly to Barack Obama’s moral stupidity in destabilizing a valuable ally?  Another headline says it all:

“Arab Spring… Islamists Make Huge Gains in Egyptian Elections & Slaughter Copts”

Now, understand something specifically about the Arab uprising in Egypt in relation to Israel: even JIMMY CARTER recognized that the “Arab Spring” uprising in Egypt directly threatened Israel’s security.  Under the headline of “Former US President Jimmy Carter viewed that recent Cairo protests threaten “Israel”-Egypt peace treaty,” Jimmy Carter concludes, “I have no doubt that “Israel” has become increasingly isolated…”

Here’s Israel’s current situation under the Obama misrule:

Israeli diplomats have fled Egypt after an attack on their embassy in Cairo and were forced to leave Turkey after a diplomatic row. As Israel appears to lose its Muslim allies, many worry about possible repercussions on the peace process, Israel’s security and the U.S. role in the region.

Egypt and Turkey were allies of Israel before Obama showed up with that knife of his.

The fact of the matter is that NOBODY has done more to ISOLATE Israel from the few Arab allies it had than Barack Obama.

And let’s talk about Iran. 

Remember how Bush tried to confront Iran about its development of nuclear weapons?  Here’s what Obama and his future cabinent had to say to cut that effort down:

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.

[…]

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.

Now, as Iran races toward becoming a nuclear-armed military power, who was right?  And who was COMPLETELY FULL OF CRAP???

You can thank the Democrat Party in general, and Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular, for the upcoming nuclear Armageddon.

The Obama regime has done more than any administration in history to put Israel in mortal danger of a religious nihilistic enemy that has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map and which believes that it must bathe the world in blood in order to cause the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi) to be revealed.

And what of the Egyptian uprising that Obama was behind?  Iranian madman Ahmadinejad says the uprising was the work of the Twelfth Imam!

And so the Egyptian uprising that Obama created – along with the nuclear weapons that Obama guaranteed Iran would be able to produce – has emboldened the Iranian regime toward the following scenario:

Islam requires that in order for the 12th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Thanks for opening the doorway to hell, Barry Hussein!!!

Thanks to Obama, Israel will be put in the untenable position of either attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities – and suffering the harsh consequences of retaliation – or else haplessly sitting by while its mortal enemy develops the means to destroy whatever is left of the tiny nation of Israel that Obama allows the Jews to keep.

And according to this pathetic, demon-possessed fool Obama, this is “doing more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.”

It’s frightening enough that Obama would lie in such a stupendous manner; it’s even more terrifying to consider the fact that he might actually believe his lies.

Barack Obama is the coming Antichrist’s most useful of all idiots.  The Bible records that the coming Tribulation will officially begin when Israel signs a seven-year covenant with Antichrist.  The question is, “Why will Israel sign this treaty?”  And the answer is, “Because under Barack Obama, the United States – Israel’s last ally – abandoned Israel and gave her no choice but to sign.”

The beast is coming.  And hell is coming with him. 

And Barack Obama paved the way for him with his actions and his lies.

Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word “nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who – unlike Obama – wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

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.

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars ” is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume – irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.