Iran’s Liars Bested Our Liars

[Flanders]

The best Hollywood screen writers cannot make this stuff up.

A pathological liar in the White House, and a lying traitor, gave Iran a nuclear weapon. Within hours of the “interim deal” the lies began gushing forth. For some unknown reason the Iranian deal was cited as another winner like the one in Syria. That’s the one where Putin was laughing so hard he had to take medication to keep him from hurting himself.

One does not have to be a diplomat to know that our liars were suckered by Iran’s liars. The joke is that Iran’s liars gave Barack Taqiyya a dose of taqiyya.

I’ve only read a few articles about the deal, and I recorded FOX News Sunday. There is no doubt that Iran gained legitimacy, while the United Nations gained legitimacy and increased authority over the American people. Empowering the UN has been the primary goal all along. Not telling the American people is the big lie hiding behind the “deal.”

The pathological liar and the two-faced traitor make no secret of their love for the UNIC (United Nations/International Community). John Kerry all but bragged about his first loyalty when he was running for president.

Since the liars empowered the United Nations here’s what I’d like to know. Does the Iranian Nuclear Deal take the Security Council veto away from China and Russia? It’s not that our liars intend to do anything about it when Iran’s liars plow ahead with their enrichment program, but it would be nice to know that our liars at least made a provision protecting this country from Security Council vetoes.

First loyalty?

The current US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, is supposed to protect America’s interests in the United Nations shark tank. I would not count on it. Based on things she said in the past she obviously thinks she is there to protect the UN’s interests. She would not have succeeded Suzy Five Shows if the US was her first loyalty.

Here is John Bolton for anyone looking for an analysis by a loyal former US Ambassador to the United Nations:

After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result. So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

These next excerpts touch on Israel-haters:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree? The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?

Most importantly, the deal leaves the basic strategic realities unchanged. Iran’s nuclear program was, from its inception, a weapons program, and it remains one today.

XXXXX​

Tehran will go to extraordinary lengths to conceal its activities, working for example in new or unknown facilities and with North Korea, or shaving its compliance around the edges. The more time that passes, the harder it will be for Israel to deliver a blow that substantially retards the Iranian program.

Abject Surrender by the United States
What does Israel do now?
8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013 • By JOHN BOLTON

Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard​

America’s Israel-haters are dancing in the streets today; so let me remind them of something I’ve been saying for more than a decade. American Jew-haters lose no matter which way a war might go. Israel grows stronger if it wins the war.

Should Muslims overrun Israel millions of refugees will come to the US thanks to our open-borders. That’s assuming Muslims do not slaughter every Jew as they’ve promised they will do. A slaughter of that magnitude is not as far-fetched as you might think. In the last century governments began slaughtering in the tens of millions; so six or so million Jews would barely register in Communism’s Culture of Death record book. In addition to the “insignificant” number involved, American Jew-haters have been advocating a real life replay of this scene with Israeli Jews instead of Turks:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aARaYjgm_rA&feature=player_detailpage]Lawrence of Arabia (8/8) Movie CLIP - No Prisoners (1962) HD - YouTube[/ame]​

Here’s something else to consider. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, preventing nuclear war was a major selling point for establishing the United Nations. In truth, it was a global government scare tactic, but that’s another topic. My point here: The Iranian Nuclear Deal supervised by the United Nations clearly moves the Middle East, and the world, closer to a nuclear war. How do I know? That’s easy. Iran is not going to stop its march to nuclear weapons for any reason. The danger is that Iran does not simply want to join the nuclear club to acquire negotiating strength. I believe that Iran is the first country since WWII ended that is developing nuclear capabilities to use on a specific target —— Israel.

Let me close with another reminder. Every diplomat sitting on the opposite side of the table from John Kerry knew they were negotiating against a man who had betrayed his own country in the past. They negotiated from that perspective fully expecting him to do it again. They were not disappointed.

 

[Flanders]

Iran is not going to stop its march to nuclear weapons for any reason. The danger is that Iran does not simply want to join the nuclear club to acquire negotiating strength. I believe that Iran is the first country since WWII ended that is developing nuclear capabilities to use on a specific target —— Israel.

I rest my case on the following:

During the Cold War, the Russians and the Americans operated under a political and military doctrine known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. It assumed that no matter how bad things got between the Soviet Union and the United States -- the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is a case in point -- neither side would risk annihilation.

The leaders of Iran do not think that way. They reason as follows: We have 70 million people, and Israel has 7 million. If we attack the Zionists with nuclear bombs, they will respond in kind. If they are lucky, they will kill half of us, but if Allah wills it, we shall kill all of them, and there will still be 35 million of us left.

In addition to the above excerpt Edward Bernard Glick’s great piece reaffirms my long-held view that war is not the Great Satan. That title goes to totalitarian government; so it follows that global government, i.e., abolishing sovereign nations is the greatest evil of all.

Notice that the New World Order crowd and the Socialists/Communists are after the same result —— totalitarian government:

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895)

Here’s the link:

November 25, 2013
War, Peace, and a Nuclear Iran
By Edward Bernard Glick

Articles: War, Peace, and a Nuclear Iran

 

[Flanders]

John Kerry better get his Munich Moments sorted out. I completely forgot that he referred to his Syria fiasco as “. . . our Munich moment.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOmvfvwo8AU&feature=player_embedded]BBC News - Syria: 'This is our Munich moment', says John Kerry - YouTube[/ame]​

As conservative Rod Dreher asked at the time,

If American cruise missiles don't fly into Damascus, will Assad annex the Mideast equivalent of the Sudentenland? I am aware that he is a nasty piece of work, but I am not aware that he is an expansionist whose desires for Syrian lebensraum threatens America's vital interests​

The Boys Who Cried "Munich"
Matt Welch|Nov. 26, 2013 8:06 am

The Boys Who Cried "Munich" - Hit & Run : Reason.com​

After the threat of the CIVIL WAR in Syria faded away Kerry forged ahead to a Munich Moment where America is really threatened:

Krauthammer on Iran Nuclear Agreement: 'It's The Worst Deal Since Munich'
By Noel Sheppard Novenber 25, 2013

Krauthammer on Iran Nuclear Agreement: 'It's The Worst Deal Since Munich' | NewsBusters

 

[Flanders]

He’s lied about everything else so why not this:

Throughout his time in office, President Obama has opened many outside-the-Beltway speeches with a suggestion that he, too, feels like an outsider in the nation’s baffling, frustrating capital city. He shouts to the audience about how good it is to be wherever he is that day — Cleveland, Miami, San Francisco. Then he takes pokes at the town where great success in his chosen profession has brought him.

“It is good to be out of Washington,” he often says — a line that, in good times and in bad, always generates warm, sympathetic applause.

Changing Washington may not have come off as Obama promised. But for the president and his supporters, the city has been an object of contempt they can believe in.

Now, though, Obama has raised the possibility that he might remain a resident of the capital after his lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. expires in January 2017.

Obama may be a rare ex-president who stays in Washington
By Scott Wilson, Published: November 29

Obama may be a rare ex-president who stays in Washington - The Washington Post​

I don’t know where Taqiyya the Liar plans on living, but this joke that is going around the Internet pretty much sums up what most Americans think about his White House tenancy:

One sunny day in January, 2017, an old man approaches the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where he’d been sitting on a park bench. He speaks to the U.S. Marine standing guard and says, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama. ”The Marine looks at the man and says, “Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here. ”The old man says, “Okay,” and walks away.

The following day the same man approaches the White House and says to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama. ”The Marine again tells the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here. ”The man thanks him and again just walks away.

The third day the same man approaches the White House and speaks to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looks at the man and says, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I’ve told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”

The old man looks at the Marine and says,“Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.” The Marine snaps to attention, salutes, and says, “See you tomorrow, Sir!”​