You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Israel’ tag.
I’ve written on this blog for the last 5 years. I worked to elect our President in 2008 and again in 2012. Never have I posted an article advocating a position directly contrary to that of President Obama. Today is the exception. The plan to enter into an agreement with Iran is a plan to enter into an agreement with the Devil! You can’t trust the devil. He’s evil. He lies. He is only dependable in that he will cause havoc and terrorism whenever and wherever he can. Please join me in sending out this message to every person with whom you have any connection. Send it to every Senator and Congressperson you know. A Deal with Iran would be a mistake of epic proportion and here is all you need to know: Iran is an undisputed sponsor of terrorism. Iran has deliberately used terrorism or assisted terrorist organizations as foreign policy tool against other countries. For over 30 years it has habitually used terrorism against the United States and its allies throughout he world. In addition to direct attacks, Iran has committed terrorism by proxy through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban,and a plethora of other terrorist groups. As late as 2012, during Obama’s presidency, the U.S. Government noted that there was a “marked resurgence of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism.” America has labeled the Islamic Republic of Iran the “Most active state sponsor of terrorism.” In case you have forgotten, remember the :
(b) The Hostage Crisis of 1982 in Lebanon
(c)October of 1983 was the bombing in Beirut. 63 people , including 17 Americans were killed and more than 100 people were injured when a truck carrying 2000 pounds of explosives rand into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. The attack was directed by Hezbollah and financed by Iran.
(d) In October of 1983, 241 U.S. marines were killed and over 100 were wounded when an Iranian suicide bomber drove a truck carrying thousands of pounds of TNT into the U.S. Marine Barracks at Beirut Airport. It was the “largest non-nuclear explosion that had ever been detonated on the face of the Earth.” It was the “deadliest terrorist attack on Americans before 9-11.”
(soldiers being pulled out of the rubble)
(e) In December of 1983 the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was the target of another terrorist attack. Five people were killed and 86 people were injured. The attack was carried out by Hezbollah and operatives of the Iranian-financed Iraqi Shiite group Da’wa.
(f) September 1984 was the bombing of the U.S. Embassy Annex in East Beirut. Twenty-four people died. The CIA noted at the time that “an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence points to Hizballah, operating with Iranian support under the cover name of Islamic Jihad.”
(g) In June of 1985Iran-backed Hezbollah hijacked TWA Flight 847. The plane was hijacked to gain the release of Shia prisoners held in Kuwait, Israel and Spain. The plane was carrying 153 passengers. One of them was Robert Dean Stethem. He was a U. S. navy diver who was shot and his body was dumped on the tarmac. Ultimately the hostaged were freed 16 days after their abduction after Israel began the release of 766 Shia prisoners.
(h) In July of 1989 the Secretary-General of Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran and two associates were assasinated. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was connected to the assassination through weapons sales.
The terrorists attacks sponsored or financed by Iran have continued. I have opted not to bore you with the many other examples of terrorism, but their are multiple more examples, and they are each heinous.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, has published a book that discusses how to destroy Israel and outsmart the U.S. The book has just come out in the last couple of weeks. The book is titled “Palestine” and was obtained by Amir Taheri at the New York Post. Taheri, himself Iranian born, claims that he got the book from a friend in Iran, the only place that the book is currently available.
“Palestine” is 416 pages long and calls Khamenei “the flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
He says that Israel does not have a right to exist:
“He uses three words. One is “nabudi,” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha,” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval,” meaning “effacement.”
Khamenei follows the Islamic principle that lands at one point was owned by Muslims should be brought back under Islamic control. He calls Israel a “special case” and refers to it as a “cancerous tumor”:
The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”
The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”
Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
After careful analysis of the President’s proposed agreement with Iran, Senator Schumer has authored an opinion statement expressing why he is unable to support the President’s proposed agreement with Iran. His opinion is contained below. Two numbers stand out in this discussion; 24 and 150 Billion. 24 is the number of DAYS notice we must give before any inspection of any nuclear facility. To me a warning of more than three weeks of an inspection is tantamount to giving up the right of an inspection. 150 Billion dollars is the amount of funds that are currently frozen in the United States which would be returned to Iran if this deal is ratified. Imagine the weapons and bombs that could be funded with that much money.
This is his statement:
Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.
Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.
I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.
Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.
While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.
In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) — the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.
Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal — nuclear restrictions for the first ten years — that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.
Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.
If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.
In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.
To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.
Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.
When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.
Using the proponents’ overall standard — which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it — it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.
Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.
If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
PLEASE SEND THIS ANALYSIS TO EVERYONE WITH WHOM YOU ARE CONNECTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND TO YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESS MEN AND WOMEN. THIS IS A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL.
#dealwithdevil, #iran, #agreementdevil, #treatyiran, #iranterrorist, #terrorisminus, #shumarstatement, #iranstatement
Whatever Sarah Palin can say or do to condemn, ridicule, and disparage President Obama, she does. Thus it is not surprising that she has taken to Facebook to laud an article written by Caroline Glick. Palin fails to acknowledge who Glick is. Palin simply cites her single article which attacks Obama for his limited response to the piracy of Iran in forcibly commandeering a ship known as the Maersk Tigris. The ship is flagged to the Marshall Islands. Glick shares her view that commandeering the ship is an “act of war” and therefore the United States should go to war with Iran.
Here are the facts. Glick is an Israeli citizen, and has served as a foreign policy adviser to Netanyahu from 1997 to 1998. She writes for the Jerusalem Post. Her article condemning President Obama’s actions regarding the Marshal Islands freighter appeared on 4-30-15. One month before Glick published an article suggesting that Obama was at war with Israel. That article was published on 3-26-15 and was entitled “Managing Obama’s War Against Israel.” Hence Glick is clearly of the opinion that Obama can do nothing right when it comes to Israel. Clearly, Glick views Obama as her enemy and the enemy of Israel. Because Palin also views Obama as her enemy, it is not surprising that Palin has cited Glick’s article as proof that Obama is the devil. Not surprisingly, Palin doesn’t offer any suggestion of what she thinks Obama should do.
Make no mistake. I am a strong ally of Israel. I wish we could do more to be of assistance to Israel. I think President Obama should have embraced the visit of Netanyahu when he spoke to Congress recently. Yet I am hoping the United States will do all it can to avoid war with anyone, and especially another country in the Middle East. Conflict in the Middle East began thousands of years before I was born and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. I don’t pretend to have a solution, and I surely know Sarah Palin has none. What I do know is:
1. The United Nations reported that more than 51 MILLION refugees were displaced by the end of last year. Forty percent of those originated in the Middle East.
3. War in Iraq resulted in the deaths of 4493 American soldiers.
6. An estimated 6,802 American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.
Sarah Palin has never fought in a war. She doesn’t even understand the name for a particular conflict.
She doesn’t know the difference between North and South Korea, or the country/ continent of Africa. She probably thinks Shiite and Sunni are different kinds of tea from China.
It is ludicrous for Sarah Palin to pretend to know about the politics of the Middle East. How dare Sarah Palin pretend to be an authority about anything other than how to get people to give her money.
For years it has been obvious that Sarah Palin does whatever she perceives to be to her political advantage, regardless of whether she actually feels strongly about the subject of her remarks. For example she regularly claims to be particularly offended when anyone uses the term “retard”, but if it’s Rush Limbaugh or Ted Nugent using the word, she doesn’t seem to care.
Sarah has repeatedly pretended to be a friend of the Jewish people.
In 20008 she actually attended a Channukah celebration and helped light a menorah.
She visited Israel early in 2011.
She wears a Star of David.
In 2010 she posted a Star of David on her Facebook, wishing everyone a Happy Rosh Hashana.
In 2011, Palin visited Israel, attempting to convince people that, she cared about Israel, and perhaps indicating that she might be planning to run for President in 2012.
In April of 2011 she specifically wished the Jewish people “Happy Passover.”
In 2012 she wished Jews a Happy Yom Kippur.
In 2012 she also pretended to be an expert on the meaning of Hannukah. After lighting her menorah, she wished everyone a “Happy Hannukah.”
In 2013 she wished Jews around the world a Happy Yom Kippur.
Just a couple of weeks ago she congratulated Prime Minister Netanyahu on his re-election.
“Congratulations, Prime Minister Netanyahu,” said Palin on her Facebook page. She captioned a photo of her and her spouse, Todd, standing alongside the Israeli premier and his wife. That picture was posted creating the impression that she was recently in Israel. In fact that picture is several years old.
The picture, taken in 2011 at the prime minister’s official residence in Jerusalem, shows the two couples smiling for the camera, the azure stripes of an Israeli flag swirling around a pole in the background.
“ Congratulations, Prime Minister Netanyahu. Thank you to the good people of Israel for supporting a leader who will stand up and fight for all the free world while other leaders sit down. The Heartland of America will sleep better knowing Bibi remains the voice of reason and strength in the beautiful nation of Israel; for when Israel is safe, we are safe. March 17th 2015.” This post was particularly troubling as it was clear that Paln wouldn’t say a word about her preferred candidate until she knew who won.
This year Palin has not posted a word about Passover. The first night of Passover was Friday, March 3rd, and the second night was Sat. the 4th. Sarah Palin didn’t care. Not a word was posted. She didn’t attend a Seder. She probably doesn’t know what a matzah is.
I wouldn’t expect a woman who isn’t Jewish to celebrate Passover, or to even know what a matzah is. I wouldn’t expect someone who isn’t concerned about the future of Israel to know that the Prime Minister of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, described Israel as an old wound that needed to be removed. However it is apparent that Sarah Palin was disingenuous to pretend that she was ever an advocate for Israel when it was to her political advantage. When it was clear that she had nothing to gain, she was oblivious to the concerns of Israel, even though they are more compelling than ever.
Sarah Palin has said nothing about the annual Seder dinner held at the White House.
Perhaps Sarah is jealous that President Obama seems to have more Jewish friends than Sarah has any type of friends?
Sarah Palin sent a message of congratulations to Netanyahu through Facebook. Does she think the leader of Israel sits at his desk and reads her Facebook postings? Does she think that the newly re-elected leader of Israel has nothing else to do except sit around waiting for a social media message from the quitter from Alaska? Sarah Palin hasn’t held elected office since 2009. It’s been almost 6 years since she was an acting politician. She didn’t see his address before Congress, because she isn’t in Congress. If her message had been signed by the mother of the fiancee of Dakota Meyer, Netanyahu might have recognized who she was. He probably missed her show where she appeared as a hitchhiker, Amazing America. He probably didn’t even see the first season of Amazing America.
The good thing is that Netanyahu probably didn’t have time to see these news stories either.
The one he should have seen was this one:
“grassroots” just sent out the following e-mail:
News just broke that President Obama has launched a clandestine political attack on Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an effort to defeat Netanyahu in Israel’s upcoming elections.
Reports indicate Obama has dispatched Jeremy Bird — National Field Director for the Obama presidential campaign — along with other key U.S. election operatives to Israel to spearhead the “anyone but Bibi” campaign.
It gets worse.
It now appears that Bird and his team are working through an organization called “OneVoice” — an international group pushing the “two state” solution in Israel. And here’s the kicker…
OneVoice receives direct funding from the United States government and touts the U.S State Department as one if its “partners” on its website!
That means Obama is using U.S taxpayer dollars as well as his key operatives to interfere in the elections of Israel — a sovereign nation that happens to be one of our strongest allies in the entire world.
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver — one of the nation’s leading constitutional attorneys — calls this “a profound overreach by our President and a truly contemptible act.” Mat is mobilizing resources at Liberty Counsel to expose the President’s despicable actions against Israel’s sitting Prime Minister.
Right now, Liberty Counsel is rallying citizens to stand with Israel against these and other attacks by signing a “Proclamation Of Blessing For Israel.” We wanted to make this opportunity available to our team. If you want to make a strong statement against Obama’s blatant political attack against Prime Minister Netanyahu and ongoing efforts to undermine Israel, go here to sign Liberty Counsel’s proclamation:
I will attempt too verify if this is accurate.
Update: Here is one of the articles which discusses the allegations. It is unclear what the White House’s response will be.