One State, Two State, Islamic State, Jew State

One State, Two State, Muslim State, Jew State

Getting up very early in the morning means early nights.  I fell asleep on the couch at about y7 p.m. (!) only to wake up around 9 p.m., or was it 10, to the sound of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly ripping into Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his campaign promise of never succumbing, as Israel’s prime minister, to a one-state solution.  Was he going back on his campaign promise (just the way Obama has)?

Either Ms. Kelly hasn’t done her Muslim homework or we’re so desperate for a Conservative leader ourselves that we’ll drag one across the ocean to demand that he stick to the Conservative principals he espoused while campaigning for office.

Poor Bibi.  Conservatives were so relieved to hear a genuine conservative politician speaking that they didn’t hear what he really said.  He said he’d never agree to a one-state solution because it isn’t possible. That’s what they have right now (one state, Israel) and even though Arabs – which is to say, mainly Muslims – are in the minority, they don’t like it.  Among other things, they can’t impose Sharia law in Israel.

The non-Muslim Arabs who tend to be poor have thrown in their lot with the Muslim Arabs.  The communist Muslims have done a good job in spreading their propaganda about the class divide in Israel:  “rich” Jews and “poor” Arabs.  Works every time.

Still, while Obama’s operatives, One Voice, may very well have bused Arabs in to vote for Herzog, Netanyahu’s opponent, they must have done so knowing that the genuine Arabs – even they – voted for Netanyahu.  Even poor non-Muslim Arabs know their lives are better in the democratic state of Israel with the Jews than under an Islamic caliphate.

A one-state solution, Israel, is not working thanks, in no small part, to Obama’s interference.  The only other kind of “one-state” solution that the agitators must mean is a Palestinian state.  No Israel at all.

Therefore, the only “solution” would be the creation of two states.  Actually, Israel already exists, therefore the second state would be Palestine.  Israel never should have yielded the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, which is now teetering between democracy and theocracy.  At least one side of the Suez Canal should be ruled by a democratic government.

The Palestinians aren’t a nation – they’re a tribe dating back to Old Testament times whom the Jews bested in battle.  Sorry, but that’s the way they did things back then, and for a long time after.

That’s what we were told about the former Republic of Yugoslavia.  Originally it was supposed to be a state for all Slavic peoples, the way Israel is supposed to be a state for all displaced Jews.  Bosnia was conquered by some Muslim warrior in the 13^th Century and subsumed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire.  The Muslims won the day.  That was supposed to be it.  No going back.  The Muslims won.  Game over.

However, the Slavs did fight back and then-Pres. Clinton backed the Muslims, claiming that the Slavs had no right anymore to the territory since it was conquered way back in the 13^th Century.  All those states:  Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia now all bear the prefix “Socialist Republic of”.

What is good for the Muslim goose is not good for the Kafiric gander, though.  The Jews don’t have the same claim to victory because they are not Muslims.  Never mind that even Christianity didn’t exist at that time, much less Islam.  Muslims live there now and so, according to Obama, Palestine must have its own (Islamic) government.  And Israel must not.

Obama is a Pre-Columbian Anti-Colonialist.  The Pre-Columbians believe that all conquered territories, except those conquered by Muslims, must be returned to their native inhabitants.  America should be returned to the Native Americans.

No, wait.  All but one tribe, the Algonquins, migrated here from Asia.  So the Native Americans must march themselves back across the Bering Strait (by that time, the Climatists Climate Change Theory will have reestablished the land bridge across the ocean) and return to wherever their ancestors began their trek to escape from starvation and strife.

We European-Americans must do the same.  We’d have to clone ourselves first since our ancestors typically came from diverse countries, unlike the Hispanics who came from Africa by way of Spain.  My brothers and I would have to go back to Ireland and Germany, and from there to Rome, although our German genes would be very comfortable in Germany since the tribes were indigenous to the area since the 4^th Century B.C.  Attila the Hun was born in the province of Pannonia, which was conquered by the Romans in 35 B.C.  Attila was born towards the end of the Roman Empire, in 406 A.D.

The place of origin will get mighty crowded in a hurry, which is why peoples migrate, to alleviate overpopulation.  Overpopulation leads to a strain on resources and land, and eventually, war.  The conquered who survive move on.  According to Obama, though, that means some other natives of some other place must kill or be killed.  Since the natives were there first, it’s only fair that the conquered conquerors return to their place of origin and kill or be killed there.

So much for hope and change.  This was Marx’ view, that immigration leads to war, therefore, it must be discouraged.  Obama obviously doesn’t share that view.  By all means, allow the immigrants into the United States.  If it isn’t conquered, how else is “social justice” to be achieved?  America is where the money is.

Israel is where the Jews are.  That’s where they came from, and because they were better educated and more socialized, they thrived and yes, conquered.  Or prevailed.  They didn’t believe in human sacrifices, for starters.  Their Ten Commandments said that everything didn’t go; that there was one God who had a set of rules that He insisted be followed, or else.

Then along came Christianity.  Christians said the problem with the Jews was that they began to deviate from the original rules and began writing them down in a book called “The Talmud”, much as Muslims would later include a companion book to the Quran, called “The Hadith”, the commandments of Mohammed, the prophet of Allah.

Later Christians decided, against the obvious commandments of Jesus, that it was open season on the Jews.  Not until after the German Holocaust during World War II, did Christians realize that this probably was not the thing Jesus would want them to do, murder Jews by the thousands and millions.  His last words were a prayer to God, the Father:  “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Different sects of Christianity would argue about the meaning of those words.  But that sounds pretty much like “forgive the Jews” to me.  Even if they don’t want to be forgiven.  Even if they still don’t accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.  Forget about it.  We accept Jesus Christ and that was His commandment to us, His followers:  Forgive them, anyway.  Let the past go.  God’ll take care of it.  Leave it to Him.  Embrace the Jews as your brothers and sisters.  Jesus might even tell us to embrace the Muslims.  That would take some considerable thought.  Our ancestors tried to kill the Jews, not the other way around.  They’ve only ever defended themselves.

The Muslims.  That’s another story.  They expect us to deny Jesus Christ was the Son of God and accuse of straying from His commandments.  That’s none of Mohammed’s business.  His answer was to punish the Kafirs by cutting their throats and other heinous acts of butchery and slavery.  The Koran may or may not say it, but the Hadith sure does.  Some peaceful religion.

So, that is the choice Benjamin Netanyahu and the people of Israel face:  taxation, enslavement, and ultimately, extinction.  Or submission to “Allah” and the followers of his prophet, Mohammed.  That’s some choice.

Mohammed was a cunning student of Judaism and Christianity, and especially of the Book of Revelations and what it says God will do to the Jews for denying, and eventually abetting in the crucifixion of, His Son, and to Christians who have lapsed in their Christianity.  The Muslims yearn to be the deliverers of His vengeance and are eager to bring about The End Times, after which the world will be ruled in “peace.”

The Communists are eager for this same, unified world, minus the religion.  In the late 1950s, they adopted the peace sign from the Greenpeace movement, who claim they designed it through some weird transmogrification of naval signal flags.  The progress of the design concept  takes an awful lot of imagination.  There is an easier explanation for the thing:  any astrologer (and the Muslims, particularly the former Persians now known as Iranians, were particularly adept at the study) would recognize as the progeny of the astronomical symbol for the earth, with the horizontal, latitude line broken in half and bowed down.

There’s your “submission”.  The word “Islam” means both “submission” and “peace” or “submission through peace.”

Or, “peace through submission.”

I’m horrified every time I see some little girl cheerfully wearing this thing.  I insisted my brother remove it from his ex-wife’s car (which he was driving while she was living abroad).  I was sickened, but not surprised, to see that Lady Gaga had the peace sign tattooed on her arm.

“Peace through submission.”  That’s the deal Obama wants from Benjamin Netanyahu on behalf of Israel.  Netanyahu’s reply is, ‘No way.  Not a chance.  Get lost.’  Let us hope that he doesn’t change his mind.  He gives the impression of being extremely intelligent, gracious, well-mannered, canny, and strong.  The media reports this morning tell a story of Obama finally calling the Prime Minister to congratulate him, but with an “icy” caution.  Yet another blow to America’s reputation as a decent, freedom-loving, diplomatic nation.  We have a fool (of sorts) in the White House who dares to mock a true leader.

Don’t bow down to him, Bibi.  Don’t do what generations of Jews, and others, did before you and try to make a deal with these people.  Don’t surrender to the catcalls of Obama’s cheerleaders that in defying Obama’s injunction to recognize an Islamic state of Palestine you are somehow a “racist.”   You know that is a risible accusation.

Thank you, Mr. Netanyahu, for being so diplomatic in suffering Obama’s vicious diatribes, his insults, and his threats to break off relations with Israel.  We have to put up with him.

You don’t.

O Declares Jihad Against Bibi

Unable to come to terms with the fact that his plot to foil Benjamin Netanyahu’s election as the Conservative Prime Minister of Israel failed, Obama is turning to the United Nations and its Security Council for support.   He and John Kerry are calling for the U.S. to support a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of talks to conclude a final peace settlement to create a Palestinian state.

According to Foreign Policy.com, after winning Tuesday’s election, Netanyahu publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiating a Palestinian state, despite over 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts, and promised to continue the construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Obama is said to be beside himself with fury that Netanyahu first spoke to Congress without first consulting with the emperor-in-chief.  Netanyahu received thunderous applause from Congress for a very straightforward speech about the dangers an nuked-up Iran poses not just to Israel, but to the world.  In his speech, Netanyahu promised to oppose Iran, alone, if necessary.

The Democrats clucked at Netanyahu’s lack of manners in not consulting with the President first before he accepted the invitation to speak to Congress.  The mainstream press basically branded Netanyahu a war-mongering hater and dismissed his speech as inane.  Meanwhile, Obama’s operatives, through the organization One Voice, were campaigning for Netanyahu’s opponent, Herzog, spending millions of our tax dollars to unseat Netanyahu.  Thought America wasn’t supposed to be in the business of nation-building, that it makes us imperialistic colonialists?

Then, Netanyahu had the nerve to go and win a decisive victory in Israel’s election, an election the prime minister himself called for, in order to gain support. In defiance of every ethical consideration, Obama’s minions worked hard to bring in the votes for Herzog, even busing voters in to their polling places, all to no avail.

Early reports from Obama’s cheerleaders indicated that Netanyahu was far from winning the election that night.  They claimed it was a tight race.  But it was no such thing.  Netanyahu’s Likud Party won even more seats than it had before the elections.  Obama ground his teeth.  Drat that Bibi.  Despite public calls to remember his own manners, our commander-in-thief would not call Netanyahu to congratulate him.  That doesn’t sound very American.  In our own elections, it’s customary for the loser to call the winner to concede the defeat and congratulate the winner.

Ah!  A light begins to dawn.  Obama couldn’t bring himself to concede defeat to Netanyahu.  Instead, he sent John Kerry to whine to the United Nations for him and do an end-run around Netanyahu.  Accept a Palestinian state or be evicted from the United Nations.

The Truthers must be having a field day.  Not only do they believe that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, they believe he’s a Secret Muslim.  There’s no proof that he was ever christened or baptized into Christianity, so far as anyone knows.

He’s certainly acting like a disgraced Muslim potentate who has lost a battle.  Israel was supposed to surrender to the Palestinian state – and depend upon it, if there’s a Palestine, there will no longer be an Israel – and remain in the Middle East only upon the usual Islamic terms of dhimmitude – half the profits of their country, no public worshipping of their religion, a high jizra (a tax on non-Muslims), and no voting rights in the country’s elections.

Not exactly the way Israel treats the Muslims.

What else should all this be to Obama?  The Israeli people have spoken in their election.  It’s their country, not his.  What’s the big deal?  Why the hissy fit?  Why the determination to push a Palestinian state, knowing perfectly well that it will mean the political obliteration of Israel?  Why the public mockery of an educated, sophisticated and canny leader while Obama begs for a renewed relationship with representatives of a backwards country that abuses women who frequently shout at our Secretary of State?  Why is he negotiating with dictatorship that behaves as though it holds all the cards and refuses to negotiate unless the United States agrees to the first item on its wish list – the continuation of a nuclear arms build-up, whose weapons have only one purpose – to destroy Israel?

Is Obama some kind of nut?  The American people sit every evening before their televisions, their mouths agape at Obama’s petty, petulant, patricidal behavior.  Why, anyone would think he was a Muslim himself, and a Communist Muslim, at that.  What else are we to make of his policies, attitude, and behavior?  He’s arrogant, juvenile, and imperious, pugnaciously engaging in vicious retribution when he doesn’t get his way.  This is the leader of the free world?

His most recent outrageous suggestion is to make voting mandatory.  Again, that is something dictators do.  Proponents of mandatory voting fail to make clear the problems with mandatory voting.  A mandate would force all voters to choose even if no one on the ballot was suitable for office.  They know that the silent, non-vote sends a message to a party (like the GOP) that doesn’t heed a major portion of its base.  A mandatory vote, guaranteeing 100 percent turnout, also forces a “mandate” to be declared for the victory.  Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote in his last election.  That is something that could not have happened in a free America.

We are being hurled – not simply led, but thrust – down the path toward tyranny and subjugation by someone who clearly does not have the United States of America’s best interests at hearts.  Nor will our Congress do its duty, as ordained by the Constitution, and invoke the separation of powers to rein in this dictator before he turns the United States into a subordinate of the United Nations and an Islamic Caliphate.

My prediction still stands – that by 2016, we will no longer be a sovereign nation, as we are now.  We may hold an election in that year for president.  But that president will preside over a very different nation, one that will be obeying the orders from a triumvirate of political bureaucracy (the U.N.), economic communism, and cultural theocracy.

Enjoy what freedom you have left while you can.

Bibi Defeats the Dhimmis

https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/

The book I’m currently reading is a nightmare.  I picked it up after finishing Curt Weldon’s 2003 “Countdown to Terror.”  This current book, I believe was referenced in “Countdown to Terror.”

When we think of Islam, we think of the Koran.  But the Koran is only one part of a trilogy, according to author Bill Warner, who has transcribed two of the other volumes for Western digestion:  “The Hadith: The Sunna of Mohammed” and “The Sira” which is the biography of Mohammed.  The book was published in 2010 by the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Warner doesn’t transcribe the entire Hadith, but only the parts which refer to Kafirs, “an evil, disgusting [creature], the lowest form of life.  Kafirs can be tortured, killed, lied to and cheated.  So the usual word “unbeliever” does not reflect the political reality of Islam.

“The Koran,” Warner tells us, “says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse.   The word is usually translated as ‘unbeliever;’ but this translation is wrong.  The word ‘unbeliever’ is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

“There are many religious names for Kafirs:  polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans.  ‘Kafir’ covers them all because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same.  What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of kafir.”

According to Warner, a collection of hadiths is called a “Hadith” – capital H.  “There are many collections of Hadiths, but the most authoritative are those by Bukhari and Abu Muslim” the ones used in Warner’s book.  Evidently, Muslim’s book must have been quite influential since Islamists are common called “Muslims” rather like the Lutherans naming their religion after Martin Luther, even though they practice a Protestant form of Christianity.

The Koran are the words of Allah to his prophet Mohammed, the Hadith are the words of Mohammed to his followers, and the Sira is a biography of Mohammed.

“Most people” writes Warner, “think that the Koran is the ‘bible’ of Islam, but it is only about 14 percent of the total textual doctrine.  The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.”

He also notes, “Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir.  The majority (64 percent) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81 percent) deals with Mohammed’s struggles with them.  The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32 percent of the text to Kafirs.  Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60 percent of it content to the Kafir.

“Muslims tell Christians and Jews that they are special,” he continues. “They are ‘People of the Book’ and are brothers in the Abrahamic faith.  But in Islam you are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was [neither] crucified nor resurrected and that He will return to establish Sharia law.  To be a true Jew, you must believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

Warner tell us there are three schools of thought in Islam.  “If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer.  If you don’t, you are a Kafir.”  The third school of thought holds that a kafir who is an apologist for Islam, who doesn’t believe in Mohammed but doesn’t want to pick a fight, either, is a dhimmi.

“Dhimmis do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they never say anything that would displease a Muslim.  Dhimmis never offend Islam and condemn any analysis that is critical of Islam as being biased.”

Islamists believe that through jihad, if they are not killed in battle and rewarded by Allah, then they are entitled to half the land of the people they have conquered.  They then tax the subjugated people, making themselves incredibly wealthy, until the dhimmis are murdered, imprisoned, or run off.

“’Jihad’ is a unique word.  Its actually meaning is struggle or effort.  Islam[ists] talks of two kinds – the lesser and greater jihad.  The greater jihad is spiritual effort or internal struggle, to stop smoking or control one’s greed.   However, the term ‘lesser jihad’ never occurs in any authoritative hadith.”  About two percent of the hadiths  in Bukhari’s collection  holds up other things as equal to jihad.

“The other 98 percent of the jihad hadiths refer to armed violence.  It was violence that gave Islam its success and that is why nearly every hadith calls jihad the best action a Muslim can perform.

There are two phrases known to every Muslim, Warner tells us:

Dar al Islam – “Land of submission”

Dar al Harb – “Land of war”

“The land of war – [dar al harb] – is the country that is free of Islam, free of Allah.  The land of the Kafir must become the land of those who have submitted and are the slaves of Allah [the name “Abdullah” means “the slave of Allah”].  The Trilogy repeatedly stresses that Islam should be in a state of constant pressure against Kafirs; therefore, the relation between Islam and the rest of the world is sacred war or temporary peace.  This struggle is eternal, universal, and obligatory for all Muslims.  The only pause in jihad comes through the need for Islam to strengthen itself.  Peace is temporary. War is permanent…. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.”

“The Hadith summarizes all the key elements of jihad.  (Only the fourth item, the Day of Resurrection, is purely religious in nature.)  It tells us that the whole world must submit to Islam; Kafirs are the enemy simply by not being Muslims.  To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence.  It may use psychological warfare, fear, theft.  It may take the spoils of war from Kafirs.  Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran.”

Warner devotes all of Chapter 6 in his book to the Dhimmis.  He begins by telling a story about Mohammed.

“Mohammed took his army a hundred miles [north] from Mediana to Khaybar and attacked the Jews.  Islam was totally victorious.  After taking the property of the Jews as the spoils of war, the Muslims made an agreement called a “dhimmi” with the Jews in Arabia.  The Jews could stay and farm the land if they gave Islam half their profits.  They then became Dhimmis who were under the “protection” [the editor’s quotes] of Islam.

“Thus the word ‘dhimmi’ came to mean permanent, second-class Kafir citizens in a country ruled by Islam.  Dhimmis paid a special tax, and their civil and legal rights were greatly limited.  The only way out of being a dhimmi was to convert to Islam or flee.  The taxes from the dhimmis made Islam rich.

“There are very few hadiths about dhimmis, but it was another of Mohammed’s unique political inventions.   The scorched-earth policy of killing all Kafirs was satisfying to the warrior, but it had an inherent problem:  once everyone was killed, the warrior had to find other work.  Mohammed therefore created the policy of the dhimmi to deal with the Jews.  Dhimmi status was later to include Christians, Magians, and others.”

Warner then goes politically incorrect on the reader.  “It can be argued that the glory of Islam came not from Islam but its dhimmis’ wealth and knowledge.  The dhimmis were the scholars, since the Arabs of Mohammed’s day were barely literate and their classical literature was oral poetry.  The secular knowledge of Islam came from the Christians, Persians, Jews, and Hindus.

“Islam is credited with saving the knowledge of the Greeks from extinction,” Warner writes.  “This is ironic in two ways.  First, it was the jihad against the Byzantine/Greek culture that caused its collapse.  Secondly, it was the  Syrian Christian dhimmis who translated all of the Greek philosophers into Arabic.

“The Hindu numbering system was credited to Islam.  The Muslims took the zero from Hindu mathematicians, and today we call our numbers Arabic numerals.  From carpets to architecture, the Muslims took the ideas of the dhimmis and obtained [plagiarized] the historical credit.  The lists of great Islamic scholars includes the dhimmis with Arabic names living under Islamic dominance.

“Over time, as the dhimmi population decreased, the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam disappeared.”

Warner appears to do a good deal of editorializing.  But he backs up his assertions with valid quotes from the Trilogy, such as B4,53,380:

“Umar drove all the Kafirs from Arabia.  After Mohammed conquered Khaybur, he considered expelling the Jews from the Land of Allah, Mohammed, and the Muslims.  However, the Jews asked Mohammed if they could stay in exchange for their servitude and half of each harvest.  Mohammed said, ‘You may stay on these terms as long as it pleases us.’  The Jews remained until Caliph Umar drove them from Arabia.”

Warner tells us in the next paragraph, “After jihad comes dhimmitude:  Jihad cracks open the culture; dhimmitude replaces it with Islam.  Afghanistan was a Buddhist nation until conquered by Islam; Pakistan was Hindu; Egypt was the culture of the Pharaohs even though it had become Christian; and North Africa was [Coptic] Christian.”

“The actual attitude of Islam toward the dhimmis was more contempt than hatred, and over time the dhimmis disappeared.  They either left or converted.  It was too hard to be a second-class citizen, and the extra taxes were a burden.  As time went on, both Christians and Jews became more Arabic in their outlook; they started to treat women as the Arabs did and their customs became more and more Islamic.  Finally, it was easier to accept Islam as their religion and stop all the pressure and contempt.”

So here we are, now, in the present day.  Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Conservative Likud Party in Israel, has won re-election.  His goal was for Likud to gain more seats in the Israeli Knesset so that he’ll have more support in financing the country’s defenses, particularly against Israel.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department, under the auspices of Obama, funded Netanyahu’s main opposition.  If this action by Obama isn’t, in fact, unconstitutional (Constitutional scholars:  was it illegal for the president to do this), it isn’t unprecedented:  John F. Kennedy supported the democratic candidate in South Vietnam’s election, only to see his candidate assassinated.  George Washington, our Founding Father and first president frowned upon it.  Progressive Liberals complained vociferously about our engagement in Iraq, accusing President George W. of “nation-building.”

What are we to make of Obama, and particularly his foreign policy?  Mainstream reporters denounced the election of the “Conservative” Netanyahu while potential 2016 Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry goes about negotiating with Iran to allow them to make all the nuclear weapons they want with which to destroy Israel.

Is the United States of America already a dhimmitude nation, paying obeisance to Iran, refusing to support a democratic revolution in Iran, while fiddling with Israel’s elections?  Does Obama, and Bush before him, expect Israel to submit to dhimmitude by creating a dual nation state?  Who does he think he’s kidding?

Certainly not Netanyahu.  He’s no dhimmi.  He’s not afraid to criticize an Islamic nation, especially one as tyrannical as Iran.  Forty-seven Senators, some of them Democrats, were not afraid to criticize Iran and tell Iran’s president that any deal negotiated by the current administration would be invalidated before the White House door slammed Obama in the backside.

Obama had the cheek to take the Senators to task, as though they were errant schoolboys (and girls), claiming that they were out of line in sending a letter that upset his foreign policy.  However, they did have Constitutional authority to write to Iran and inform that nation of the consequences of any favorable negotiation.  Foreign policy, while it is the president’s bailiwick, can only be conducted via the advice and consent of the Senate.

Obama helped arm the Syrians.  His attorney general ran illegal arms to drug dealers in Mexico.  He’s frequently insulted Israel’s prime minister and interfered with that country’s elections.  He’s granted countless executive amnesties that are unconstitutional.  He’s exacerbated civil unrest in Ferguson, Mo.  He vetoed the Keystone Pipeline.  He authorized the execution of Common Core.  He stood by while Americans were executed in Islamoland.  He did nothing about the attack on the consulate annex in Benghazi or the murder of our ambassador to Libya.

Of course, there’s the economy- and savings-gutting Obamacare, which costs too much money and does very little to improve the health of Americans, and nothing to help them pay the costs.  He recently signed onto Internet regulations that will give the bureaucratic FCC far too much political control over Internet communications.  He’s decimated our navy, fired numerous generals, and reduced our own nuclear arms to below parity with Russia and China.  He was caught off-mic sending a message to Vladimir Putin.  He’s surrounded himself with Muslim staffers, including Iranian-born American Valerie Jarrett, the daughter of Socialist-Communists and David Axelrod.

This latest scolding of U.S. Senators doing their legal duty in protecting Americans should be the last straw in Obama’s hypocrisy.  Just when, exactly, are Americans going to wake up and understand how little time they have left to enjoy freedom?  Maybe it’s because most Americans today grew up within the concrete walls of bureaucracy, obeying laws they had no voice in establishing and can do nothing about politically.

For instance, the government can’t take away your right to own a gun.  But it can create, through bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that make it impossible to use that gun, even when your life is threatened.  You can ride a bicycle.  But you have to strap on a helmet, which might save your life if you’re a reckless cyclist (and some kids are).  But it also robs you of the joy of feeling the wind in your hair as you cycle along.  As we become more and more urbanized, there are fewer and fewer safe roads on which cyclists can cycle, which gives the bureaucracy the excuse to put more regulations on automobile drivers.

The time has come to prepare for a regulated, terrifying future without art, music, dancing, drinking, driving, going to the movies, the bank, or the mall.  If the Politically-Correct Police don’t get you, either the criminals or the Muslim Morals Patrol will.

Congratulations to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his victory.  The Dhimmi Dummies in the Liberal Progressive Media are probably right; the price will be heavy and likely bloody.  To submit to the Islamists is unthinkable, at least to those who love freedom.

But the Islamists simply won’t have it any other way.

Netanyahu Appeals to Freedom-Loving Americans

Ten years ago, Congressman Curt Weldon wrote a book, “Countdown to Terror,”  enumerating the many dangers a nuclear Iran posed to the free world.  Weldon, a Republican, represented Pennsylvania’s 7^th District in the House of Representatives for nearly 20 years.  He was no fly-by-night pretty boy Congressman.  He was a senior member of Congress during a Republican administration.

Weldon was vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.  He was also the co-chair of the Duma-Congress Study Group, the official inter-parliamentary relationship between the United States and Russia.

Inspired by the events of 9/11, when it appeared the CIA was not going to divulge information to the public that would make it politically viable for Congress and the President to impose viable sanctions against Iran, Weston set about doing his own research with an Iranian insider he called “Ali.”

“Ali” was identified in April 2005 as Fereidoun Mahdavi, a frail, elderly former minister of commerce in the government of the Shah of Iran.   Mahdavi has said that the bulk of the information that he provided to Weldon originally came from Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar.

The CIA and former intelligence officers vehemently dispute Weldon’s charges.  Bill Murray, the former CIA station chief in Paris, said that, after interviewing Mahdavi on several occasions and investigating his claims, the CIA determined he was lying. The CIA says that Mahdavi never gave them anything specific about Iran’s weapons capability or terrorist activities. As for Ghorbanifar, he is the subject of a rare CIA “burn notice” after the agency found him to be a “fabricator” during the Iran-Contra affair.  These reports were alleged by the Washington Post and the progressive bi-monthly, The American Prospect.

“This book is an act of desperation,” he wrote in the first sentence of the first chapter.

Weldon was defeated in November 2006 for reelection by Joe Sestak, who was able to outspend Weston in campaign money.

In 2006 Weldon faced investigation by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section for suspected unlawful ties to two Russian companies and two Serbian citizens, when in a filing with the Federal Election Commission Weldon’s campaign committee reported that it transferred $70,000 to the “Weldon Legal Expense Trust.”  When reports surfaced of this in September 2006, Russ Caso, Weldon’s chief of staff, said that the congressman and his staff were unaware of any investigation.

The FBI and Justice Department’s investigations were triggered by a 2004 article in the Los Angeles Times reporting on Weldon and his daughter’s links to the Russians and Serbians.  On October 16, 2006, FBI agents raided the home of Weldon’s daughter as well as five other locations of Weldon associates in Pennsylvania and Florida as part of the investigation.  According to an article in the October 17, 2006, edition of The New York Times, “investigators are trying to determine whether Mr. Weldon misused his official position to help his daughter’s company obtain lobbying contracts from foreign clients and helped steer contracts to favored firms.”  On October 16, 2006 Weldon acknowledged he was under investigation.   Before Weldon’s public confirmation, an unnamed federal law enforcement official mentioned in press accounts said that Weldon had not yet been told about the inquiry.

A grand jury was impaneled as part of the investigation. Evidence reportedly had been obtained through wiretaps of Washington area cellphones.  On October 19, 2006, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Weldon has in his possession a letter from the House Ethics Committee that he claims “closed the case” about whether he used his influence to help his daughter. Weldon said he has not decided whether or not to release the letter. Although emails from the Weldon campaign quoted by the Inquirer claim the Ethics panel “closed the case in 2004,”  the article reveals the matter was not dismissed until September 29, 2006. The Ethics Committee action is not binding on the Department of Justice investigation.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the LA Times reported that a federal grand jury had subpoenaed Weldon’s congressional records prior to the November elections. Because a member must notify House leadership promptly if they receive subpoenas while the House is in session to be entered into the Congressional Record, Weldon may have violated House rules depending on when he received the subpoenas.  On July 17, 2007, The Washington Post reported that, as of Spring 2007, federal investigators were continuing to examine Weldon’s official actions taken on behalf of his daughter’s lobbying clients. The same article noted that Weldon had spent at least $30,000 in legal fees and related investigatory expenses as a result of the probe.

Weldon was never charged in the incident, however the USA Today claimed in 2008 that the incident had cost him his re-election, which is undoubtedly true and was probably the whole point of the smear campaign.  Barack Obama did much the same to his opponents for the Illinois State Senate.

No wonder Obama sneered after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, “Nothing new.”  David Axelrod followed up by calling the Prime Minister “childish” for not getting everything he wanted and not being able to go to “Disneyworld.”  America has certainly given Iran everything it wants, including a sunset clause for the production of uranium.  Given that stipulation, one has to wonder:  why even bother negotiating any treaty at all?

Such criticisms are mind-bogglingly adolescent and even snarky.  Is this the way our administration behaves?  Well of course it is; Obama’s attitude towards Israel’s prime minister has ever been thus.  His operatives are working behind the scenes in Israel, supporting Netanyahu’s socialist opponent.

Obama’s Iranian-leaning foreign policy can be explained in two words:  Valerie Jarrett.  Born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents in 1956, it’s not hard to figure where her loyalties lie.  A graduate of Stanford University and Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Obama administration, and nine years Obama’s senior, he takes his lead from Jarrett.

Netanyahu is a stand-up guy, and not one to be put off by bad behavior, snarky comments or empty seats.  A consummate politician, he offered praise to both sides of the aisle, and declared John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi his good friends.  Notwithstanding this declaration, Nancy Pelosi ran off as soon as the speech was finished to the “Cry and Fry” television set to complain to the networks that she considered Netanyahu’s appearance in Congress a terrible insult to Obama.

The Prime Minister’s speech was straight and to the point, enumerating the dangers of a nuked-up Iran and giving a timeline of ten years if the sunset clause is implemented before Iran can start launching.  Given that Iran already possesses tens of thousands of centrifuges.

His “friend,” Secretary of State John Kerry, claimed he had “twisted his words” in Congressional testimony.

According to Fox News:

“The State Department accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of taking congressional testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry out of context in Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.

“In a statement released early Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki quoted in full an article written on the website FactCheck.org that claimed certain remarks made by Netanyahu about Iran’s nuclear program “misrepresented what Kerry had said” in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Feb. 25.

ADVERTISEMENT

“In his address, Netanyahu said Kerry had disclosed that Iran could ‘legitimately possess’ 190,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium by the time a deal designed to restrict Iran’s nuclear capability for a decade would expire. The Israeli leader, who referred to Kerry as ‘my long-time friend’ in his speech, said that amount of centrifuges could put Iran  “weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.”

“However, the FactCheck.org article circulated by Psaki noted that Kerry had only said that a peaceful nuclear power program could use that same number of centrifuges.

“’[I]f you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges,’ Kerry told committee members.

“Later in his speech, Netanyahu described the proposed agreement as one that ‘doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

“’So why would anyone make this deal?’ the prime minister asked.  ‘Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse? Well, I disagree.’”

“The State Department statement was the latest salvo in an ongoing war of words that marked the run-up to Netanyahu’s address and climaxed with harsh criticism for the Israeli leader from congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who branded the speech an ‘insult to the intelligence of the United States.’”

What intelligence?  Certainly not the “intelligence” of the American voters, who sealed our fate and Israel’s when they re-elected Obama to office in 2012.  Certainly not the “intelligence” of the Liberal media.  They have an intelligence of a sort that is steeped in Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist ideology.  In short, they hate freedom.

Certainly not the “intelligence” of some of our Republican representatives.  We must give John Boehner credit for inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress.  We can even give some credit to New Jersey’s Senator Bob Menendez, who publicly declared his departure from Democrat brethren.  New Jersey is home to a very large Jewish population.

Was Pelosi speaking of the intelligence of our chief intelligence-gathering agency, the Central Intelligence Agency?  Criticizing them is not wise – no one wants operatives sliding down ropes from black helicopters onto their roofs in the middle of the night.  Nor is it fair.  The CIA puts its agents’ lives on the line for us, with no honors and certainly no credit from the far-left political wing.

If there’s “nothing new” about Iran’s nuclear build-up, there’s plenty new about the transformation of our foreign policy regarding Iran since Obama took office.  As Betanyahu once noted humorously on Fox News some years ago, Iran hardly needs civilian nuclear power; they’re sitting atop major oil fields.  What do they need nuclear power for?

Where Obama has forbidden the use of the phrase “Islamic Terrorism” – or “Islamic” anything for that matter – Netanyahu came right out and said “Islamic militants.”  Iran’s goal is to start small, gobbling up its neighbors.  Once having gained that power, as Germany once did in the 20^th Century, Iran will go on to overpower the region, and with its nuclear armament safe from nosey, Western investigators, ultimately a worldwide caliphate, an Ummah.

Netanyahu’s concern, he plainly stated, was his own country, Israel.  “We will defend ourselves alone, if we must,” he said.  Still, he pleaded with Congress to oppose Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

He gave an excellent speech.  But was he speaking to a group of choir boys?  They’ve failed Americans in every issue of freedom from Obamacare to illegal amnesty.  They’ve rolled over.  Their applause for the Prime Minister was thunderous and well-deserved.

But will their thunder and lightning turn into a spring shower with a rainbow, singing larks, and backpats for Obama when it comes time to confront our Adolescent-in-Chief on his nuclear pact with Iran?  The English Parliament ignored Winston Churchill as Germany was secretly building up its weapons manufacturing.  Churchill, too, had secret informants in German, whom Parliament laughed off as cloak-and-dagger cartoon characters.

The English stopped laughing when the first bombs dropped on London, they had to cross the English Channel in little boats to rescue what was left of the English and French forces after Dunkirk, and their own future King was suspected of being a Nazi sympathizer.  Thank goodness, Mrs. Simpson took care of that.  What would have happened to England had Edward VIII not abdicated the throne?

Liberals and Progressives find it very inconvenient to reference history.  That’s why they like to call themselves “Progressives.”  They want us to look forward with a fresh view and judge their political motives and actions by the past.  This time, it will be different, they claim.

The world won’t fall into war and then tyranny?  The Founding Fathers were wrong?  Big Government is good?  Good for whom?  Big Business?  Big Corporations?  Big Money?  Big Donors?  The Jews won’t suffer through another pogrom, another World War II holocaust?  They’ve been persecuted for centuries.  They’re being persecuted in Europe right now.  Iran makes no excuses about it.  They mean business.

Curt Weldon was too much of a small fry.  We Tea Partiers are even smaller fish.  But not even a Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to stop tyrants from marching all over us.  Winston Churchill only succeeded once the bombs started falling.   Unfortunately, Obama considers Netanyahu “small fry.”  He’s got the bit in his teeth, as it were.  Obama’s riding on the crest of a young, ignorant voting bloc, an incestuous media, and a compromised Republican Congress.  He’s not going to let anything or anyone stop him.  Like Axelrod’s “child,” he’s going to do exactly what he wants, when he wants, where he wants.  And he’s going to do exactly what Iran wants done.

In World War II, the Germans used conventional bombs, however.  Thousands were killed, but England, with America’s considerable assistance, was able to mount a defense and win the war.  Today’s nuclear weapons are much more powerful even than the bombs that destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Iran does not deserve to have nuclear weapons of its very own, anymore than Germany deserved the chance to build up an army.  Iran has declared itself to have genocidal designs on the world.  They are not a peaceful nation.  They have proven that through the murder of millions, including their own people, massacred for trying to forge a democratic-style government.

Meanwhile, Obama stood by and shrugged.  If Congress imitates Obama, cowers before him and his media minions, and shrugs, the Armageddon Iran so ardently desires (and remember, Iran took its name from Nazi Germany’s ideology of the Aryan  nation, the perfect people) will be upon us.

Hope you’ve stocked up on hazmat suits, iodine pills, and freeze-dried meals.  The Comedy Central morons have just determined our future.  Netanyahu was hoping to speak to freedom-loving Americans.  Afraid they’re as marginalized as…Curt Weldon.  Or music radio.  Just try to get a copy (in any form) of the World War I-era classic, “Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit Bag.”

And smile, smile, smile as freedom is annihilated.