Obama, Treasonous Traitor

July 16, 2018 — Daniel Greenfield | Frontpage Mag

In the media’s frantic downhill race to out-rage each other over Trump, there’s no bottom. Charles M. Blow, the Cory Booker of media columnists, desperately tried to justify his job with this ridiculous column aimed right at the nerve center of the resistance’s id.

Its subtle title is, “Trump, Treasonous Traitor”.

That’s like a parody of a column like this. In it, Blow declares, “Whether or not Trump himself or anyone in his orbit personally colluded or conspired with the Russians about their interference is something Mueller will no doubt disclose at some point, but there remains one incontrovertible truth: In 2016, Russia, a hostile foreign adversary, attacked the United States of America.”

“Trump should be directing all resources at his disposal to punish Russia for the attacks and prevent future ones. But he is not. America’s commander wants to be chummy with the enemy who committed the crime. Trump is more concerned with protecting his presidency and validating his election than he is in protecting this country.

“This is an incredible, unprecedented moment. America is being betrayed by its own president. America is under attack and its president absolutely refuses to defend it.

“Simply put, Trump is a traitor and may well be treasonous.”

Remember when the New York Times wasn’t a complete joke? Still is this what the left wants as the new metric?

It’s incontrovertible that Islamic terrorists attacked America, but Obama insisted on being chummy with Iran, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood: all of whom had plenty of American blood on their hands.

“This is an incredible, unprecedented moment. America is being betrayed by its own president. America is under attack and its president absolutely refuses to defend it.

“Simply put, Obama is a traitor and may well be treasonous.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/270751/obama-treasonous-traitor-daniel-greenfield

If only they would have opened their eyes: Obama, Holder, Lynch. Clapper, Brennan, Hayden, Rice, Rhodes, Kerry, Hillary, what a cabal. A caldron of incestuous treason.

Bye Bye Reza Aslan

Parting is such sweet sorrow. Infamous profanity mechanic and Trump basher, Reza Aslan, has gotten the boot from CNN. No more CNN promotion ads for you.

But wait a minute, I thought CNN said he was not tied to the network? Clever how you can terminate a contractual relationship that supposedly didn’t exist.

So in turn, Reza bids CNN farewell and then thanks them for their platform help.

“Obviously I am very disappointed in this decision. ‘Believer’ means a great deal to me and to the countless viewers it’s reached. Its message of religious tolerance and exploration is extremely important right now. I am deeply grateful to CNN for giving me the opportunity to launch the show and to amplify my voice on their network. I am especially grateful to the legion of people within the Turner organization who worked so hard to make the show a hit series,” said Aslan, in a prepared statement.

” However, in these politically charged times, the tenor of our nation’s discourse has become complicated, and I recognize that CNN needs to protect its brand as an unbiased news outlet. Similarly, I need to honor my voice. I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar. And so I agree with CNN that it is best that we part ways. I look forward to partnering with another platform in the future to continue to spread my message. I wish CNN all the best.” –
Source, Variety mag

That complicated tenor of the nation’s discourse…. Maybe try standup, they’ll back you up. Is there any place for a brain-eating, social commentator out there?

Yes, somewhere over the rainbow, maybe someone will appreciate his tolerance message. The POS remark to President Trump was not the only one, he also brandished it against Donald Jr earlier. He seemed to have a flare for that phrase.

No worry, Reza, I hear there is quite a market for your brand of hate language. And there’s always DNC rallies in the off season. So he took the CNN network by religious storm and he left in a storm. Shall we wait for the victim card? Another martyr of speech?

Ben Rhodes hearing turns to Iraq debate

Crazier than crazy, this is why Democrats should not have an ounce of credibility from anyone. This took my seething disgust level to a historic high, which is hard to do.

Rhodes Wikipedia Public Domain

Rep Jason Chaffetz held a House hearing about the Ben Rhodes lie doctrine and his lengthy interview with NYT Magazine. But what happens is totally in your American face.

Rhodes for his part refused to go to the hearing, even after laying his whole case out, how the fiction writer describes it, on what the administration did in creating the Iran deal.

Democrats turn it into a hearing about the Iraq war and WMD — remember their most favorite acronym of all time. Who knew that Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, yellow cake would be a viable defense for the deception and lies of the Iran deal?

Lets forget for a moment that the Iran deal was wrong all the way around. That it was the product of 3+ years of lies and obfuscation to avoid Congress; that it went right by Congress and was mischaracterized as to what it even is. But that is what we’re supposed to do: forget all the Art of Deception and lying Obama and Democrats are engaged in.

They did have John Hannah as one witness. The Democrats spent nearly all their time questioning him about his participation in Dick Cheney’s office in the lead up to Iraq. But never mind that the Iraq issue went through Congress, kept Congress informed, then it even voted on the authorization.

To recap, Democrats got their hearing …. the one on Iraq and WMD. (fundraisers probably going out as I write) Republicans had a hearing — between injections of Scooter Libby, Iraq, WMD, yellow cake, Valerie Plame, Colin Powel and Dick Cheney — on the Ben Rhodes expose about the construction of the Iran deal, hard as it was to fit that in with time constraints and all.

But how many times has that happened where Democrats hijacked the hearing process into something else? As true obfuscators of reality, they continually hide, deceive, and conceal truth from the American people and rely on repeating their talking points.(true or not) Politics is the motive, so some believe. To make the worse worser, the administration did not even want Congress’s oversight in and on the deal.

The only thing you can conclude from Democrats’ convoluted position is that if Iraq and the WMD was such a debacle, then that somehow mitigates what the administration did creating the Iran “art of deception” deal. So there is no rational reason now for looking into the deception and unconstitutional Iran agreement, even if Rhodes has been out boasting about the deceit involved in the Iran deal.

When Rhodes talked about his ‘compadres’ in the press he reaches out to, he reveals something more. This has been a pattern of Democrat WH operatives since the 90’s when Clinton advisers tipped off, directed or redirected reporters on what they should be covering or how. This came out in testimonies of the Clinton scandals.

The Obama administration lied repeatedly to get the deal done. But that is its pattern: lying about Obamacare, lying on Benghazi, then on the Iran deal from the start. And Democrats framed it as a binary choice that it was war on Iran or this deal, when this deal was the most flawed, subversive thing they could ever create even if they tried.

Now Dems can be ecstatic that, in the end, the focus was more on the Iraq decisions 14 years ago than on Iran. At least the opening statements of the witnesses and a few of their questions were related to the Iran agreement, not Iraq.

Sincerely disgusted. I can hardly wait to see what Ben-fiction-Rhodes will be writing about his time in the administration. Will they eat that up?

From the NYT piece that spawned the hoopla over the Iran deal:

He [Rhodes] expressed a deep personal hopelessness about the possibility of open, rational public debate in a brutally partisan climate. But didn’t the country deserve better? I kept asking him.

Must be sort of a self-imposed hopelessness since he didn’t even want to share details with Congress. Dang schedules and executive limitations that disallow such, while they do allow for countless hours of self-gratified elaboration to a reporter on the topic. But apparently Congress is off executive-privilege limits, unfortunately.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s lying machine

So we knew it all the time, we were being lied to. It was always obvious. But now Obama adviser Ben Rhodes comes out to publicly rub the media’s nose in it, much the same way that Jonathan Gruber delighted in our gullibility as the reason for passing Obamacare.

Everyone knows that Rhodes is basically a fiction writer, a talent that really has come in handy for the Obama administration. When you have your own in-house fiction writer, it makes lots of things easier than they would be — like lying.

How Obama plays his adoring fans in the press

By Washington Examiner • 5/7/16 | Washington Examiner

An extraordinary profile of senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes, published in the New York Times on Thursday, was very revealing about President Obama. It told a complicated story of how an administration that the president promised would be the most transparent in history prides itself on successful manipulation of journalists.

The critical insight of the story is about the Obama administration’s dishonesty in selling the Iran nuclear deal to the public. It turns out, for example, that the story carried by the press about the Iran deal being possible because of the election of a more moderate government in Tehran, was made up. It was a fiction, as various actual experts on the subject warned at the time. That is, in real terms, it was a lie. The deal was in fact already in the works in 2012, a year earlier than anyone knew. /…

How does someone like Rhodes manipulate the press? It’s like taking candy from a baby.

Read more: Washington Examiner

And take it they will…as often as they can.

What good is lying and deceiving people if, in the end, you cannot publicly rub it in their faces? Rhodes is a pretty dumb banana himself, but that doesn’t prevent him from fooling others to claim how intelligent he and they are. So… “It’s the stupid media, people.”

The sailor propaganda wasn’t the worst part

Just another day undermining America, for the Obama administration.

BREAKING: Defense Secretary Slips Up, Reveals Obama Admin LED IRAN Straight to Our Sailors

Conservative Tribune

It doesn’t matter if “the 3 a.m. phone call” comes in the middle of the day. Not only will the Obama administration not answer it, but they’ll aid our enemies instead.

First came the fact that President Barack Obama refused to address the arrest of 10 of our sailors by the Iranian military after their boats had mechanical trouble at sea. Then came news that the Obama administration had offered the Iranians an apology for the release of the sailors.

Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid. /…

Read: http://conservativetribune.com/defense-secretary-slips-up/

Did you ever think someone would be so careless and or reckless with our country and our men and women defending it? Wait, he still has 12 months left, enough time to give up America’s arsenal. Maybe Obama should have called Tehran to help out in the Benghazi attack? Oh, right Obama wasn’t around for that. So Tehran probably told them ‘okay, this time, but don’t make a habit of it.’

Spinning Failure as Success

The Obama administration has got one tactic down to a science. In their efforts to defend Obama or anything he does, you can count on one thing, their ability to spin their own failures into success.

The same tactics are used in their press statements or in the State of the Union Speech. It’s a flaming example to the world. Not only don’t they like the idea of peace through strength, they want to do the opposite to disprove it any time they have the chance.

We’ve always known the progressives, Democrats, Liberal Left whatever are good at spinning things. They’ve had lots of practice. But now, in power, they can even spin their failures as success. We saw it the Clinton administration. One of the last statements of Bill Clinton leaving the White House was, we done a lot of good. And we’ve seen it ever since Obaama took office. Every time there is bad news they spin like tops.

It’s been a talking point for Clinton even to the present with his foundation that they do a lot of good with the money. I suppose that somehow makes up for the misuse. In their crazy world it does. Like in an interview with Bloomberg News last year:

“Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable? No. Have we done a lot of good things with this money? Yes.” — Bill Clinton said.

Obamites have to go to the ultimate. They will spin an intentionally provocative act of our enemy into a success, when it suits them. Of course it is treasonous by any measure. They would spin that too. It’s what they do. So a provocative act of war by North Korea, Iran, Cuba or any dictatorship can simply be spun into a success somehow, to disguise the administration’s failures.

Iran seizes our boat and sailors in a highly provocative act, so we spin it into a success of diplomacy. It shows what they are doing is working. Actually it validates their failure — making excuses for the enemy. But spin it they will. They twist it into a validation that the failed Iran deal is really a success. And on and on it goes playing into the hands of our enemy. Is it any wonder they act the way they do? Then Obama accuses his opponents and critics of aiding the enemy, or being a recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists.(the enemy he cannot name) It’s a pattern.

RightRing | Bullright

Take A Number!

Obama’s baffling passivity on Jason Rezaian

Opinion writerOctober 16 | Washington Post

The consequences of President Obama’s passive foreign policy came close to home this week.

My Post colleague Jason Rezaian, the paper’s Tehran bureau chief, has been languishing in an Iranian jail for 15 months on bogus charges of espionage. He was put on secret trial by a kangaroo court. On Sunday, Iranian state TV reported that he had been convicted.

And Obama said . . . nothing. He didn’t go to the briefing room and make a statement. He didn’t even release a written statement. On Tuesday, his press secretary, in response to a reporter’s question at the briefing, responded with what might have been described as minor annoyance with the Iranian regime.

“We’ve got a number of concerns,” the spokesman said, mentioning the “unjust” detention and “opaque” process.

More: http://wpo.st/0Fph0

That’s the White House, Obama’s message. Pick a number, any number…

Which of that number is just wrong and causes Obama to say something? 0

But it’s really not so baffling, for Obama. Yet he can come out to “politicize” a shooting in Oregon before the bodies are moved. Speaking of opaque.

Obama channels Rosenbergs

Now we’re talking comparisons.

Obama’s genocidal treason

Front Page

The last time left-wing radicals aided the nuclear program of an open enemy of the United States, they were put on trial for it. The sentencing judge at the time said that because “the nature of Russian terrorism is now self-evident” there was no further room for claims that no harm had been done.

These words of the Rosenberg verdict apply equally well to Obama’s betrayal on Iran. What the Rosenbergs did for Stalin, Obama did for the Ayatollah Khamenei.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260196/obamas-genocidal-treason-daniel-greenfield

Well, now that it’s settled…

Agenda 2030 and the Pope

Agenda 2030 And The “New Economic World Order” – Coming This Year?

Dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously

by The Sleuth Journal | September 23, 2015 | Infowars

With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason; with alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.
These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis. Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’splanned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”
Read more: http://www.infowars.com/agenda-2030-and-the-new-economic-world-order-coming-this-year/

Into this backdrop the Pope descended and spoke at the UN mentioning the Agenda 2030.

“Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment. At the same time, government leaders must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity and to create and support a family, which is the primary cell of any social development. In practical terms, this absolute minimum has three names:lodging, labour, and land; and one spiritual name: spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education and other civil rights.”

At the UN, Pope Francis said:

“In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged … The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: They are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing ‘culture of waste.'”

What about the abuse of government, or global government, and the effects people suffer at the hands of it? We can dismiss that evil for the greater evil of environmental abuse.(relativism) Or so that is the implication. But funny how the emphasis is on enviro-abuse when there is a long track record, indeed agenda, from the UN or global politics begging criticism and suspicion. The same poor who will be adversely and negatively impacted by this agenda, drawn further into the cracks, suffering marginalization. Are we trying to create more of a burden on society, or less?

He tells us their noble ambitions and efforts risk becoming “idle chatter which serves as a cover for all kinds of abuse and corruption, or for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.

What about when they succeed in their lofty goals and agendas? He worries about idle chatter. Well, I worry about their actions and goals, and corrupt power and resources. But notice how the chatter against that is marginalized, ignored, dismissed as extremists, or labeled deniers. Their UN extreme agenda apparently is not a threat, to Francis, only if they do not follow through.

How irresponsible is an agenda which further victimizes downtrodden people while expanding the power of the political elite?

“The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events.  We cannot permit ourselves to postpone “certain agendas” for the future. The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.

“The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavors, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good. I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case,…”

Referring to the Iran Agreement, and controversy:

“The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved. In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interventions which are not coordinated between members of the international community.

“For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals regarding the painful situation of the entire Middle East, North Africa and other African countries, where Christians, together with other cultural or ethnic groups, and even members of the majority religion who have no desire to be caught up in hatred and folly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.”

He seems to make the whole Iran deal contingent and dependent on the US breaking its ‘partisan and ideological’ divide — an ironic lecture from the Pope of Rome. But never mind the Constitutional, legal, economical and moral reasons for this disagreement. Tenuous partisanship it is not.

“Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime.”

And let’s not forget the consequences of this Iran deal, as well as consequences of UN’s entire agenda, including 2030. Those consequences cannot be ignored any more than he says the human rights or environmental issues can be ignored.

“Certainly, many grave problems remain to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive the unchecked use of its own possibilities. Every one of these political, juridical and technical advances is a path towards attaining the ideal of human fraternity and a means for its greater realization.”

I hear mankind would not have been able to survive its unchecked liberty, without the international intervention. The danger is unleashed liberty, which must be held in check.

Iran’s money bomb…it worked

Remember Ron Paul’s campaign doing what it called those ‘money bombs,’ fundraisers usually involving the internet? Here’s some real irony in Senators raising money or benefiting from Iran’s money bomb of lobbyist funding. “Incoming.” …

The captain of money bombs had nothing on Iran.

Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes

The Democrats are becoming a party of atom bomb spies.
August 25, 2015 — Daniel Greenfield | Front Page Magazine

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

…/

Read more: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259895/traitor-senators-took-money-iran-lobby-back-iran-daniel-greenfield

Follow the money. As it said, in a few cases the money didn’t get the desired result. But for the cases it did, was there ever any doubt? I mean Al Franken. Gee, who would ever figure him for a holdout against the deal? The same can be said for most of the others. Now I wonder what the queen of non-answers, DW Schultz, will do?

Iran deal causing fractures

So at the summer DNC meeting it was noted Obama could not even shore up support for his Iran deal. So what was in it for Obama?

CNN reports

The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting is over, and there is something you won’t find in the official minutes: a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement.

The deal has divided the [Democrat] party, to the point where the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, has not made her position clear as yet. As the President heads into a veto battle with Congress on the issue, he needs every Democratic vote he can muster. But Jonathan Martin of The New York Times noted he couldn’t get help from the party he leads.

“The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal,” said Martin. “It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, seeing as how it’s his party. He appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

More at http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/ip-obama-trump-jeb–romney/index.html

So Debbie is playing her cards close to her hairspray, eh? Wow that little deal is causing lots of headaches even at the DNC anti-Israel Party.I wonder if she is suffering from a case of crazyitis too? Or she could be one of those Iranian hardliner allies we hear about?

Why hasn’t she jumped to the head of the line and proudly endorsed Obama’s nuclear deal for Iran? Probably ol’ Debbie does not want to make her endorsement, of Obama’s deal, public as she’d have to explain it. She doesn’t do well on explaining things, or answering questions.

Am I to interpret that family feuds are now fashionable in the DNC?

Obama: family feud over Iran deal

Just like a family gathering or reunion with a little tiff, a little nuclear tiff.

Obama: US-Israel Family Feud Will Abate When Iran Deal in Place

Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax

President Barack Obama is comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and says he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.

“Like all families, sometimes there are going to be disagreements,” Obama said Friday in a webcast with Jewish Americans. “And sometimes people get angrier about disagreements in families than with folks that aren’t family.”

The president’s comments came as momentum for the nuclear accord grew on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution to disapprove of the deal. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., became the 30th senator to publicly back the agreement, saying Friday that it was a good deal for America and for allies like Israel.

The looming congressional confrontation has sparked a summer of intense debate between supporters and opponents of the nuclear accord. The deliberations have also divided Jewish Americans, with leaders of many organizations expressing concern about long-term damage to the community.

Read more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Obama-Iran-Nuclear/2015/08/29/id/672541/

Oh, because we are good family members is why they are opposed to his deal? Yes, if we weren’t so close, Israel wouldn’t be so upset. Then why were Arabs/Saudis so against it?

With just 34 votes, Democrats could block the bill to prevent the Iran Deal. Obama compares it to a family feud. He’s so confident Israel will be right back on board once the deal is lodged into place. What an arrogant soul he is, if he has one. How is it, too, that he can speak for another sovereign country? Yet he used none of that prophetic vision in negotiating the deal. Why, it was to get a deal at any cost. Any deal that is.

But this is his M/O after all: scorched easrth politics at any cost, then assume the opponent will just live with it after he gets his way. The means to that end is lying, early and often.

After lighting the Mid East ablaze, Obama reaches for the marshmallows and says relax, enjoy the show and don’t worry about the effects, it’ll all be good. You’ll get used to it.

Iran, say it isn’t so

So many truths lurk in the background of all Obama’s lies. It’s amazing how he is trying to spin this Iran deal around.

Memo to Obama: It’s Not Iran Deal Critics Who Are the ‘Crazy’ Ones

Nile Gardiner / August 25, 2015

Just back from his annual summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, President Barack Obama has returned to disparaging his political adversaries and anyone who happens to disagree with him on policy.

According to a report in Politico, the president has taken to describing opponents of the hugely controversial Iran deal as “crazies.” The so-called “crazies” now include a majority of members of the House and Senate, a large chunk of the American electorate according to opinion polls, and the government of Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More at http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/25/memo-to-obama-its-not-iran-deal-critics-who-are-the-crazy-ones/

Now we’re the crazies when the crazy administration just made about the worst deal possible with Iran. He accused us of actually siding with the hard-liners in Iran when that is who he and Kerry made the deal with. And they are quite happy with it. Doesn’t that tell us anything? But it gets worse, the closer you look.

He made a deal that just doesn’t allow the terrorism to continue but makes us partners in promoting their terrorism around the globe. We are actually subsidizing and funding their activity. But then blame us because he cannot ram it through. The name-calling comes out. What a ruthless bastid Obama is. No one can even reason with him while he attacks and calls everyone names who disagrees with him. (probably his intent)

Start with a big lie though, just to make it fly easier. Call it something other than a treaty. Then Kerry issues the lame excuse that we can’t pass treaties anymore. So they had to lie to us. Notice a pattern here? Lie first, then say it’s our fault they had to lie to us. It’s probably true Obama is trying to drive people crazy with his schemes and blame machine, to silence the opposition. It hasn’t worked. So they just have to lie harder.

It’s about that time with Obama on Iran deal

What time is it? It must be Obama slime time. Time to get the slime machine in mach speed, like the centrifuges in Iran.

He’s using every nasty slur and label he can to attack anyone, including Jews, who don’t support his Iran “peace in our time” nuclear deal. What’s behind door number one, nuclear bomb. What’s behind door number two, the Ayatolah and a nuclear bomb. Never mind what’s behind the third because you’ll never get passed the first two.

Jewish Magazine Accuses White House of Using ‘Jew-Baiting’ and ‘Bigotry’ to Smear Iran Deal Critics

Aug. 9, 2015 10:08am Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze

The Jewish online magazine Tablet has accused the White House of engaging in “Jew-baiting” and “racial and ethnic prejudice” to slander critics of the Iran deal, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

The magazine’s editors compared the behavior of the White House to “the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally.”

Schumer, a Jewish Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was breaking with President Barack Obama and would vote to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

In the editorial, titled “Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,” the editors of Tablet on Friday asserted that the “White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews — and a sitting senator — as dual loyalists to make their case.”

While the editors noted that they “support the president” and “sympathize” with his efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit, they wrote, “What we increasingly can’t stomach — and feel obliged to speak out about right now — is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.”

“Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South,” the editors wrote.

“This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives,” Tablet wrote. “Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.”

“It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it,” the editors wrote.

“Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry — no matter who does it,” the editors added.

Read more The Blaze

Time for Obama to unleash another divisive attack campaign on his opponents — even if they be Democrats.  The White House has threatened that anyone vying for leadership would be held to account for past positions. Dems have already announced they will oppose Schumer for leader based on this position. Of Course if Schumer was not such a racist, bigot, backed by Jew billionaire lobby, anti-peace extremist, dual loyalist, war monger, and ally to the radicalized “death to America” Islamists in Iran. Any questions?

Kerry lied over Iran deal

Kerry lied but were we really expecting anything else? Sure Kerry tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. No doubt they figured we would find out. But again if lying is the means to the end, then once done it doesn’t matter if you know. Like so many other issues by Obama, lying is the means.

Cotton And Cruz Are Right: John Kerry Is Lying About The Iran Deal

George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 7/31/2015 | Conservative Headquarters

Proof that Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Texas Senator Ted Cruz have it right in opposing Obama’s deal to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons has surfaced from a most unlikely source: French official, Jacques Audibert, the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. ../

“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told Rogin in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”

We got Kerry’s ten year deal from hell. It’s hard to imagine something that wouldn’t be better than what they got, especially when they started with failed principles. We could say Kerry swift-boated America. When even French question the thing, it has to be bad. But then what do liars do? So Cruz and Cotton must be painted as the bad guys.

How the truth became politically incorrect to Obama

The story here is not only that truth became politically incorrect to Obama but also, more importantly, that anyone endorsing or trafficking in truth became the opposition to Obama. Imagine that, just by aligning oneself with the truth turns one into an enemy of Obama. And by extension, considering his position, it thereby turns one into an enemy of the state. We see how all this works. In effect, truth has become Obama’s chief enemy, and thereby an enemy of the state.

Of course it would be a difficult thing for media to accept. Fortunately, they don’t have to worry about such a thing. That would admit being played or hoodwinked by Obama.

The Iran deal reveals a chunk of this truism about Bary Soetoro. Go back to his campaign days where, asked about Iran, he always favored talking to Iran. His supporters loved it. Conservatives took issue with that for exactly the reasons we witnessed, of “negotiation” with the talks. Of course we were told we were wrong that talks do not equal negotiating. But they do and did. Now we also see how that negotiation turned out .

So they made it so complex, attaching side deals, which no one will see between Iran and IAEA, that it would be purposefully hard to understand. Trust us, they said, it is a good deal. (a good deal of BS) See it would require trust. However, trust does not make it a good deal. But “trust” is the fallacy that Obama has peddled all along, since his early days as Senator, to his first campaign to today. We are always to just trust him, with little or no basis for it, and then we get screwed in the end. Trust though is a central ingredient in his modus operandi and agenda. It’s the top necessary ingredient with Obama. Which is why I called his a faith-based campaign: “Hope and change” and “change you can believe in.”

The side deals, as they are referred to, are unknown to Kerry and even Obama. By law, all materials of the deal must be given to Congress. So how can they sign off on something they don’t know the details of, and cannot see? But that is what Obama is asking of Congress. It’s a good deal, trust us, “peace in our time.” Trust is the operative word.

Remember Reagan’s maxim of trust and verify?

We always verify after the fact that he lied to us. But it always shows in the end our trust was without merit. We always get a raw deal or royally screwed. He is not happy enough to screw us in the present, he wants to stick to future generations too. There are normally multiple layers of screwage. He also sets it up where future negotiations with Iran will be necessary. Then the future administration(s) will have to deal with Tehran. We really made Iran some kind of a partner.

Every step along the way on issues Obama abused our trust and destroyed the grounds for it. I can’t say he actually destroyed our trust because people cannot accept that their trust was shot through, because that would be admitting they were taken, lied to, or hoodwinked. Who wants to admit being a mark? But they continue to trust him.

It is a serial abuse relationship Obama has with even many of his voters and base. (they aren’t all communists though they endorse Marxist people, which is another subject) To admit it is more than they can take. Each step Obama requires people to just trust him.

Seeing is believing, or not.

We know it is not the transparency he promised, another lie. So behind their backs he is abusing their trust in him. A few, and I don’t know how many, are probably privy to this whole charade Obama plays but who also believe in the destination anyway, so it is acceptable. Remember the professor of Obamcare, Jonathan Gruber, and his repeated statements that they had to lie to us. Which is more profound, that they believed they had to lie to us or that lying is such a necessary tactic in their agenda?

Well, it was the same premise in the Iran deal, they had to lie to the American people. From the beginning they said we would have anytime anywhere access and that would be in any agreement. Now we see we don’t have anywhere anytime access. Then Kerry said that anywhere anytime was not promised, or part of the plan. He denied that there were any side deals and, low and behold, there are side deals. They denied that sanctions were working though they claim that sanctions, in fact — ones congress not Obama imposed — were the pressure that brought them to the negotiation table. Then they condemned any talk of new sanctions or reinstatement of the previous ones, which Obama lifted. They claimed eliminating the prospect of a nuclear Iran was the objective, while they in effect enshrined their nuclear ability. They also denied that containment was their strategy, but voila theirs is a strategy of containment.

Furthermore, let’s back up again to the campaign trail. Obama claimed his mission was to stop proliferation. In fact he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons. We now see he has proliferated them starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He said he would do these things with, he assured us, the purest of motives. Now we look at what really motivated him.

The political strategy, lie a lot — early and often.

Probably the biggest parallel theme to things though is the lies. Its a tactic and an overall strategy of his. Tell us anything in order to get his way, pass legislation, accomplish his mission or goal — preferably the opposite of what he is doing. Obamacare was built on lies and illusion. He sold the initial idea that it would only affect those who didn’t have insurance or medical coverage. Hello, it affected everyone. He said if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. Wrong, you couldn’t. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Wrong. He said it would lower the cost of your insurance, saving average family 2500 per/yr. In fact, it increased the cost and for some families by 2500 a year. He said it would lower our debt while it added to it.

But probably the central, critical lie he used from the onset was that, since there was a majority of people already covered, it would not affect them. That made it very palatable. It basically was only going to help those who had no coverage. So people went along because they believed it would not affect them personally, least not negatively. And many of those are the very ones it affects the most, and in the worst way. Now they have soaring premiums and deductibles. It was a pack of lies, actually built on a foundation of lies. Sound familiar? Then came Professor Gruber who said just that. Well, then it was the lie that he was nothing and not connected with drafting the law. Actually he was an architect of the law. See?

So now we have an Iran deal following the same formula. Tell the people anything at the beginning, lie and promise them anything. Whatever means to the ends. Then deny what you said and did. But then Gruber’s admission was even worse than admitting they lied. It was, yes we lied to the stupid American people. But it even went a step deeper than that.

Daily Caller

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Catch that? First he told us they had to lie to the stupid people. Then he suggested they had to lie to us because we are stupid. In effect, we are the cause for their lying. It’s our fault they lied.(that’s something like the ultimate lie) Like: I’ll admit I lied but the reason was because you made it so necessary. It’s all our fault and we’re stupid, so we probably can’t even understand that. Geesh. Maybe one day we’ll come up to their level and be able to understand — surely it won’t be soon. By then they will be even smarter. It’s not even that government knows best, it is that the progressives know better than all.

Then there was Senator Hillary CLinton’s statement to General Petraeus that his report “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.” Take that from the Liars Club. Ironically, that is exactly what Obama and his administration, including Hillary, requires from us — “suspension of disbelief.” We know he’s lying to us, but let’s not pay much attention to that detail. Instead, let’s accept what he says as the truth. Most places would call deceit on that level fraud. Just like the kind that ushered Obama into office. But in his campaign, at the time, he was busy pointing out Hillary’s lies. Round and round it goes, where it stops only Obama knows. But it never will stop because he cannot allow the lies to end.

RightRing | Bullright

Kerry, Jarrett and Iran deal

Well, why is this a non-story to media now except from Allen West? Here’s the hub bub about Kerry’s inner connection in Iran deal. No, it shouldn’t surprise anyone. Kerry has personal connections to those he negotiated with.

But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/07/you-will-not-believe-who-was-best-man-at-john-kerrys-daughters-wedding/

And in: Front Page

Kerry, Kerry quite contrary
My how your garden grows

Of course then there was Valerie Jarrett in the White House as well. Naturally, the White House denied the reports last year.

WND

“There are many who are now saying that [Jarrett] is really the architect of this non-treaty with the Iranians,” he [Lt Gen Boykin] said, “which ultimately will result in the Iranians having a nuclear program, and America having to accept a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Then why also are we supplying Valerie Jarrett with 24/7 SS protection? Now Iran gets a windfall of 150 billion dollars to assist its terror network. But Obama takes issue with someone calling him the biggest supporter of terrorism? He’s a victim? Sickening. Wherever Obama goes, a trail of communist Marxism is left behind.

Allen West on Obama’s Iranian deal

Time for a heavy dose of truth… from Allen West. Its a dirty job, someone has to do it.

Published on Jul 22, 2015

Former Florida Congressman Allen West absolutely exploded over the Iran nuclear deal during a fiery speech at a “Stop Iran Deal Rally” in New York City’s Times Square on Wednesday. The Republican strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s leadership on the issue, calling him a “weakling” and “charlatan.” West asked the crowd of thousands “what message” the United States is sending by negotiating with the “number one state sponsor of terrorism” and a country that is holding “four Americans hostage.” more

Also see the many comments on it at Right Scoop

(H/T to Dave)

Bottoms up, I wonder how that echoed through the White House? Likely not well. The problem is truth telling. I’ve had this discussion with Peppermint. When you really think of it, just realize how rare truth telling has become. It blows my mind to think about that. And West sure brought it home with this speech, Thomas Paine reference and all.

Nuclear Irony

Well, in early 1900s all the way to the mid 1900s it was a competition for nuclear weapons — i.e nuclear arms race. Today, the race is to stop nuclear weapons and prevent them — let alone their use — to stop nuclear proliferation. And that race is on.

Then we have the current Iran “negotiations” of trying to concoct a deal. But this one philosophical question always comes up: who is the greater threat to America, Iran or Obama and his administration? The answer to that is very much in the results. Should Iran get nuclear weapons it will be confirmed it was Obama, not Iran, who was really the bigger threat.

That has become obvious now these many months of negotiation, if there was a question about it before. The reason is quite simple. The man and his administration that could allow this nuclearization(weaponization) to happen, whether in the present tense or years in the future, and sign off on it, is naturally the bigger threat than even a nuclear Iran.

That hints at what kind of a “deal” we can expect from Obama and his cackle of radicals. But we know what damage they have already done via sanctions and pre-deal talks. So it is logic and reason that tell us Obama is the greater threat to the future of America and its security interests.

RightRing | Bullright

Sudden change of Iranian plans

Fleet of Iranian ships heading to Yemen turns around after being tracked by US warships

By Lucas Tomlinson – Published April 23, 2015 | FoxNews.com

A nine-ship Iranian convoy believed to be laden with weapons bound for rebels in Yemen turned around Thursday after being followed by U.S. warships stationed in the area to prevent arms shipments, multiple sources in the Pentagon told Fox News.

The sources said the nine-ship convoy is south of Salalah, Oman, and now headed northeast in the Arabian Sea in the direction of home. The ships, which include seven freighters and two frigates, had sailed southwest along the coast of Yemen heading in the direction of Aden and the entrance to the Red Sea. The two Iranian warships escorting the convoy are Thondor Type 021-class missile boats and the other ships in the convoy are a mix of commercial vessels with some carrying shipping containers.

More at Fox: http://linkis.com/allenwestrepublic.com/ysvxg

H/T Allen West

I thought Iranians may think we were there to help them offload their cargo. I guess not.