Category Archives: Islamic terrorism

Obama’s Iranian Nuclear Deal or Death to Israel and America?

11091248_10152890099983432_7185902594934724261_n

 

Emerging details of possible Iranian nuclear deal draw bipartisan ire

Emerging details of a possible nuclear deal with Iran have drawn sharp criticism from congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who say the U.S. and its international partners may be ceding too much as a key deadline nears. 

If reports are true, “then we are not inching closer to Iran’s negotiating position, but leaping toward it with both feet,” charged Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a vocal critic of the direction of the talks. 

“My fear is that we are no longer guided by the principle that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal,’ but instead we are negotiating ‘any deal for a deal’s sake.’”  

The deal is not done, but sources tell FoxNews.com negotiations seem to be reaching a climax at the P5+1 talks in Lausanne, Switzerland. Lawmakers, meanwhile, appear to be getting more restive about whether the demands on Iran will be tough enough.

Details of the emerging deal include a possible trade-off which would allow Iran to run several hundred centrifuges in a once-top secret, fortified bunker site at Fordo, in exchange for limits on enrichment and nuclear research and development at other sites — in particular, Iran’s main facility at Natanz.  

The terms of the agreement have not been confirmed and were shared with The Associated Press by officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.  

According to the AP report, no centrifuges at Fordo would be used to enrich uranium, but would be fed elements like zinc, xenon and germanium for separating out isotopes for medicine, industry or science. 

Initially, the P5+1 partners, which include the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China and Germany, had wanted all centrifuges stripped away from the Fordo facility. However, under this reported deal, Iranian scientists would be prohibited from working on any nuclear research or development program there, and the number of centrifuges allowed would not be enough to produce the amount of uranium it takes to make a bomb within a year anyway, according to the officials.  

The site also would be subject to international inspections.  

But that did not seem to boost the confidence of detractors. In a symbolic statement underscoring the concerns of many lawmakers, the Senate also voted unanimously late Thursday for a non-binding Iran amendment — to an unrelated budget measure. The amendment endorses the principles of separate legislation that would re-impose waived sanctions and level new ones on Iran if President Obama “cannot make a determination and certify that Iran is complying” with an interim agreement or any new one that is established in current talks. 

Last Friday, 367 House lawmakers, including 129 Democrats, also wrote to Obama warning that a deal must “foreclose any pathway to a bomb” before they’ll support legislation lifting sanctions on Tehran. The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Ed Royce, R-Calif., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

It is not clear whether the recent details emerging from the talks would satisfy that. 

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also spoke out, calling them “disturbing.”    

“[The Iranians] have been cheating for the last 20 years, this facility [Fordo] was found out in 2009. At the end of the day it is a hardened site. To allow enrichment here would be, I think, very irresponsible,” he said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News’ “On the Record” on Thursday.    

“It would be delusional for any P5+1 agreement to allow [Iran] to enrich in a fortified facility,” Graham added. “The Arabs are not going to accept such a deal, and they’ll get a bomb of their own, then you’re on the road to Armageddon.”  

Other observers of the agreement say the critics are rushing unnecessarily to judgment.  

“We don’t know whether the reports are true – there’s been a lot of things leaked that may be true or may be a misunderstanding,” said Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, who spoke with FoxNews.com from the talks in Lausanne. “But if the reports are correct and there will be centrifuges with no uranium in it — they can’t produce a bomb — it’s really put the emphasis on the unreasonableness of the [critics’] objections.”  

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, agreed. “I think Senator Graham and Senator Menendez need to take a step back and put this development in a broader context. The key to Fordo is that we do not want this to be a facility with industrial-scale uranium enrichment and this report suggests they are moving in that direction.” 

The deal reportedly would scale back the centrifuges and uranium enrichment at Natanz and impose other restrictions on nuclear-related research and development. All of the options on the table right now are designed keep an Iranian “breakout” of a weapon at least one year away for the life of the deal, which would run for 10 years.  

This is not enough, and smacks of too much compromise for too little in return, said Menendez. “An undue amount of trust and faith is being placed in a negotiating partner that has spent decades deceiving the international community.”    

That is the reason why David Albright, of Washington’s Institute for Security and International Security, is concerned about Fordo. The deal would allow the Iranians to keep their technology intact and if they please, could be repurposed to enrich uranium.  

“It keeps the infrastructure in place and keeps a leg up, if they want to restart [uranium] enrichment operations,” he said.  

The White House said Friday that it was confident a “political agreement” will be made by the March 31 deadline, which would make space to negotiate the more complicated technical details ahead of the harder June 30 deadline.  

“Important progress has been made but this president is not going to stop short,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. However, he “is not willing to accept an agreement that does not accomplish our goals which is to cut off every pathway Iran has to acquiring a nuclear weapon and secure their commitment to cooperating with a set of intrusive inspections to prove they are complying with the agreement.”

FoxNews.com’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/28/emerging-details-iranian-nuclear-deal-draws-bipartisan-ire/

CA70C-IVIAA5-31

As this current Iranian Nuclear deal draws closer to a conclusion one has to wonder if this is nothing more than President Obama’s Jihad against Israel and America.

After all, President Obama did campaign on Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America.

The only question that remains is: Who’s side is he on?

CAsLV3vWwAAUa_D

ANY QUESTIONS?

american-eagle

We’re going down the tubes America

national_and_state_flags_of_communist_america_by_regicollis-d7y2g4y

Has America Lost Her Identity ?

Just take a look around you my friends. Is this the America you grew up in? Socialism seems to have creped into every nook and cranny of American life and culture. Political Correctness has prevented us from pointing out the cause and effect of this downward spiral we find ourselves in. 

3

Our cities have become filled with every sort of debauchery and vice in recent years and one has to know which areas are safe and which are not while traveling through any American city these days.

A quick look at the evening news shows us that there are murders and violence each and every night in cities around our country. The wild west in the 1800’s would be a walk in the park for most of us street wise enough to know just how bad things are.

untitled (2)

We who are Constitutional Conservatives know all to well the cancer that has destroyed our great society and today they are in the seat of power. Those we have elected to represent us are weak at best and corrupt at worst. We find ourselves today in quite a quandary as to what options we have left if any at all.

I dare say that as a Baby Boomer we just might be America’s last best hope for destroying this cancer that has rotted out America’s very Soul.

Once our generation is gone there will be no one left to fight that good fight for all that is and was decent in America.

300284_564487090251217_120132710_n

May God richly Bless each and everyone of you and may God somehow find a way to…..

Bless these United States of Sodom and Gomorrah

ronald-raegan

President Obama hears about the ‘latest’ Hillary Scandal on the News

Obama-Watching-Mubarak-on-TV

Obama praises Clinton for asking State Department to disclose emails

President Obama says he found out that Hillary Clinton used a private, nongovernment email account during her tenure as secretary of state through media reports.

52901210

Obama said in an interview with CBS News Saturday that he was glad Clinton decided to disclose those emails, while maintaining his stance that his administration is the most transparent in the nation’s history, while saying Clinton “has been an outstanding public servant.”

“The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, and that’s why my emails — the BlackBerry that I carry around — all those records are available and archived and I’m glad that Hillary has instructed that those emails that had to do with official business had to be disclosed.”

Obama’s revelation comes after the White House struggled Friday to respond to questions over Clinton’s private email use. The heat was turned up after Politico reported that top White House officials knew in August that Clinton was conducting official government business on her personal email.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said a few officials noticed Clinton wasn’t using a .gov email address. However, he did not say when they noticed and if it raised any red flags. Earnest also brought up the notion that he would not be surprised if Obama learned about it from “newspapers.”

 Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarret told Bloomberg News Friday morning she never received an email from Clinton’s private address and not know if Obama or any other official did either.

According to Politico, the White House, State Department and Clinton’s personal office knew in August that the former secretary of state had used a private email to conduct official business. The State Department became aware while the agency was preparing a batch of 15,000 emails requested by House Republicans in the Benghazi investigation.

“State Department officials noticed that some of the 15,000 pages of documents included a personal email address for Clinton, and State and White House officials conferred on how to handle the revelation,” Politico wrote. “But those involved deferred to Clinton’s aides, and they decided not to respond.

It is unclear who at the White House did the conferring. Jamal Ware, spokesman for the Republican-led Select Committee on Benghazi, confirmed that he noticed Clinton was included on messages at the address hdr22@clintonemail.com when going through State Department documents in “late summer,” and then more on documents in February.

However, Ware told The Associated Press on Thursday that it wasn’t until Feb. 28, just days before the scandal broke, that the State Department acknowledged Clinton only used personal email while in office. After that, the committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., announced it has subpoenaed all of Clinton’s emails relating to Benghazi – including any communications from her personal email and server, as well as texts, attachments and pictures. 

The Associated Press earlier this week quoted an anonymous source saying the White House counsel’s office was also not aware of Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email during her tenure, and only found out as part of the congressional investigation.

Clinton has drawn criticism for using a private server during the four years she was a top official in Obama’s cabinet. Her use of personal emails has raised questions as to whether all important messages were secure and if they were turned over for congressional investigations and lawsuits.

Clinton tweeted Wednesday she turned over all relevant emails to the State Department to review and make public.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/08/obama-praises-clinton-for-asking-state-department-to-disclose-emails/

37872814

YEP, THE MOST ‘TRANSPARENT’ ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

1462991_622421721151294_1909538856_n

Portrait of a President

1604808_538607466244371_342787288991999192_n

From Wikipedia:

The decline of the Roman Empire refers to the gradual societal collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Many theories of causality prevail, but most concern the disintegration of political, economic, military, and other social institutions, in tandem with foreign invasions and usurpers from within the empire. The English historian Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) made this concept part of the framework of the English language, but he was not the first to speculate on why and when the Empire collapsed. “From the eighteenth century onward,” Glen W. Bowersock has remarked,[1] “we have been obsessed with the fall: it has been valued as an archetype for every perceived decline, and, hence, as a symbol for our own fears.” It remains one of the greatest historical questions, and has a tradition rich in scholarly interest. In 1984, German professor Alexander Demandt published a collection of 210 theories on why Rome fell, and new theories have emerged since then.[2][3]

This slow decline occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain. Some modern historians question the significance of this date,[4] and not simply because Julius Nepos, the legitimate emperor recognized by the East Roman Empire, continued to live in Salona, Dalmatia, until he was assassinated in 480. The Ostrogoths who succeeded considered themselves upholders of the direct line of Roman traditions. The Eastern Roman Empire was going from strength to strength and continued until the Fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453.

Many events throughout the empire’s history are considered to have worsened the empire’s so-called “decline”. The Battle of Adrianople in 378, the death of Theodosius I in 395 (the last time the Roman Empire was politically unified), the crossing of the Rhine in 406 by Germanic tribes, the execution of Stilicho in 408, the sack of Rome in 410, the death of Constantius III in 421, the death of Aetius in 454, the second sack of Rome in 455, and the death of Majorian in 461 are all macrohistorical events concerning the decline of the Western Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

10660175_778101792236062_3824266741784550177_n

ANY QUESTIONS?

11e6727cd69bf5fbeffb5aad224d879d1

Is America Safer then it was 6 Years Ago?

10689421_858783560848441_2035969034338955268_n

10450834_10152849329329382_8279322333406651579_n

10417582_10152820245574187_4940852379714695440_n

On November 4th we as a people can stop this Madman in his Tracks

10411313_715190055193903_123582040713922490_n

Your Vote can make all the difference because We the People can Restore these United States to Her former Glory

10491274_776439295744891_3412437839736985484_n

Let us together make Obama just a Bad Memory

10334242_710425452337030_5836015534521865769_n

ANY QUESTIONS?

10629608_851410914919039_5893501722742515607_n

VOTE TEA PARTY/REPUBLICANS ON NOVEMBER 4th 2014

american-eagle-logo-366x366

ISIL IS NOT ISLAMIC? -OR- IS ISIS Really ISIL or ISISn’t It?

1794776_10152608829206998_7086111175387943890_n

Strong reaction to Obama statement: ‘ISIL is not Islamic’

By Ashley Killough, CNN

(CNN) — President Barack Obama was trying to make a broader point when he uttered “ISIL is not Islamic,” but the four-word phrase could still come back to haunt him.

Critics on Twitter quickly fired off on the President for making the assertion, with many noting that ISIL in fact stands for the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.” (CNN refers to the group by the acronym ISIS in its news reports. The group recently started calling itself the Islamic State).

In full context, here’s what Obama said in his prime-time speech Wednesday night:

“ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state; it was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates.”

“ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple, and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

Transcript: President Obama’s ISIS speech

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/obama-isil-not-islamic/

A Dire Warning that

President George W. Bush

gave in July of 2007 that

President Barack ‘Husein’ Obama

willfully Ignored!

bush2007_20140911_105150

Glenn Beck Knows Why Obama Prefers ‘ISIL’ to ‘ISIS’

During his debut as moderator of Meet the Press last Sunday, Chuck Todd attempted to explain why President Barack Obama prefers to term “ISIL” over “ISIS” to describe the terrorist network that the U.S. may or may not be at war with currently.

In Todd’s view, calling the group “ISIL,” or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, avoids the direct reference to Syria in “ISIS.” And since the Obama administration had mostly tried to keep the idea of fighting the group in Syria off the table, they wanted to keep that specific reminder out of the group’s name. With the president’s speech to the nation last week, that inclination may have shifted, but either way, at this point the administration is committed to the term “ISIL.”

But Todd is not the only commentator trying to figure out why Obama says “ISIL” while the media tends to prefer “ISIS.” Fox News’ Harris Faulkner recently said she believed the president is “tipping his hat” to the group by using an “L” instead of an “S.” “Levant is a bigger territory,” she said on Outnumbered. “That’s why they want to embrace that name and it includes many, many more countries than just Syria.”

That theory is closer to the one Glenn Beck espoused in his “daily briefing” with TheBlaze staff Monday, though, unsurprisingly, his ideas are a bit more convoluted.

Beck noticed that technically, “the Levant” includes Israel, along with Lebanon and Jordan. “We actually should be flipped,” he said. “I should be saying it’s ‘ISIL’ and the president should saying it’s ‘ISIS,’” because in Beck’s view, the president wants to minimize the threat while he believes including the Levant better represents the group’s true aims. So, does that mean Beck actually agrees with Obama on this one? Not quite.

Beck accepts that the group should be called “ISIL” and not “ISIS,” but he thinks it should be called “ISIL” as a “warning,” which is apparently not what President Obama is doing.

When Obama uses the term “ISIL,” Beck sees it as a “slap in the face” to Israel. For the president to say that it’s “ISIL” and not “ISIS” and not at the same time “double down” on Israel and warn that the group is “taking over the Holy Land” is somehow disingenuous. “There is no more Israel if it’s ISIL,” Beck declared, ominously.

“So if I’m ISIS, and I hear the president say ‘you’re really ISIL’ and ‘I’m kind of wishy-washy on that whole Israel thing,’ you’re on my side,” Beck concluded. “For him to say ‘ISIL’ is sending a message overseas to them: ‘I know who you are. I’m not doing anything, I’m not doing anything.’”

Get all that? Beck agrees that the group, which calls itself simply “the Islamic State,” should be called “ISIL,” but not for the reasons Obama is using. And somehow, escalating missile strikes against the group in Iraq and possibly now Syria is the same as “not doing anything” because he uses an “L” instead of an “S.”

The truest explanation for why President Obama says “ISIL” instead of “ISIS”? He and his team started using it at one point and have stuck with it long enough that it would be awkward (and somehow perceived as weak) if he started saying “ISIS” now.

It’s kind of like how Obama insisted on using the “Affordable Care Act” before finally giving in and accepting that everyone was going to call it “Obamacare” no matter what he did. And we’ve all seen how well that turned out.

Watch video below, via TheBlaze:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-knows-why-obama-prefers-isil-to-isis/

In other words, this is what America gets for twice electing a nincompoop to the Oval Office!

10639409767830563263185233122097-3368430_p9ANY QUESTIONS?

lo

american-eagle

Iraq is now Obama’s War!

bush2007_20140911_105150

You own it now Barack

A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks  (Video) in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.  

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.  

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen says all these predictions have come true.

“Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today,” he told Fox News.

To Bush’s first warning, the Islamic State terror group is effectively the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq – and they’ve overrun several major cities in Iraq’s north while claiming broad swaths of territory in Syria. Further, the group has been behind mass killings of Iraqi civilians as well as the recent execution by beheading of two American journalists.

The Obama administration has warned that the group’s violence threatens to approach genocide levels.

Though President Obama says combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, American troops are nevertheless returning in some capacity. The president on Wednesday announced an expanded airstrike campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria, and is sending hundreds more U.S. military personnel into Iraq.

Some lawmakers and analysts say this could have been avoided if the Obama administration had left a residual force in Iraq, or at least had responded sooner to ISIS’ gains in northern Iraq over the past year.

Bush, before he left office, signed an agreement setting the stage for U.S. troops to withdraw by December 2011.

Obama, though, was urged by military advisers to keep thousands of service members after that deadline to help the shaky Iraqi government. But when Washington and Baghdad were unable to reach a renewed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces in the country, the Obama administration withdrew virtually all troops at the end of 2011.

“We needed to leave a stabilizing force behind, and we didn’t.  And of course, we know the rest is history,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/11/bush-in-2007-delivered-eerily-accurate-warning-about-iraq-unrest/

nm

Barry should have also listened to Glenn Beck

6077_427670680602317_612790271_n21

ANY QUESTIONS?

140617171808-cnnx-isis-control-iraq-lead-tablet-large

35b248c52d54a688399b9e885b88d781