Obama 'caves' and apparently is willing to allow Iran to retain their centrifuges hidden in an underground bunker. (See 1and 1a below.)
Obama's failed strategy encompasses: retreat, disengagement, caving, snubbing Israel, patronizing Iran and this has made the world more dangerous. Go Democrats, your radical president has accomplished your goals - demilitarize America to pacify radicals, destroy the coal industry and keep us energy dependent to pacify Greens, bankrupt our treasury and turn citizen against citizen and the police causing all to lose faith in a functioning government to pacify the Soros chaos crowd and American leftists in the press and media.
Obama's foreign policy initiatives have come full circle and suggest total chaos and in-coherency. (See 1b below.)
In one nation, Iraq, our air force is saving Iran which has sworn to kill Americans, having already killed hundred of Americans. In Yemen, our former ally, the Saudis, are attacking Iranian surrogates who threaten their northern border and oil fields.
Obama has turned against Israel because they elected someone he despises and who disagrees with his Iranian negotiations .
Meanwhile, as war breaks out in The Middle East, Obama is giving a "Pass Go" by siding with Iran's desire to become nuclear without any restraint on their continuing development of rocket delivery systems.
The choice still remains more pressure and sanctions on Iran not war but Obama does not wish to have the debate so framed. (See 1c below.)
===
Obama's foreign policy initiatives have come full circle and suggest total chaos and in-coherency. (See 1b below.)
In one nation, Iraq, our air force is saving Iran which has sworn to kill Americans, having already killed hundred of Americans. In Yemen, our former ally, the Saudis, are attacking Iranian surrogates who threaten their northern border and oil fields.
Obama has turned against Israel because they elected someone he despises and who disagrees with his Iranian negotiations .
Meanwhile, as war breaks out in The Middle East, Obama is giving a "Pass Go" by siding with Iran's desire to become nuclear without any restraint on their continuing development of rocket delivery systems.
The choice still remains more pressure and sanctions on Iran not war but Obama does not wish to have the debate so framed. (See 1c below.)
===
Call me an alarmist. Go to:ShariaTheThreat,Com and read, as I now am, "Shariah In American Courts," published by Center For Security Policy Press.
While Americans sit on their thumbs, the Muslim Brotherhood are actively burrowing under our Republic's Tent, under girding our freedoms by manipulating our open society and laws which protect the disenfranchised.
Anyone who speaks against Muslims is now portrayed as a radical, Mosques are expanding like rabbits, conversion to Jihadism is gathering momentum, school books are being altered as American history is rewritten while America is portrayed as an unjust nation. Meanwhile, Sharia Law is becoming woven into our judicial system, Islam is being equated with other religions notwithstanding its radical political content and anti-social demands and the list is endless.
The goal of The Muslim Brotherhood is to destroy "our house" by "our own hands."
In our own state (Georgia) the current Speaker of The House has refused to allow proposed legislation outlawing Sharia Law to determine the outcome of decisions in our state legal system. In Jessup, Georgia a Muslim Brotherhood training facility exists. Meanwhile, local sheriffs and other state police officials remain totally brain dead in terms of understanding and/or responding to theses threats to our way of life.
Wake up before its too late because it only takes a few to bring down many as witnessed by the enormous number of deaths that occurred in Germany, Russia, Japan, China , Cambodia etc. because deranged leaders were able to hold sway by converting a few disciples. (See 2 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) BREAKING: US Will Allow Iran to Maintain Centrifuges in Fortified Underground Bunker
By Guy BensonBehold, the current state of US-Iran nuclear negotiations. It appears as though President Obama really will stop at nothing to secure an agreement, putting the lie to his administration's "a bad deal is worse than no deal" posturing: US considers letting Iran run nuclear centrifuges at fortified underground bunker.
1a U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together
)BY:
U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.
Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.
“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.
With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.
“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source. “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”
The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.
This scenario has been criticized by nuclear experts, including David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Albright told Congress in November that “a prerequisite for any comprehensive agreement is for the IAEA to know when Iran sought nuclear weapons, how far it got, what types it sought to develop, and how and where it did this work.”
Albright told Congress in November that “a prerequisite for any comprehensive agreement is for the IAEA to know when Iran sought nuclear weapons, how far it got, what types it sought to develop, and how and where it did this work.”
“The IAEA needs a good baseline of Iran’s military nuclear activities, including the manufacturing of equipment for the program and any weaponization related studies, equipment, and locations,” Albright said.
One policy expert familiar with the concessions told the Washington Free Beacon that it would be difficult for the administration to justify greater concessions given the centrality of this issue in the broader debate.
“The Obama administration has gone all-in on the importance of verification,” said the source, who asked for anonymity because the administration has been known to retaliate against critics in the policy community. “But without knowing what the Iranians have it’s impossible for the IAEA to verify that they’ve given it up.”
A lesser emphasis is also being placed on Iran coming clean about its past efforts to build nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic continues to stall United Nations efforts to determine the extent of its past weapons work, according to the Wall Street Journal.
By placing disclosure of Iran’s past military efforts on the back burner, the administration could harm the ability of outside inspectors to take full inventory of Iran’s nuclear know-how, according to sources familiar with the situation.
It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.
It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.
On the diplomatic front, greater concessions are fueling fears among U.S. allies that Iran will emerge from the negations as a stronger regional power.
1b) Obama’s Mideast Vacuum
1c) The Conversation About Iran Obama Wants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)- SIRC Seminar on Sharia Law – March 26
David Bores gave a riveting picture of the extent of radical Islam in our very homeland, along with a perspective on its goals and the growth of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as its latest manifestation. ISIS started in Iraq as a split off of another sect that was vying for dominance in the radical Islamic world. Its much more violent tactics (beheadings and burnings) actually help them recruit because of its appeal as a “winning team”. They have actually created a Caliphate in Iraq and Syria which is the beginning of a return to the “golden years” when Islam dominated the entire Middle East for almost a thousand years.
ISIS in the U.S.
Funded by oil, drugs, prostitution and donations from mosques, it has grandiose plans to expand way beyond the Middle East, and has openly threatened the U.S. mainland. And it undoubtedly has sleeper cells already here, escorted in by Mexican drug cartel “coyotes”.
They have the technology to do truck bombs, and have training camps throughout the U.S. with several in Georgia. They have 100,000 ex-Somalis in Minnesota and Jihadists across the hugely porous border in Canada. They also use social media to recruit new members from discontents already here in prisons and youth populations, and were present during the riots in Ferguson Missouri.
They also appeal to women for dedicated brigades to police Sharia law adherence.
Is ISIS Islamic?
Most assuredly, as the Koran (inspired by Allah, as revealed to Mohammed) itself calls for holy wars, as does the Haddith – the spoken word of Mohammed its founder. 75 of the Koran’s 114 chapters reveal the early Mohammed’s peaceful period in Mecca. But the other 29 chapters reveal the more aggressive Mohammed’s Medina period when he conquered all of Arabia. It is the latter period advocating violence that trumps his earlier musings. And the rule is the later chapters replace the earlier ones in compulsion to follow. It was in the latter period when he began beheadings of hundreds in the name of the religion, and exhorted others to continue Jihad, or holy war, on Christians, Jews and non-believers.
Were the Crusades the Moral Equivalent of ISIS?
Obama’s claimed Christians were as violent as Muslims in carrying out The Crusades and the recapture of Jerusalem as a place for Christians to worship, because Islam had conquered all of the Middle East for 400 years prior.
The second Jihadist war ended on September 11, 1683, when the Islamic army was defeated outside of Vienna Austria.
Resumption of Worldwide Jihad
Islam then reverted to a more passive role until the 1920s. In 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to begin the Third Jihad and a revival seeking to re-establishing a worldwide Caliphate. Peace, is the stated goal of Islam, but only after Sharia Law is established worldwide, resulting in no further need to kill infidels.
Islamic Tactics
Deceptive goals and motives are an integral part of Jihad. Somehow they have convinced the U.S. Administration that their goals are peaceful. James Clapper recently removed Hezbollah and Iran from the list of terrorism sponsors. (Was that part of an Iranian deal on nuclear suspension?)
The U.S.military officially is not allowed to refer to radical Islamic terrorism. And incident after incident is called random acts of violence, not motivated by a radical religion.
The Middle East today is also a conflicting mixture of who is the enemy of whom. It is helpful to realize the Sunni and Shia branches have the same ultimate goal, but choose different means. Some prefer violent and overt tactics while others have more patience and are confident slower subversion works better. The latter is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement, as well as the Wahabbi’s of Saudi Arabia and the Salafi branches.
The undermining of America’s defenses is more the work of the MB.
There are some 2,000 mosques in the U.S. and more are planned. Within those mosques are likely the plans for the slow undermining American democracy.
Already school curriculi is being stripped of Christian principles of our founders, and are being replaced by the introduction of Sharia concepts. Look at your child’s textbooks for evidence of same.
Ironically, the Islamic and liberal left movements tactics have much in common: 1.Control by the government, 2. Disparaging capitalism and freedom 3. Encouraging prejudice against Christianity and Judaism 4. Abandoning traditional moral beliefs
What Can be Done to Stem the Tide?
1.Review every concession demanded by those pushing radical change. 2. Ask elected officials for their views on these trends. 3. Make sure foreign laws (such as Sharia) have no place in America. 4. Analyze the trend in textbooks to change our national traditions 5. Realize that Sharia traditions are not really another religion, but a political system. 6. Research the topic further via websites: Sharia unveiled” and creeping Sharia.
TRUE PERSPECTIVES SEMINAR on Sharia Law _________________________________________________________________________________
The Saudis invade Yemen as the Sunni-Shiite war escalates.
An abiding goal of President Obama’s foreign policy has been to reduce America’s role in the Middle East, in the belief that it would lead to greater stability and serve U.S. interests. Has a policy ever been so thoroughly repudiated in so short a time? Mr. Obama has succeeded in his retreat, but the vacuum he’s left has produced a region on fire that is becoming a broad Sunni-Shiite war.
That’s the context for this week’s meltdown in Yemen, which has now escalated with the military intervention of Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies. This follows the rout of a U.S.-friendly government by Houthi militias that belong to the Zaidi offshoot of Shiite Islam and are backed by Iran. What had been a proxy war is in danger of becoming a direct Saudi-Iran conflict.
More Opinion
Center for a New American Security Senior Fellow Robert D. Kaplan on the Saudi-led air assault on Yemen, and the prospects for a wider sectarian conflict. Photo credit: Getty Images.
The Saudi-Gulf Arab intervention is a significant risk, not least of a prolonged guerrilla war. The Saudis have a capable air force, but their ground forces can’t sustain a long fight. Egyptian troops may also participate, but Egyptians well remember how they were bloodied when they last took sides in a Yemen civil war in the 1960s.
The Saudi strategy isn’t clear but one goal seems to be to restore the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in at least part of the country, especially in the south around the port of Aden and including the air base at al-Anad. That won’t end the civil war, but it would prevent either an Iranian proxy or an al Qaeda offshoot from dominating a nation on its southern border.
It’s safe to say the Saudis would never take such risks if they hadn’t given up on the U.S. as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. This resembles their intervention into Bahrain in 2011 to put down a rebellion by its Shiite majority against the Sunni government, but the risks are greater in Yemen.
Iran has denounced the intervention, and Russia has also objected. Tehran probably won’t intervene directly, but you can bet it will supply the Houthis with arms and military advisers. It will try to bleed the Saudis and their allies for as long as possible at a relatively low cost. Tehran’s ultimate goal would be to neutralize if not destabilize the Gulf regimes as part of its plan to dominate the region.
As for the U.S., it needs to abandon its studied retreat and help the Saudis. Secretary of State John Kerry praised the intervention on Thursday, and the White House says the U.S. plans to provide logistical and intelligence support. This is the right side to support, but for a change Mr. Obama should do what it takes to help an ally win.
This should include a warning to Iran that the U.S. will assist the Saudis in stopping Iranian flights that arm the Houthis. Iranian flights over Iraq to Syria helped Assad survive at a crucial moment, but all the U.S. did was complain. This time Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps needs to be told its flights run the risk of being shot down.
Yemen is the home of al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, which has targeted the U.S. homeland more than once. The U.S. had run a drone war against AQAP from San’a until the Houthis made that impossible last week. Helping restore the Hadi government would restore that base of operations, while showing the Saudis and our other allies in the region that we’ll back them in a fight.
All of this also makes Mr. Obama’s obsession with a nuclear deal with Iran seem increasingly out of this world. The President seems to think he can strike a nuclear bargain as if it has nothing to do with the region’s strife or Iran’s advances. But the looming pact has facilitated that turmoil and is bound to make it worse.
Israel and the Sunni Arabs are convinced that the deal will leave Iran able to build a bomb more or less at a time of its choosing. They also believe the U.S. has refused to help them depose Syria’s Bashar Assad because Mr. Obama doesn’t want to upset Iran during the nuclear talks.
This in turn has made the Sunni Arabs reluctant to help against Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq. Which has forced the Iraq government to rely on Iran and Shiite militias to lead the fight against ISIS. The Iraqis finally asked the militias to back off this week in return for U.S. bombing help in the battle to retake Tikrit from ISIS.
It’s not too much to say that America’s traditional allies in the region fear that Mr. Obama wants to cast them aside and create a new U.S.-Iran alliance.
***
The temptation in some American circles, including in parts of the right, will be to let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other until they get tired of it. But that’s what the same sages said about Syria’s civil war, which proceeded to spill into Iraq and midwife Islamic State, which is now gaining adherents around the world. The damage to U.S. interests from a radical takeover of the Gulf states, by either Sunni jihadists or Shiites loyal to Iran, would be even worse.
When the world’s only superpower retreats willy-nilly, bad things happen. Much like Jimmy Carter in 1979 after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Mr. Obama needs to reassess his failing foreign policy before the mayhem spreads even further.
1c) The Conversation About Iran Obama Wants
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton makes a strong case today on the New York Times op-ed page for the need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to ensure that the regime doesn’t get a bomb. He’s right that those who dismiss the use of force are underestimating the damage air strikes can inflict and overestimating Tehran’s ability to recoup its losses in quick order after it has taken them decades to get this close. But before you give too much credit to the editors of the Times for, in what is an increasingly rare gesture for them, giving space to opposing views, take a moment and think about whether this is the debate about Iran we should be having. For the past year and a half President Obama has attempted to portray opponents of his appeasement of Iran as warmongers when, in fact, most have rightly advocated sticking to the tough sanctions he has discarded in hope of forcing the regime to accept an agreement that, unlike the one currently being negotiated, would actually stop them from building a bomb. Whatever its virtues, the Bolton article merely serves to bolster Obama’s disingenuous arguments.
One of the hallmarks of the Times opinion pages in recent years is the way its editors have discarded any notion of providing space to contrary views except in rare instances. With respect to the drumbeat of criticism aimed at Israel, the avalanche of columns attacking the government of the Jewish state or bolstering the propaganda assault of the Palestinians and their allies has further tarnished the paper’s reputation as the prime example of media bias. The same is true of virtually any position taken by the Times editorial page including support for the president’s policy toward Iran. In that context, Bolton’s column is a breath of fresh air because it outlines the danger of Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon and the certainty that Obama’s offer to Tehran will set off a dangerous arms race in the region.
But by publishing Bolton’s article, the Times is attempting to couch the debate about Iran according to the president’s preferred talking point in which the choice is between his policy and war. That is a prime example of the president setting up straw men to knock down rather than actually engaging the arguments of his critics in a serious way.
The president’s steady retreat from his past promises about ending Iran’s nuclear program has been part of a strategy in which the regime is embraced as a tacit ally against ISIS. He is acquiescing to Iran’s quest for hegemony in the Middle East so as to enable the president to essentially withdraw from the region. To facilitate this rapprochement, Obama discarded the enormous economic and military leverage over Iran and given in whenever the Iranians stood their ground in the talks. The result is a flimsy agreement that could allow Iran to cheat their way to a bomb during the course of a deal that will eventually expire and let them get one anyway. Worse than that, because of that weakness and
Washington’s unwillingness to support International Atomic Energy Agency demands for information about their military research, the administration could let them get one even while abiding by the deal.
But the real alternative to the president’s feckless pursuit of détente with Iran is not war. What is needed is a return to the sanctions that the president opposed when Congress first passed them and measures toughening them that, when combined with the collapse in oil prices, bring Iran’s economy to its knees. All it would have taken in 2013 for this to work would have been patience, courage, and leadership on Obama’s part. Instead, he abandoned the isolation of Iran at the first opportunity he got. Were the president to concede that appeasement is failing to stop Iran, he could go back to the path of strength and, with strict enforcement of U.S. sanctions that would make it difficult for other nations to do business with Iran, force America’s allies to follow suit.
Even at the 11 th hour, as we may be days away from the signing of a bad deal with Iran, it is not too late for the U.S. to step back from the brink of folly. A demonstration of strength and principle on Obama’s part, however unlikely it may seem today, would be a devastating blow to Iran and perhaps actually compel them to start making concessions that might enable the president to keep his campaign promises about the nuclear threat.
That is the choice that America still has on Iran. That is the debate we should be having, not one of appeasement versus war.
Once the Iran deal is signed, it may well be that the West will no longer have either a diplomatic or a military option for stopping Iran. But until then, opponents of Obama’s retreat must continue to advocate for sanctions and tough diplomacy rather than for the use of force that Obama would never choose under virtually any circumstances. However correct Bolton’s points might be, his article merely strengthens the president’s disingenuous arguments about false choices that are leading us down the primrose path to Iran appeasement.
2)- SIRC Seminar on Sharia Law – March 26
David Bores gave a riveting picture of the extent of radical Islam in our very homeland, along with a perspective on its goals and the growth of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as its latest manifestation. ISIS started in Iraq as a split off of another sect that was vying for dominance in the radical Islamic world. Its much more violent tactics (beheadings and burnings) actually help them recruit because of its appeal as a “winning team”. They have actually created a Caliphate in Iraq and Syria which is the beginning of a return to the “golden years” when Islam dominated the entire Middle East for almost a thousand years.
ISIS in the U.S.
Funded by oil, drugs, prostitution and donations from mosques, it has grandiose plans to expand way beyond the Middle East, and has openly threatened the U.S. mainland. And it undoubtedly has sleeper cells already here, escorted in by Mexican drug cartel “coyotes”.
They have the technology to do truck bombs, and have training camps throughout the U.S. with several in Georgia. They have 100,000 ex-Somalis in Minnesota and Jihadists across the hugely porous border in Canada. They also use social media to recruit new members from discontents already here in prisons and youth populations, and were present during the riots in Ferguson Missouri.
They also appeal to women for dedicated brigades to police Sharia law adherence.
Is ISIS Islamic?
Most assuredly, as the Koran (inspired by Allah, as revealed to Mohammed) itself calls for holy wars, as does the Haddith – the spoken word of Mohammed its founder. 75 of the Koran’s 114 chapters reveal the early Mohammed’s peaceful period in Mecca. But the other 29 chapters reveal the more aggressive Mohammed’s Medina period when he conquered all of Arabia. It is the latter period advocating violence that trumps his earlier musings. And the rule is the later chapters replace the earlier ones in compulsion to follow. It was in the latter period when he began beheadings of hundreds in the name of the religion, and exhorted others to continue Jihad, or holy war, on Christians, Jews and non-believers.
Were the Crusades the Moral Equivalent of ISIS?
Obama’s claimed Christians were as violent as Muslims in carrying out The Crusades and the recapture of Jerusalem as a place for Christians to worship, because Islam had conquered all of the Middle East for 400 years prior.
The second Jihadist war ended on September 11, 1683, when the Islamic army was defeated outside of Vienna Austria.
Resumption of Worldwide Jihad
Islam then reverted to a more passive role until the 1920s. In 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to begin the Third Jihad and a revival seeking to re-establishing a worldwide Caliphate. Peace, is the stated goal of Islam, but only after Sharia Law is established worldwide, resulting in no further need to kill infidels.
Islamic Tactics
Deceptive goals and motives are an integral part of Jihad. Somehow they have convinced the U.S. Administration that their goals are peaceful. James Clapper recently removed Hezbollah and Iran from the list of terrorism sponsors. (Was that part of an Iranian deal on nuclear suspension?)
The U.S.military officially is not allowed to refer to radical Islamic terrorism. And incident after incident is called random acts of violence, not motivated by a radical religion.
The Middle East today is also a conflicting mixture of who is the enemy of whom. It is helpful to realize the Sunni and Shia branches have the same ultimate goal, but choose different means. Some prefer violent and overt tactics while others have more patience and are confident slower subversion works better. The latter is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement, as well as the Wahabbi’s of Saudi Arabia and the Salafi branches.
The undermining of America’s defenses is more the work of the MB.
There are some 2,000 mosques in the U.S. and more are planned. Within those mosques are likely the plans for the slow undermining American democracy.
Already school curriculi is being stripped of Christian principles of our founders, and are being replaced by the introduction of Sharia concepts. Look at your child’s textbooks for evidence of same.
Ironically, the Islamic and liberal left movements tactics have much in common: 1.Control by the government, 2. Disparaging capitalism and freedom 3. Encouraging prejudice against Christianity and Judaism 4. Abandoning traditional moral beliefs
What Can be Done to Stem the Tide?
1.Review every concession demanded by those pushing radical change. 2. Ask elected officials for their views on these trends. 3. Make sure foreign laws (such as Sharia) have no place in America. 4. Analyze the trend in textbooks to change our national traditions 5. Realize that Sharia traditions are not really another religion, but a political system. 6. Research the topic further via websites: Sharia unveiled” and creeping Sharia.
TRUE PERSPECTIVES SEMINAR on Sharia Law _________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment