Foreign Leaders Speak out Against a Possible Trump Presidency…Because They’ve Never Had It So “Good”

thZPYHNV0TIt is not just American Liberal Leaders who are afraid of Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States of America.

Reuters.com reports that

Foreign diplomats are expressing alarm to U.S. government officials about what they say are inflammatory and insulting public statements by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to senior U.S. officials.

Officials from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have complained in recent private conversations, mostly about the xenophobic nature of Trump’s statements, said three U.S. officials, who all declined to be identified.

As the (Trump) rhetoric has continued, and in some cases amped up, so, too, have concerns by certain leaders around the world,” said one of the officials.The three officials declined to disclose a full list of countries whose diplomats have complained, but two said they included at least India, South Korea, Japan and Mexico.

U.S. officials said it was highly unusual for foreign diplomats to express concern, even privately, about candidates in the midst of a presidential campaign. U.S. allies in particular usually don’t want to be seen as meddling in domestic politics, mindful that they will have to work with whoever wins.

Senior leaders in several countries — including Britain, Mexico, France, and Canada — have already made public comments criticizing Trump’s positions. German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel branded him a threat to peace and prosperity in an interview published on Sunday.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the private diplomatic complaints.

Japan’s embassy declined to comment. The Indian and South Korean embassies did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for the Mexican government would not confirm any private complaints but noted that its top diplomat, Claudia Ruiz Massieu, said last week that Trump’s policies and comments were “ignorant and racist” and that his plan to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration was “absurd.”

The foreign officials have been particularly disturbed by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim themes that the billionaire real estate mogul has pushed, according to the U.S. officials.

European and Middle Eastern government representatives have expressed dismay to U.S. officials about anti-Muslim declarations by Trump that they say are being used in recruiting pitches by the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups.

On Dec. 7, Trump’s campaign issued a written statement saying that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Trump subsequently said in television interviews that American Muslims traveling abroad would be allowed to return to the country, as would Muslim members of the U.S. military or Muslim athletes coming to compete in the United States.

There are also concerns abroad that the United States would become more insular under Trump, who has pledged to tear up international trade agreements and push allies to take a bigger role in tackling Middle East conflicts.

“European diplomats are constantly asking about Trump’s rise with disbelief and, now, growing panic,” said a senior NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Boys and girls…all of this “voiced concern” is a good thing.

A strong American President is essential to retaining the sovereignty of our country.

As a 22-year old College Senior, I was privileged to cast my first-ever vote in a National Election. That vote took place in November of 1980, and it was for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The popularity of President Reagan was not just limited to the boundaries of our nation. He was admired the world over. The things that he accomplished, along with his friends, Prime Minister of Britain Margaret Thatcher, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and Pope John Paul II, have caused the decade of the 1980s to be recorded as a seminal moment in world history.

I remember watching President Reagan speak at the Berlin Wall. When he said, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!”, I was never prouder to be an American and of an American president, than at that moment.

Liberals, around the world, lost their collective minds.

For you see, Liberal Leaders, just as they do now, hate it when Marxism gives way to Freedom.

Nothing bothers them more than when a strong American President is at the forefront of a conquering moment, when a strong foreign policy is based on the reality that negotiating from a position of strength is always more effective than negotiating from a position of weakness.

Fast forward to the present, where an ineffective President Barack Hussein Obama is looking like a fool to a world who used to look to America as a bastion of strength and freedom, not weakness and political expediencies.

President Barack Hussein Obama has placed us in untenable position with his weak and vacillating Smart Power Foreign Policy.

Those who used to cringe in their desert tents, while calling us the Great Satan, now laugh in our faces as they walk across our southern borders with the rest of the illegal immigrants.

That is, if Obama simply does not invite them to the White House and meet with them, as he has the Muslim Brotherhood.

America must have a president who will man up and negotiate from a position of strength with both our friends and our enemies.

Unfortunately for our present safety as nation, Obama’s Fantasyland view of the world, which is not unlike the old Coca Cola Advertisement where everyone had a Coke and a smile, set him up to be a disastrous failure at Foreign Policy.

A failure, which finds our enemies in Iran still working on a nuclear bomb and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin beginning the process of annexing surrounding countries and rebuilding the old Soviet Union, which was dissolved, thanks to the efforts of a real leader and American President, Ronald Reagan.

The popular defense, currently being thrown against the wall to see if it sticks by Liberals on behalf of their fallen messiah’s failed Foreign Policy, is to attack those who are critical of it, by claiming that we are all of bunch of “Christianist Raaaciiist Hate Mongers”.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Failure explains the resistance of foreign leaders to the possible Presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Ronald Reagan, when he was “out on the stump” for Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, in October of 1964, delivered a powerful speech titled, “A Time for Choosing”. At one point in that now-classic speech, he spoke about America’s role in the world, stating that

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

…You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Once again, we have “a rendezvous with destiny”.

Foreign Leaders, who like the advantage that they have gained, under the weak and vacillating Foreign Policy of Barack Hussein Obama, do not want the United States to regain our position as the Leader of the Free World.

That is why they fear a Trump Presidency.

It is far more lucrative for them, when the United States “negotiates from a position of weakness”.

They certainly do not want to negotiate with an American President who has mastered “The Art of the Deal”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Trump, Fox News, the Democrat Elite, and “The Art of the Deal”

Oval-Office-Trump-ArtOfTheDealLeading Republican Presidential Primary Candidate, Donald J. Trump, was at the top of the News Cycle all day, yesterday.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Eight hours ago, as of this posting, the Presidential Campaign Office of Donald J. Trump issued the following statement on his Official Faceboo Account…

(New York, NY) January 26th, 2016 – As someone who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time, The Art of the Deal, who has built an incredible company, including some of the most valuable and iconic assets in the world, and as someone who has a personal net worth of many billions of dollars, Mr. Trump knows a bad deal when he sees one. FOX News is making tens of millions of dollars on debates, and setting ratings records (the highest in history), where as in previous years they were low-rated afterthoughts.

Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn’t play games. There have already been six debates, and according to all online debate polls including Drudge, Slate, Time Magazine, and many others, Mr. Trump has won all of them, in particular the last one. Whereas he has always been a job creator and not a debater, he nevertheless truly enjoys the debating process – and it has been very good for him, both in polls and popularity.

He will not be participating in the FOX News debate and will instead host an event in Iowa to raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians. Like running for office as an extremely successful person, this takes guts and it is the kind mentality our country needs in order to Make America Great Again.

Yesterday, Trump also said the following in an interview with Mike Barnicle on the seldom-watched cable news channel, MSNBC

Well, I think that I’m going to be able to get along with Pelosi. I think I’m going to be able to — I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve never had a problem. Reid will be gone. I always had a decent relationship with Reid, although lately, obciosuly, I haven’t been dealing with him so he’ll actually use my name as the ultimate — you know, as the ultimate of the billionaires in terms of, you know, people you don’t want.

But I always had a great relationship with Harry Reid. And frankly, if I weren’t running for office I would be able to deal with her or Reid or anybody. But I think I’d be able to get along very well with Nancy Pelosi and just about everybody.

Hey, look, I think I’ll be able to get along well with Chuck Schumer. I was always very good with Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways. It’s important that you get along. It’s wonderful to say you’re a maverick and you’re going to stand up and close up the country and all of the things, but you have to get somebody to go along with you. You have a lot of people. We have a system. The founders created the system that actually is a very good system. It does work, but it can’t work if you can get nobody to go along with you.

When word came out, my fellow Conservatives made the following  points that

  1. If Trump can’t stand up to Meghan Kelly, how is he going to stand up to Putin and the rest of our enemies?
  2. 2. Who the heck wants to get along with Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer? The next President needs to politically destroy them!

Why did Trump tell Fox News to buzz off?

Why is he talking about “getting along” with the Democrat Elite?

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, gave a superb analysis of the way Trump operates, on his nationally-syndicated Program, yesterday…

Let me share with you some analysis that will no doubt be misunderstood and distorted in many places in our media, but here we go.  As I’m listening to Trump talk about all this — and not just today. It is fascinating, is it not, that Donald Trump has sort of reframed, or maybe even redefined, the purpose and the position of the presidency as something defined by negotiating deals?  He talks about this all the time. This is important. He’s credibly presenting himself as a skilled dealmaker, as a skilled negotiator.  Therefore, he is positing here that the job of president, to him, is negotiating and dealmaking, foreign and domestic. 

Trade equals deals. Foreign policy equals deals such as Iran, the entire Middle East.  Domestic policy equals deals, i.e., making them with Democrats.  By all those deals… Here’s the thing: Every time Trump talks about doing a deal — with Mexico and the wall, you name it, with the ChiComs. Every time he talks about doing deals, he talks about winning them for his position, that nobody else is any good at this, that the people running our government now, elected officials now don’t know how to do deals. They do the dumbest deals ever. 

But Trump is gonna do smart deals, because that’s what his life is. 

He does deals for everything, and he runs rings around everybody. 

He wrote a book on how to do deals better than anybody else.  Even after telling everybody how to do deals, they still can’t do ’em better than he does.  And he’s defined all of this as pro-America, i.e., for the people. Making America great again.  The opposition, or the opposite reactions to Trump among Republicans and others depends on whether people trust or believe him or not.  Trump opposers don’t believe it; Trump supporters do believe it.  He thinks he can make deals with Russia and Putin better than Obama, everybody think is so that’s he’s repositioning everything here as he’s a dealmaker and Cruz can’t do deals because everybody hates him.

Okay.  Let’s talk about deal-making here for a minute.  Just a quick minute or two.  When you are in business, let’s say you’re J.R. Ewing and you’re up against the cartel in Dallas, and you’re making deals, those are businesses deals.  Any kind of a business deal.  The experts who teach business school students how to do deals, the best deals are those in which everybody at the end feels good. The Art of the Deal in business is making sure that you get what you want while making the other side think they got enough of what they want that they’re happy, too.  That in business it’s a bad thing to skunk somebody and leave them with nothing.  Give ’em something, no matter what cards you hold, and if you go into the deal holding none of the cards, the objective is, both sides like it and both sides don’t.  If there’s commonality, if both sides are unhappy they didn’t get it all, fine.  If both sides are happy with what they get to one degree or another, then you got a good deal, an okay deal, and you’re out of there. 

In politics, that’s not how it works.  Take a look at the deals the Republicans have done with the Democrats and ask yourself, in every one of them, be it a budget deal, be it an immigration deal, is there any, is there a single deal that the Republicans have made in the past seven years that any of you have felt, “You know what, we got something out of this?”  No. However, if you listen to the Republicans who participated in the negotiation of the deal, they universally come out of there and start telling us, “Hey, you know, we got some stuff in here that we didn’t have. And out of the budget deal you know what that was?  We won back the right to export oil.  We smoked ’em.  We got a great deal.”  And you’re saying, “You think that makes this a good deal?” 

So from the Republican establishment standpoint, they think you will be made to believe that they made a good deal if they tout what they think they got out of it.  The Democrats, when they go into one of these deals, it’s smoke city.  There isn’t going to be one iota’s compromise.  The Republicans aren’t gonna get anything that matters. 

Now, the Democrats might give them something inconsequential, just enough that the Republicans can leave the negotiation and say, “Look what we got, look what we got here, we did okay.”  And their voters are saying, “You got skunked, you got nothing, we lost it again, and what you promised to do is kick it down the road and we’ll deal with it next time.  It keeps happening and happening.  We didn’t get diddly-squat.” 

“Yeah, we did, look at Medicare Part B!  We skunked ’em, we got a brand-new entitlement that’s got conservative free market principles all over.”  You think that was a win?  That’s what we were told after that happened.  How in the world can you, with a Republican administration, Republican House, agree to a new entitlement, it’s your idea for a new entitlement.  And they dare come out and tell us that that’s a win? 

But in Trump’s world, where he does deals, he’s gonna have to do business with ’em down the road.  He doesn’t want to make enemies like he says Ted Cruz does.  Ted Cruz is not nasty.  You know, this is the thing.  I have warned them about this I don’t know how many times.  Ted Cruz is not nasty.  (imitating Trump) “He’s a nasty guy. Everybody hates Cruz.”  No, they fear Cruz, maybe respect Cruz, but, hey, look, if you’re running a scam and somebody comes along in your own club and calls you out on it, you’re not gonna love ’em, which is what Cruz did many times.

Addressing the first point concerning Trump’s decision to boycott tomorrow night’s debate,

1.  Trump knows that Fox News has been backing the Republican Elite’s Heir to the Throne, Jeb Bush, since the start of the Republican Primary. He is not going to walk into anywhere that he perceives, right or wrong, to be an ambush.

2. Trump’s real fight is with Roger Ailes, with whom he has been negotiating. Meghan Kelly is simply being used as a focal point.

3. Any publicity is good publicity. Trump evidently feels that this will not hurt his campaign.

4. Leverage.

Concerning Trump’s assertion that he can “get along” with the Democrat Hierarchy…

On July 27. 2012. John Heubush, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, wrote the following op ed for The Daily Caller

  1. In order to be an effective President, you have to build a Coalition. The most effective President in my lifetime did.

“You’re in the big leagues, now.”

So the speaker of the House said to the 40th president of the United States just days after his inauguration.

It was 1981. The 97th Congress was a mixed bag, with a Democratic-controlled House, led by Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, and a Senate held by Republicans who, for the first time since 1953, controlled a chamber of Congress.

But Ronald Reagan didn’t think “eight years as governor of one of the largest states in the union had exactly been the minor leagues.” Sacramento had been Reagan’s beta-site where nothing was accomplished until strong coalitions were formed. “It was important to develop an effective working relationship with my opponents in the legislature,” Reagan wrote, “our political disagreements not withstanding.”

What did this adversarial relationship with O’Neill and Democrats produce in the next two years? Caustic gamesmanship? A stand-off? On July 29, 1981, less than six months after Reagan took office, a strong bipartisan coalition in the House passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Two days later, the Senate followed suit.

How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

Matching wits with Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers) as head of the actors’ union and Jesse Unruh (speaker of the California State Assembly) as governor taught Reagan to come to the bargaining table prepared. “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts,” Reagan wrote, “that you seldom get everything you ask for.” (Years later, the press asked him about negotiating with Gorbachev. “It was easier than dealing with Jack Warner,” Reagan shot back.)

Although the Democrats were in a tough position after the Carter years, their big trump card was that nothing would get done unless Reagan won over a substantial number of them in the House. It’s no wonder that O’Neill was so full of braggadocio.

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

The strategy to get the Economic Recovery Act passed by a conflicted Congress had two major parts.

First, Reagan would use his tremendous skills as a communicator by making repeated televised appeals to Congress and the American people. “Every time he spoke,” Reagan Chief of Staff Jim Baker recalled, “the needle moved.”

Second, the Legislative Strategy Group led by Baker and Ed Meese “did the grunt work” of inviting Democrats to the White House, while the president worked the phones. “I spent a lot of time in the spring and early summer of 1981 on the telephone and in meetings trying to build a coalition to get the nation’s recovery under way,” Reagan wrote. At the time, he even noted in his diary, “These Dems are with us on the budget and it’s interesting to hear some who’ve been here ten years or more say that it is their first time to ever be in the Oval Office. We really seem to be putting a coalition together.”

These “Dems” — the Boll Weevils — were Southern conservative Democrats who became key players in Reagan’s economic recovery strategy. It helped Reagan’s purpose that many represented districts that the president had carried in 1980. If they voted against a popular president, it could cost them their seats in 1982.

“To encourage the Boll Weevils to cross party lines,” journalist Lou Cannon wrote, “Reagan accepted a suggestion by James Baker and promised that he could not campaign in 1982 against any Democratic members of Congress who voted for both his tax and budget bills.” It was a shrewd and effective move.

2. In order to become President of the United States, you must garner more votes than the other party’s candidate. This cannot be done simply by relying on the votes of your own poltical party. You must have ‘crossover votes”.

Back on August 15, 1984, Mark Green, in an article written for the New York Times, titled, “Reagan, The Liberal Democrat”, wrote the following…

To what do we owe these conversions on the road to November? Could it be election-year opportunism? Could it be anything else?

There is a kind of historical consistency in this inconsistency: As Will Rogers noted back in the 1920’s: ”The Republicans have a habit of having three bad years and one good one, and the good ones always happened to be election years.”

If Ronald Reagan holds to this path, he may soon end up back among the Americans for Democratic Action, which he fled and renounced in the 1950’s.

Not surprisingly, ideological fellow-travelers such as the commentators William F. Buckley Jr. and Pat Buchanan have expressed dismay over their champion’s apostasy. Mr. Buchanan worries that by flirting with the idea of a summit meeting, the President ”is playing with the national security of the U.S.”

Mr. Reagan’s election-year liberalism appears designed to win over those political independents and weak Democrats who might otherwise recall him as the man who has opposed all but one of the major civil rights laws and nuclear arms control pacts of the past two decades.

Will it work? Only if these constituencies believe his reversals to be principled and permanent – and that seems unlikely. To conclude now that Ronald Reagan has suddenly become pro-environment, pro-arms control, pro-food stamps and pro-regulation is to believe that a sow’s ear can become a silk purse merely by declaring itself so.

Besides, swing voters faced this fall with the equivalent of two Democratic tickets may just as well decide to vote for the real McCoy rather than the imitation brand.

The New York Times was a Liberal Schlock Sheet, even way back in 1984.

They, like the rest of the Liberals in the Media back then, could not stand Ronald Reagan. That’s no secret. However, even they understood what Reagan. He was attracting “crossover votes” for his Second Presidential Campaign.

The constant deal-making, bravado and braggadocio, and his “willingness to work together” are arrows in the quiver of Donald J. Trump, which have served him well in the past, and have helped him become an American Success Story,

We shall see if those arrows find their mark during the Republican Presidential Primary Battle and later, the President Campaign, if he is the Nominee.

Similar arrows found the mark for Ronald Reagan.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama Says Oppressive Iran Could Become a “Very Successful Regional Power”

AFBrancoObamaCarterAward1092014Since the ouster of the Shah, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the Free World, and, especially, the United States of America.

Are you old enough to remember the Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of some 300 to 500 “students” who called themselves “Imam’s Disciples,” laid siege to the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, to capture and hold hostage 66 U.S. citizens and diplomats. Although women and African-Americans were released a short time later, 51 hostages remained imprisoned for 444 days with another individual released because of illness midway through the ordeal.

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

And, now, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is encouraging the Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians to become a successful nation.

Reuters News – Canada reports the following…

Iran could become a “very successful regional power” if Tehran agrees to a long-term deal to curb its nuclear program, President Barack Obama said in an interview with NPR News.

“They’ve got a chance to get right with the world,” Obama said in the interview, which was taped at the White House on Dec. 18 and is set to air this week.

More than a year ago, Iran agreed to an interim plan to halt higher-level uranium enrichment in exchange for a limited easing in financial sanctions pending negotiations on a long-term deal. Those talks have now been extended to next June.

Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful energy use, but the United States and five other powers want to make sure that Tehran cannot quickly develop nuclear weapons.

Obama told NPR that Iran should seize the chance of a deal that could lift crippling sanctions.

“Because if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of Iran and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules – and that would be good for everybody,” he said.

Obama insisted a nuclear deal was possible, although Vice President Joe Biden earlier this month said he thought there was a “less than even shot” of an agreement.

Obama said he recognized that Iran has “legitimate defense concerns” after it “suffered from a terrible war with Iraq” in the 1980s. But he criticized Tehran for its “adventurism, the support of organizations like Hizbollah, the threats they’ve directed at Israel.”

Asked whether he would use his last two years in office to help rebuild war-torn countries, Obama said it was up to countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq to take the lead.

“We can help, but we can’t do it for them,” Obama said. “I think the American people recognize that. There are times here in Washington where pundits don’t; they think you can just move chess pieces around the table.

“And whenever we have that kind of hubris, we tend to get burned,” he said.

Obama rejected the idea of “devoting another trillion dollars” to sending U.S. combat troops to fight Islamic State militants in Iraq.

“We need to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our schools, our roads, our basic science and research here in the United States,” he said.

Obama said he hoped to be able to work with Congress on shared economic goals. But he said he expected Republicans would pass some bills he will oppose, particularly on health care and the environment.

“I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office,” Obama said. “Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out.”

I reported, earlier this year, that President Obama had been sending secret letters to the Head Ayatollah in Iran, a country who sponsors Islamic Terrorism, with whom we have not had diplomatic relations since the Radical Muslims took over, after they revolted against the Moderate Government of the Shah in 1979.

Now, President Pantywaist continues to reach out to a nation run by Radical Muslims, who hate our ever-lovin’ guts?

Why doesn’t he just go ahead and help them with their “Nuclear Enhancement Program”, so they can launch one at us quicker, while he’s at it?

He negotiates with those who want to kill us, and gives ultimatums to his own countrymen.

Some observations…

1 The Iranian Government is not secular. It is the product of a fanatical political ideology, disguised as a “faith”. The Ayatollahs rule Iran. The President and “Secular Government” carry out their wishes, and are simply figureheads.

2. Nowhere in Obama’s Negotiations with Iran, has he or Secretary of State John Kerry called for the halt of Uranium Enrichment in Iran.

3. A Christian American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, has been held in jail by the Iranian Government, since the summer of 2012. Why does the Obama Administration care more about negotiating appeasement with a hostile, barbaric Foreign Government, than securing the freedom of an American Christian Pastor?

Wars have been started for less than that.

President Reagan advised to “Trust, but Verify”.

Evidently, Obama’s message is to “Trust Islam…Limit American Christianity”.

This has the potential of not ending well.

He truly is our first Anti-American President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Sends Secret Letters to Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah

AFBrancoObamaElevator9142014The president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, once said in a New York Times article, posted March 3, 2007:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Like Jimmy Carter, before him, our dhimmi president believes that you can negotiate with barbarians who want to slaughter each and every one of us.

WSJ.com reports that

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say.

The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.

The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important—whether in a potentially constructive or negative role—to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

Mr. Obama and senior administration officials in recent days have placed the chances for a deal with Iran at only 50-50. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is set to begin intensive direct negotiations on the nuclear issue with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on Sunday in the Persian Gulf country of Oman.

“There’s a sizable portion of the political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference on Wednesday about Iran’s leadership, without commenting on his personal overture. “Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.”

For the first time this week, a senior administration official said negotiations could be extended beyond the Nov. 24 deadline.

The White House will know after Mr. Kerry’s trip to Oman whether a deal with Iran is possible by late November, the senior official said.

“We’ll know a lot more after that meeting as to whether or not we have a shot at an agreement by the deadline,” the official said. “If there’s an extension, there’re questions like: What are the terms?”

Mr. Obama’s push for a deal faces renewed resistance after Tuesday’s elections gave Republicans control of the Senate and added power both to block an agreement and to impose new sanctions on Iran. Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) have introduced legislation to intensify sanctions.

‘There’s a sizable portion of the [Iranian] political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism. Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.’ —Barack Obama

“The best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to quickly pass the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk legislation—not to give the Iranians more time to build a bomb,” Mr. Kirk said Wednesday.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) expressed concern when asked about the letter sent by Mr. Obama.

“I don’t trust the Iranians, I don’t think we need to bring them into this,” Mr. Boehner said. Referring to the continuing nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Mr. Boehner said he “would hope that the negotiations that are under way are serious negotiations, but I have my doubts.”

In a sign of the sensitivity of the Iran diplomacy, the White House didn’t tell its Middle East allies—including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—about Mr. Obama’s October letter to Mr. Khamenei, according to the people briefed on the correspondence.

Leaders from these countries have voiced growing concern in recent weeks that the U.S. is preparing to significantly soften its demands in the nuclear talks with Tehran. They said they worry the deal could allow Iran to gain the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in the future.

Arab leaders also fear Washington’s emerging rapprochement with Tehran could come at the expense of their security and economic interests across the Middle East. These leaders have accused the U.S. of keeping them in the dark about its diplomatic engagements with Tehran.

So, let me get this straight: President Pantywaist, dhimmi that he is, has been secretly writing love letters to our sworn enemy, Iran, a Radical Muslim Rogue State, who is building a nuclear bomb, in order to wipe us off the face of the Earth, in an effort to recruit them to join us in our fight against ISIS, an Organization of Radical Muslims, who stated that they were going to plant their flag on top of the White House.

My Dear Lord.

Right now, in our nation, the political winds have shifted in an ugly direction for President Pantywaist and his political party, thanks to Obama’s lack of leadership. Political Partisanship has intensified to such an extent, that political pundits on both sides of the aisle, have labeled the situation between the parties, a “Civil War”

Instead of seriously attempting to unite the country he is supposed to be serving and protecting, Obama, as exhibited in his Wednesday Press Conference, is acting like a petulant child, insisting that everybody play by his rules, or else, he will take his ball and go home.

Now, on top of that, he has been sending secret letters to a country who sponsors Islamic Terrorism, with whom we have not had diplomatic relations since the Radical Muslims took over after they revolted against the Moderate Government of the Shah in 1979.

What is he going to do? Help them with their “Nuclear Enhancement Program”, so they can launch one at us quicker?

He negotiates with those who want to kill us, and gives ultimatums to his own countrymen.

Some observations…

1 The Iranian Government is not secular. It is the product of a fanatical political ideology, disguised as a “faith. The Ayatollahs rule Iran. The president and “secular Government” carry out their wishes, and are simply figureheads.

2. Nowhere in Obama’s Negotiations with Iran has he or Secretary of State John Kerry called for the halt of Uranium Enrichment in Iran. 

3. A Christian American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, has been held in jail by the Iranian Government, since the summer of 2012. Why does the Obama Administration care more about negotiating appeasement with a hostile, barbaric Foreign Government, than securing the freedom of an American Christian Pastor?

Wars have been started for less than that.

President Reagan advised to “Trust, but Verify”.

Evidently, Obama’s message is to “Trust Islam…Limit American Christianity”.

This has the potential of not ending well.

He truly is our first Anti-American President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama, Israel, and Iran: Iran + Nuke = Boom!

americanisraelilapelpinIsrael exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel’s heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again. – U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, Speech on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East, September 1, 1982

It is well known, through his words and actions, that America’s current (P)resident Barack Hussein Obama, cares more for Israel’s enemies, than he does for God’s Chosen People. If it were up to Obama, Israel would be forced to give the nomadic people known as Palestinians, half of the land that the nation of Israel sits on. Not only that, but he and his talking horse, (at least he has the face of one) Secretary of State John F. Kerry,”negotiated”, and I use the term loosely, an agreement with the Mullahs of Iran, to stop building a nuclear bomb, in exchange for allowing them to continue their Uranium Enrichment, an agreement which makes about as much sense as Pee Wee Herman starring in the title role in the next “Terminator” movie.

In return, a new poll suggests that most Israelis trust “The Leader of the Free World” about as far as they could throw Moochelle.

According to new poll, a huge majority of Israelis do not trust President Obama with regard to Iran, and believe Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear. Only 22 percent of Israeli voters believed that Obama would “ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon.”

Almost two-thirds of Israelis thought that statement was untrue, and 15 percent gave no answer. President Obama has just a 33 percent favorable rating in Israel, as opposed to a 50 percent disapproval rating. Even those who favor Obama are split evenly on whether or not he will prevent Iran from going nuclear.

That distrust of Obama is shared by Israel’s Prime Minister.

The Jerusalem Post reports that

The Iranian interim agreement that went into effect on Monday does not prevent Iran from implementing its intentions to create nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Netanyahu said in the Knesset.

Netanyahu, in a speech welcoming visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the Knesset on Monday, said that the international community’s goal – one that has not yet been achieved — must be stopping the Iranians from gaining the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

The prime minister likened the manufacturing of the fissile material needed to make a bomb to a train that must pass through three stops: the first stop of enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, the second stop of enriching uranium to 20 percent, and the final step of enriching uranium to 90 percent.

“The agreement in Geneva did away with the 20% stop, but left the train on its track and enables Iran to upgrade the locomotive by developing new centrifuges, so that when the day comes it can leap in a very short time to the final stop on an express track without stopping at an intermediary stop,” he said.

The final agreement that the world powers negotiates with Iran must take the “Iranian nuclear train off the tracks,” Netanyahu said, adding that Iran must not be allowed to have the capability to manufacture a bomb.

Netanyahu also said that the international community should be demanding of Iran – at a time when it is relieving sanctions and giving Teheran legitimization – that it end its calls for the destruction of Israel, and the arming of terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Fat chance, Bibi. Remember, these same Barbarian Nations who threaten your nation’s existence, are on the UN’s Security Council.

So, how much of Iran’s boasting about their ability to bult a nuke is fiction and how much of it is fact?

Olli Heinonen is the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He was asked Sunday on Aaron Klein’s WABC Radio show about the timeframe in response to statements from Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, who boasted last week that Tehran can nix its deal with the West and resume enriching uranium to 20-percent levels within one day if it so desires.

Heinonen responded that if Iran wanted it would currently take the country “two, three weeks to have enough uranium hexafluoride high-enriched for one single weapon.”

He told Klein: “If [Iran] in reality [abrogates the deal] tomorrow, they still have quite a substantial stock of uranium hexafluoride, which is enriched to 20 percent. … And then technically, when Iran has committed to this month to certain parts of the processes in such a way these tandem cascades are not anymore connected with each other, you can indeed put them back in one day’s time.

“So if this all happens in the next, let’s say, weeks, this is really true. They can start to produce 20-percent enriched uranium,” he said. “Now, in order to go fast for Iran, it actually needs to make several such tandem cascades. Not just those in Natanz and Fordow [nuclear plants]. They have to put perhaps some 6,000 centrifuges to work in this kind of a mode.”

Continued the former IAEA director: “If they do that, which they can technically do, it will take certainly a little bit more than one night to do. But then once they have sorted it out, it would take about two, three weeks to have enough uranium hexafluoride high-enriched for one single weapon.”

On May 22, 2011, President Obama said,

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of the United States not simply because we share strategic interests … America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from a deeper place — and that’s the values we share.

A deeper place? As in piled higher and deeper?

Mr. President, if something happens to Israel, or Iran gets taken out by a preemptive strike from Israel, that blood is on your hands. 

And, if this treatment of God’s Chosen People continues, I am afraid we are going to find out why America is not mentioned in The Book of Revelation.

Until He Comes,

KJ