Iran to Berth Warships at Ports in the Atlantic Ocean…Some “Deal”. Smart Power!

Israel-Tied-600-LIAnd you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. – Matthew 24:6 (ESV)

About that “Agreement of Iran” and how they are “co-operating”…

The Times of Israel reports that

Iran intends to dispatch “a fleet of warships” to the Atlantic Ocean shortly, the semi-state Fars news agency reported Thursday, quoting the regime’s navy chief.

“Our warships will soon berth at ports in the Atlantic Ocean,” Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari promised at a ceremony on Wednesday marking the return to port of Iranian warships that Fars said had taken part in joint drills with the Russian navy.

Sayyari said the Iranian vessels had been in the Caspian Sea and at the Russian port of Astrakhan. “The presence of Iranian warships in international ports shows the Iranian Navy’s prowess,” Fars quoted him saying.

Sayyari made a similar pledge to deploy warships in the Atlantic in early 2014. At the time, Iran promised to send its fleet close to American maritime borders as a counter to the US navy’s presence in the Gulf. But in April, the navy chief said the move had been canceled “due to a change in schedule.”

The US-Iran relationship remains tense and friction-filled, despite the US-led world powers’ deal with Iran, sealed in July, on curbing its nuclear program.

Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly rejected any future talks on other issues, and ruled out normalization with the United States.

The former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani was reported to have admitted this week that the country’s nuclear program was started with the intent of building a nuclear weapon, with the express consent and participation of Khamenei. “Our basic doctrine was peaceful usage of the nuclear technology although we never abandoned the idea that if one day we are threatened and it is imperative, we would have the capability for going the other path [to nuclear weapon] as well,” Rafsanjani reportedly said.

Regarding the “Agreement” which President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry reached with the Largest State Sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the World, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty reported  on August 15th of this year that

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said the Islamic republic’s opposition to the “arrogant” United States “will not change” despite a landmark nuclear agreement reached earlier this week with world powers.

The comments, broadcast live on state television on July 18, were greeted by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” at a ceremony at Tehran’s Mosala Mosque on the occasion of the Eid al-Fitr festival, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama defended the accord amid skepticism from congressmen reviewing the deal.

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state affairs in Iran, said U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Iran’s strategy and that Tehran will continue to support its allies in the region, including Lebanon’s Hizballah militant group and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Whether this [nuclear deal] is approved or disapproved, we won’t stop supporting our friends in the region,” he said. “The oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, the honest resistance fighters in Lebanon and Palestine will enjoy our constant support.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei added.

Khamenei maintained that Iran’s engagement with six world powers was solely to reach a nuclear deal that was in its national interest.

“We do not negotiate with the United States on various global, regional, or bilateral issues,” Khamenei said. “Sometimes — based on expedience — we have talked to them on exceptional matters, such as the nuclear issue, and it has not been only this one time.”

“U.S. policies in the region are 180 degrees in contrast to Iran’s policies,” he added.

Under the deal agreed in Vienna on July 14 after years of negotiations, sanctions against Tehran, which have hampered Iran’s economy, will be gradually removed in return for the Persian Gulf state accepting long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The talks involved Iran and the five veto-wielding Security Council members — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France — as well as Germany and the European Union.

Western countries accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran denies.

Khamenei reiterated that position on July 18, mentioning a fatwa, or religious edict, he himself issued against any action seeking the bomb.

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They know it’s not true.”

There was another famous “bad deal” in history, made by a “World Leader”, who also sacrificed his country’s safety, in his purposeful obtuseness and naiveté.

The speech, “Peace in Our Time”, was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

That’s what happens when you strike an “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with barbarians, liars, and madmen.

As I have written before, I believe that Obama’s zeal to leave some sort of enormous historical legacy has led to a purposeful naiveté and obtuseness on his part, not only to history, but also, to the present wishes and wellbeing of not only those who have be maimed, slaughtered, and who still live under these repressive regimes that he has dealt with, but, also, to the continued sovereignty and very existence of the United States of America.

The Mad Mullahs of Iran do not play by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, like “civilized countries” do.

They only respect strength and resolve.

Unfortunately, Obama and Kerry showed them neither of those qualities, during their negotiations.

Hence, their continued rhetoric, the threatened dispatching of a fleet of warships.

…and, the faint sound of uncontrollable laughter.

God protect His Chosen People …and us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama, Cuba, and Iran: The Politics of Purposeful Obtuseness

peace-our-time-600-la1 (2)Yesterday, 90 miles off of the Southern tip of these United States, the Obama Administration, once again, acquiesced to a repressive regime who hates our guts.

Reuters.com reports that

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry declared a new era in relations as he celebrated restored diplomatic ties in Havana on Friday, but he also urged political change in Cuba, telling Cubans they should be free to choose their own leaders.The first U.S. secretary of state to visit the Caribbean island in 70 years, Kerry presided over a ceremony to raise the U.S. flag over the newly reopened American embassy.

“We remain convinced the people of Cuba would be best served by a genuine democracy, where people are free to choose their leaders,” he said in a country where the Communist Party is the only legal political party, the media is tightly controlled, and political dissent is repressed.

“We will continue to urge the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations under U.N. and Inter-American human rights covenants – obligations shared by the United States and every other country in the Americas,” Kerry said, his words accurately translated into Spanish and broadcast live on Cuban state television.

Uh huh.

To quote Petulant President Pantywaist, himself:

Words. Just words.

Yahoo News reports that

Cuba’s lead negotiator in talks with Washington told Reuters on Friday that the island’s internal affairs would never be on the table and Havana would never move “one millimeter” to placate enemies in the United States.”Decisions on internal matters are not negotiable and will never be put on the negotiating agenda in conversations with the United States,” Josefina Vidal, director of U.S. affairs for the Cuban Foreign Ministry, said in an exclusive interview.

“Cuba will never do absolutely anything, not move one millimeter, to try to respond,” she said after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in Havana that the U.S. Congress was unlikely to ever lift a punishing economic embargo on Cuba unless the Communist government improved its human rights record.

This is the second time this summer that Obama has entered into a deal, which is the equivalent of buying a used car from “Honest Al’s Used Car Lot”, that stops in the middle of the street, as soon as you make a left turn out of the lot.

Regarding that first “lemon” of a deal, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty reported that

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said the Islamic republic’s opposition to the “arrogant” United States “will not change” despite a landmark nuclear agreement reached earlier this week with world powers.

The comments, broadcast live on state television on July 18, were greeted by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” at a ceremony at Tehran’s Mosala Mosque on the occasion of the Eid al-Fitr festival, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama defended the accord amid skepticism from congressmen reviewing the deal.

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state affairs in Iran, said U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Iran’s strategy and that Tehran will continue to support its allies in the region, including Lebanon’s Hizballah militant group and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Whether this [nuclear deal] is approved or disapproved, we won’t stop supporting our friends in the region,” he said. “The oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, the honest resistance fighters in Lebanon and Palestine will enjoy our constant support.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei added.

Khamenei maintained that Iran’s engagement with six world powers was solely to reach a nuclear deal that was in its national interest.

“We do not negotiate with the United States on various global, regional, or bilateral issues,” Khamenei said. “Sometimes — based on expedience — we have talked to them on exceptional matters, such as the nuclear issue, and it has not been only this one time.”

“U.S. policies in the region are 180 degrees in contrast to Iran’s policies,” he added.

Under the deal agreed in Vienna on July 14 after years of negotiations, sanctions against Tehran, which have hampered Iran’s economy, will be gradually removed in return for the Persian Gulf state accepting long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The talks involved Iran and the five veto-wielding Security Council members — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France — as well as Germany and the European Union.

Western countries accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran denies.

Khamenei reiterated that position on July 18, mentioning a fatwa, or religious edict, he himself issued against any action seeking the bomb.

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They know it’s not true.”

There was another famous “bad deal” in history, made by a “World Leader”, who also sacrificed his country’s safety, in his purposeful obtuseness and naiveté.

The speech, “Peace in Our Time”, was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

That’s what happens when you strike an “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with barbarians, liars, and madmen.

As I have written before, I believe that Obama’s zeal to leave some sort of enormous historical legacy has led to a purposeful naiveté and obtuseness on his part, not only to history, but also, to the present wishes and wellbeing of not only those who have be maimed, slaughtered, and who still live under these repressive regimes that he has dealt with, but, also, to the continued sovereignty and very evistence of the United States of America.

The Mad Mullahs of Iran and the Castro Brothers of Cuba do not play by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, like “civilized countries” do.

The only respect strength and resolve.

Unfortunately, Obama and Kerry have shown them neither of those qualities, during their negotiations.

Hence, their continued rhetoric.

…and, the faint sound of uncontrollable laughter.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama Meets With Jewish American Groups to Sell Them on his “Iran Deal”

Iran-Cheat-600-LAPresident Barack Hussein Obama is trying to assuage the concerns of Jewish Americans over what appears to be his selling out our country to a Nuclear Iran.

The Washington Post reports that

President Obama met with Jewish American leaders at the White House on Monday in a bid to defuse antagonism toward him and to convince them that he shares their concerns about the safety of Israel and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The meetings in the Roosevelt Room were designed to improve prospects for a deal being negotiated to limit Iran’s nuclear program — and hang on to the support of a key Democratic constituency.

At the first meeting, the president spent an hour with the leaders of major Jewish organizations. Then the discussion continued with Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice; Vice President Biden’s national security adviser, Colin Kahl; and three other senior officials.

At the second session, Obama met with “community leaders,” many of them major political contributors. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said they were “outspoken advocates who may not hold official positions or leadership positions in those organizations but are, in their own right, effective advocates.”

One person who attended the first meeting called the session “positive” and said Obama was “heartfelt about his connection to Israel. Very moving.”

Another said that “the president talked about how deeply he feels about Israel and the Jewish people and anti-Semitism. It was not just about Iran. It was much, much deeper in terms of the president sharing with us how he felt.”

“All of us begin with sense of skepticism knowing what Iran is,” one Jewish leader said. “A lot of questions were asked. How would this deal with this, how it would deal with that?”

As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee takes up a bill that would force Obama to bring an Iran deal to Congress for approval, the administration’s meetings with Jewish leaders were just part of an offensive to drum up support in Congress.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz this week are briefing members of Congress about the current framework of a deal they hope to hammer out by June 30. At the White House briefing Monday, Earnest said any lawmaker can request a classified briefing that would also include members of the intelligence agencies.

I’ll wager that what Obama said in that meeting probably sounded something like this…

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

That was an excerpt from the infamous speech, “Peace in Our Time”, which was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

We all know what happened next: World War II.

This appeasement strategy, which President Obama is employing, in his most assuredly ill-fated negotiations with the Mad Mullahs of Iran, has been tried numerous times throughout history.

The Ancient Romans, when they realized that their once mighty civilization was going to fall, tried to negotiated with the “Barbarians at the Gate”.

In more recent times, United States President Jimmy Carter thought that he could negotiate with Barbarians from a position of weakness, also.

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis under President Jimmy Carter?

That’s what happens when you negotiate with barbarians.

For Obama to believe that the Radical Islamic Iranian Mullahs, who subjugate women, execute homosexuals, and anyone who does not worship Allah, will “negotiate” with an obvious dhimmi in any sort of truthful fashion, strains credulity to the breaking point.

If Obama, whom I have called “Scooter” for years, is this unintentionally gullible, then he is destined to achieve the legacy he so desperately seeks as president.

Unfortunately for him…and us…it will be a horrific…and possibly…a final one.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The “Obama Doctrine”: Ignoring History

Non-Negotiable-600-LIThomas L Friedman, of the New York Times, was recently invited to the White House to interview President Barack Hussein Obama.

Here is an excerpt from his subsequent article:

…What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.

“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”

Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be … sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”

Alright, you students of history…does the message delivered by the president, during the above-referenced interview, seem familiar to any of you?

It should. 

The speech, “Peace in Our Time”, was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt from that historic speech:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next: World War II.

In more recent times, United States President Jimmy Carter thought that he could negotiate from a position of weakness, also.

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis under President Jimmy Carter?

That’s what happens when you negotiate with barbarians.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Until He Comes,

KJ