Hiroshima the City that had to Die

Viewed a documentary on Hiroshima last night (7/4/2018), now playing on Netflix. Within a year of atomic bomb's encounter with this Japanese city nearly 190,000 had died from various effects of the bomb. Japanese high command were given many options to stop the war, yet they remained steadfast in their resolve to win. This documentary covers the preparation for the bombing by the USA, the release of the bomb on the city and the immediate aftermath. Highly educational yet extremely depressing. No doubt both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings shortened the war saving untold numbers of American lives and those of the enemy too. Morality of nuclear weapons has subsequently come into question, as it should. Your thoughts.

WHY HILLARY SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

1. This video should scare anyone who sees it. The newest nuclear weapons can take out entire states. Obama has tried to start a war with Russia. A President Hilla...ry would do the same. This is the reason Hillary should never ever see the inside of the White House again.

What, exactly, is the real goal of the Iran nuclear agreement?

“Senate Democrats voted to uphold the hard-fought nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, overcoming ferocious GOP opposition and delivering President Barack Obama a legacy-making victory on his top foreign policy priority.” So read the opening paragraph of the Associated Press story last Friday, identifying the Obama legacy as one product of the deal on Iranian nuclear aspirations.

A presidential legacy has been an elusive goal for Mr. Obama, as previous efforts have dramatically fallen by the wayside. He is succeeding in killing the coal industry in the name of environmental improvement, but the improvement is virtually non-existent, while economic harm and lost jobs dwarf any noticeable environmental improvement.

Certainly, no one will consider the Fast and Furious gun-running debacle that led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent or the incompetent handling of the Benghazi, Libya situation that resulted in the murders of four Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya, as the stuff of which a legacy is made.

And, the supposed jewel in the crown, the Affordable Care Act, which is affectionately known as Obamacare, is as bad as it is good, or worse.

One remaining possibility is to fashion an historic agreement to reign in the efforts of Iran, the world’s greatest supporter of global terrorism, to acquire nuclear weapons. A multi-national agreement – a treaty – led by the United States, bringing nations together to stop the rogue nation’s nuclear advances and save Israel and perhaps the U.S. from potential nuclear catastrophe.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a treaty as “an agreement between two or more independent states,” meaning two or more nations, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

But there’s a problem. The agreement that these nations created has stark weaknesses that have produced strong, principled opposition.

But credit Mr. Obama for recognizing those weaknesses and developing a strategy to minimize their effect on getting the deal approved: rather than submit the treaty as a treaty, he managed to maneuver it around so that it is merely an “agreement” that doesn’t require Senate approval.

But make no mistake: this agreement IS a treaty. And so is the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 13 other nations, that Mr. Obama also prefers to pass off as a mere “agreement.”

However, if the treaty clause of the Constitution means anything it must be applied to those two agreements because they are not simple agreements about an ambassador or similar routine matter; they will affect the nation for decades to come, long after Mr. Obama has gone on his way.

The Senate’s role is outlined on the Senate.gov Website as follows, in part: “As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, ‘the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.’ The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division.”

Given the importance of the Iran agreement and the TPP, trying to call them something other than treaties so as to circumvent Constitutionally required Senate approval tells us a lot about the weaknesses of the Iran deal. And it says plenty about Barack Obama, who works hard to avoid the constitutional separation of powers for his own benefit.

Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith issued a statement last week that reads in part: “The President’s deeply flawed and misguided deal with Iran is a serious security matter not only for the United States, but also for our allies in the Middle East. I believe we must use all tools possible to stop this deal in its tracks and avoid placing our citizens and allies at greater risk.”

Further opposition came from three Senators from the president’s own party, who have vastly more experience than he does in foreign policy – Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Ben Carden, of Maryland, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey –  who decided to oppose the Iran agreement. However, enough Senate Democrats like the agreement to defeat the Senate effort to stop it, which consisted of passing a resolution of disapproval, which Mr. Obama could veto. Democrats have enough votes to prevent over-riding the veto, however.

The deal includes lifting sanctions on $140 billion or so of locked-up Iranian funds, prevents American inspectors from participating in any inspections of Iranian facilities, provides for Iran to conduct all inspections at the Parchin nuclear bomb trigger development site, and provides for a 24-day delay in some inspection demands. And last weekend Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has previously said that Israel would not survive another 25 years and has pledged “Death to America,” urged radicals to launch lone wolf attacks against Americans.

What could possible go wrong?

This agreement may get Barack Obama the legacy he seeks, but will ultimately maintain the significant risk the U.S. and its allies face from a nuclear Iran. Is that a legacy worth having?

Democrats have never done what 47 Republican senators did to Obama

Dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s approach to Iran’s continued march toward acquiring nuclear weapons, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter that was sent to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Arkansas freshman Sen. Tom Cotton authored the letter, which was signed by all but seven Senate Republicans.

This action has been termed “unprecedented,” and has brought forth the wrath of Democrats in Congress and the administration. Vice President Joe Biden, for example, declared that "In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country … that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.”

Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments: “This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” and went a step further by saying that in his 29 years in the Senate he had “never heard of or even heard of being proposed anything comparable to this.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Republicans are undermining our commander-in-chief while empowering the ayatollahs. We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States.”

Other criticisms charged Republicans with trying to undercut the president by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without first consulting the White House, and then by sending this letter to subvert an agreement that would avoid war, as MSNBC’s Mika Brzenzinski charged on the Morning Joe program. And the pièce de résistance: the New York Daily News cover calling the Republican letter signers “traitors.”

Some law professors, pundits and news media charge that the Republican senators have committed treason by violating the Logan Act of 1799, which states: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

And now for the rest of the story.

Predictably, there is far more heat than warranted here, Treason? No. Traitors? No. Gross amounts of hyperbole? Absolutely! Deliberate deception! Of course.

The Logan Act is not a factor here because, first, many legal authorities believe the Act is constitutional, as it infringes on the free speech guaranteed citizens by the U.S. Constitution, but also because the senators represent one of two houses of a co-equal branch of government, and therefore acted with the authority of their position, which also allows them to take a part in agreements with other nations.

Most important, however, is that despite the breathless overstatements by critics of the letter-writers, this action is not at all unprecedented, and in fact some of the loudest critics have themselves indulged in similar acts.

Take Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance. In 1971 during negotiations by President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger trying to reach an end to the Vietnam War, then-Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., as leader of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, travelled to Paris to meet face-to-face with the North Vietnamese delegation, which was at the time an enemy combatant nation.

In 2007 then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., met fact-to-face with Bashar al-Assad while President George W. Bush was in negotiations with the Syrian leader.

Another Speaker, Jim Wright, D-Tex., talked face-to-face with Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega in 1987.

Senator James Abourezk, D-S.D., secretly met with Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat in 1973.

In 2006 Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Arlen Spector R-Pa., (who soon after became a Democrat) traveled to Damascus when the policy of the Bush administration was to isolate the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Left has a problem remembering these inconvenient facts, which are probably contained in emails at the State Department or the IRS.

Furthermore, the letter was an open letter, not a private communication and presented facts about our constitutional system the Iranians likely did not know, not a negotiation.

The letter explained that any agreement between President Obama and the Iranian leaders binds only President Obama; future presidents will not be bound by it. Only treaties ratified by the Senate bind the U.S. That is a significant point.

Further, the negotiations may well involve the president unilaterally undoing sanctions against Iran passed by the Congress. That is a no-no; he does not have authority to do that.

It is certainly fair to criticize the fact that the message was presented in a letter addressed to Iranian leaders, instead of, say, being run as an op-ed in one or more national newspapers. However, that is about the worst aspect of this molehill called Mount Treason.

Obama To Israel: F@%k You!

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and the leaders of Europe have told the Mullahs of Iran:  Kill the Jews.  The P5+1 leaders have caved in to all of Iran's demands and will lift the sanctions.  (Although they claim that they will reinstate them again.)

Representatives of Iran and Western powers reached an interim deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program early Sunday morning, after a weekend of intensive talks in Geneva.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days. Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “Yes” and gave a thumbs up sign.

Diplomats refused to spell out details of the talks, but a senior Obama administration official said that the West had not conceded an Iranian right to produce nuclear fuel through uranium enrichment, a key sticking point in previous negotiations.

The official said the deal included an agreement that Iran would halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20-percent-enriched uranium stockpiles. Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.

According to a Western diplomat quoted by Reuters, the deal would grant Iran access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange.

In a statement Sunday morning, US President Barack Obama said the deal opened up a “real opportunity to achieve a peaceful settlement.”

“It won’t be easy,” he said, “and huge challenge remain ahead, but through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States will do our part” to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged that the deal may be hard to stomach for some of Washington’s allies in the Middle East, saying, Israel and the Gulf countries, “have good reasons to be skeptical.”

The West has been seeking a six-month agreement to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program while offering Iran incentives through limited sanctions relief. If the interim deal holds, the parties would negotiate final-stage deals to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

The agreement built on the momentum of the historic dialogue opened during September’s annual UN gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, after three decades of US-Iranian estrangement.

“The Iranian people’s vote for moderation and constructive engagement, plus tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said in a statement Sunday morning.

“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a comment tweeted by the State Department Sunday morning. The statement was retweeted by Rouhani’s account.

Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany headed for Geneva Friday after diplomats said Zarif and EU representative Catherine Ashton had made significant progress.

A previous round of talks between Iran and the six world powers ended November 10 with no deal, even after Kerry, Lavrov, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and a Chinese deputy foreign minister flew in and attempted to bridge differences.

The United States and its negotiating partners had signaled they were ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that starts to put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

They wanted Iran to stop enriching to a level higher than its main stockpile and only a technical step away from weapons-grade uranium as part of such a deal. They also sought to limit overall enrichment, as well as a formulation that would reduce the proliferation danger from the Arak reactor, which, if completed, would produce enough plutonium for up to two weapons.

But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.

No details on relief offered have been made public. And the US administration has not commented on reports from congressional officials that Obama’s team estimates Iran could get $6-10 billion in benefits over six months for rolling back its nuclear program.

Several US senators — both Democrat and Republican — have voiced displeasure with the parameters of the potential agreement, arguing that the US and its partners are offering too much for something short of a full freeze on uranium enrichment.

SOURCE

My sources tell me that Iran got everything they wanted.  The right to enrich uranium, their nuclear program intact, the relaxation of sanctions.  Israel on the other hand have been shafted up the ass.  Iran doesn't have a peaceful nuclear program.  They have made that clear over the last decade.

On September 30, 1938 then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain disembarked a plane from Germany, waved a piece of paper and stated clearly:

We have achieved peace in our time.

Click here if the video fails to load.

A year later Europe erupted in war.  For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.

History is repeating itself in spades.

We haven't become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out.  A war that will become a World War.

Obama To Iran: Keep Components, Just Promise Not To Weaponise Them.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.

From Debka

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.

Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.

They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.

This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:

1. Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
2. Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
3. Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
4. Termination of plutonium production at Arak.

Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession?  Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus.  But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel?  Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council.  Blackmail is the Obama way.

Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend.  The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters.  Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933.  Problem solved and World Peace reigns.

I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him.  I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv?  I pray it is.

Israel’s Samson Option

Israel’s Samson Option

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If, while watching the disturbing events in the Middle East, you are not focusing your attention on Israel – then you are looking in the wrong place.

Once, a very long time ago, I heard someone refer to Israel as the "world’s canary in the coal mine." That is as apt a description of modern Israel as I have ever heard.

As I watch events in the Muslim countries surrounding Israel deteriorate it looks, for all the world, as if we are racing toward Armageddon. The great armies, just now dipping their toes into the deepening unrest in that region, are unaware that they are playing out a story line written thousands of years ago.

Those of us who have read that storyline know how the story ends and, too, we are aware of the events leading up to the true "Mother of all Battles."

For the first time in its history, America is on the wrong side.

Our President, with his loyalty to the world and not to the country that trusted him with the sacred duty to be leader of America and Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force in all of history, has gone over to the "Dark Side." He has turned his back on the one nation, which occupies the most important piece of real estate on the globe. He has made it clear he favors the countries, which consider themselves Israel’s most ardent enemies. Israel knows they, now, stand alone.

Just this past weekend, Israel deployed their homegrown antimissile defense system "Iron Dome." Another anti-missile defense system, a shorter-range system as we understand it, is in the pipeline and scheduled for deployment soon. Israel is getting ready for the coming conflagration when all the Muslim anger, boiling in the crucible of that region, boils over and pours onto their tiny country.

Without America standing with Israel, Israel stands a better than 50-50 chance of being over-run and wiped out as a country.

The Israelis have planned for that.

The plan is referred to as: "The Samson Option."

The "Samson Option" is Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against "enemies" should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack.

The term was inspired by the Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself, and thousands of Philistine enemies.

The Samson option is a strategy of last resort retaliation - even if it means Israel’s own annihilation.

It has been estimated by so-called experts that Israel has at least 400 thermo-nuclear weapons. They can be launched from land, sea, and air. This means that Israel has a second strike option -- even if much of the country is destroyed.

Nuclear weapons were viewed by Israel as the ultimate insurer of Israel’s continued existance. Israel decided, as early as the 1960’s, to build-up its military and achieve absolute conventional military superiorty over it’s enemies, and not place its reliance on nuclear weapons. Israel did this in the hope that they would never have to call on their thermo-nuclear weapons stockpile to rescue their country.

Clealy the danger to Israel’scontinued existace has escalated until today Israel finds itself ann island of sanity in a sea of madness.

We have warned of Israel’s "Samson Option" many times before. Like their ancient ancestors on Masada, Israel, it would seem, is prepared to sacrifice itself rather than be driven into slavery -- or extinction -- by the enemy hordes that surround it.

Sadly, the only country that can prevent those Middle Eastern madmen from breaching the walls of Israel is the United States. But the US is leaderless, at least until 2013, and the man who currently occupies the office of President of the United States has shown no favor towards Israel or its plight.

Today, the entire world is threathened. The Damocles Sword of Islamic terrorism hangs precariously over our heads. Here, in America, the lives of every man, woman and child has changed since September 11, 2001. And yet, compared to the threat Israelis live under, every day, Americans live in perfect secutity and safety.

The canary in the coal mine is telling us the threat is real and it is lethal. The actions of Israel should be the warning the world heeds. But, sadly, it will not be taken seriously until it is too late. America should be shoring up its relationship with Israel and making it clear to all who threathen that tiny country that Israel’s big brother is back by her side. But that won’t happen until the electorate of America decides to send Obama into retirement where he can play golf and basketball to his heart’s content and leave the job of leading the free world to someone who actually knows how.

J. D. Longstreet

Israel’s Samson Option

Israel’s Samson Option A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet If, while watching the disturbing events in the Middle East, you are not focusing your attention on Israel – then you are looking in the wrong place. Once, a very long time ago, I heard someone refer to Israel as the “world’s canary in the coal mine.” That is as apt a description of modern Israel as I have ever heard. As I watch events in the Muslim countries surrounding Israel deteriorate it looks, for all the world, as if we are racing toward Armageddon. The great armies, just now dipping their toes into the deepening unrest in that region, are unaware that they are playing out a story line written thousands of years ago. Those of us who have read that storyline know how the story ends and, too, we are aware of the events leading up to the true “Mother of all Battles.” For the first time in its history, America is on the wrong side. Our President with his loyalty to the world and not to the country that trusted him with the sacred duty to be leader of America and Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force in all of history has gone over to the “Dark Side.” He has turned his back on the one nation, which occupies the most important piece of real estate on the globe. He has made it clear he favors the countries, which consider themselves Israel’s most ardent enemies. Israel knows they, now, stand alone. Just this past weekend, Israel deployed their homegrown antimissile defense system “Iron Dome.” Another anti-missile defense system, a shorter-range system as we understand it, is in the pipeline and scheduled for deployment soon. Israel is getting ready for the coming conflagration when all the Muslim anger, boiling in the crucible of that region, boils over and pours onto their tiny country. Without America standing wit Israel, Israel stands a better than 50-50 chance of being over run and wiped out as a country. The Israelis have planned for that. The pan is referred to as: “The Samson Option.” The “Samson Option” is Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against “enemies” should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack. The term was inspired by the Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself, and thousands of Philistine enemies. The Samson option is a strategy of last resort retaliation - even if it means Israel’s own annihilation. It has been estimated by so-called experts that Israel has at least 400 thermo-nuclear weapons. They can be launched from land, sea, and air. This means that Israel has a second strike option -- even if much of the country is destroyed. Nuclear weapons were viewed by Israel as the ultimate insurer of Israel’s continued existance. Israel decided, as early as the 1960’s, to build-up its military and achieve absolute conventional military superiorty over it’s enemies, and not place its reliance on nuclear weapons. Israel did this in the hope that they would never have to call on their thermo-nuclear weapons stockpile to rescue their country. Clealy the danger to Israel’scontinued existace has escalated until today Israel finds itself and island of sanity in a sea of madness. We have warned of Israel’s “Samson Option” many times before. Like thei ancient ancestors on Masada, Israel, it would seem, is prepared to sacrifice itself rather than be driven into slavery -- or extinction -- by the enemy hordes that surround it. Sadly, the only country that can prevent those Middle Eastern madmen from breaching the walls of Israel is the United States. But the US is leaderless, at least until 2013, and the man who currently occupies the office of President of the United States has shown no favor towards Israel or its plight. Today, the entire world is threathened. The Damocles Sword of Islamic terrorism hangs precariously over our heads. Heree in America the lives of every man, woman and chid has changed since September 11, 2001. And yet, compared to the threat Israelis live under every day Americans live in perfect secutity and safety. The canary in the coal mine is telling us the threat is real and it is lethal. The actions of Israel should be the warning the world heeds. But, sadly, it will not be taken seriously until it is too late. America should be shoring up its relationship with Israel and making it clear to all who threathen that tiny country that Israel’s big brother is back by her side. But that won’t happen until the electorate of America decides to send Obama into retirement where he can play golf and basketball to his heart’s content and leave the job of leading the free world to someone who actually knows how. J. D. Longstreet

Israeli Warships en Route to The Persian Gulf?

Israeli Warships en Route to The Persian Gulf?
Will Nuclear Weapons Be Used Against Iran?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

*************************

Reports are coming out of the Arab Media that two Israeli “Missile Boats” passed through the Suez Canal, on February 6th, enroute to the Red Sea. Speculation is that the ultimate destination is, in fact, the Persian Gulf.

Last summer, another Israeli warship passed through the Suez Canal accompanied, reports say, by an Israeli submarine. You may read the article HERE.

These reports combined with Iran’s recent promise to strike the west with a “stunning blow” on February 11th, would lead one to conclude the stage is being set for a “counter strike” should Iran go through with it’s threat. There is another line of thought, which says the stage is being set for the attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Egyptians are reporting that the Israeli Navy, in cooperation with the US Fifth Fleet, have been charting Persian Gulf waters and Iranian shorelines in preparation for attacks by the Israeli naval and special operations forces. These reports, for what they are worth, and frankly, we don’t know yet, are saying the Israelis and Americans are locating and defining routes to be used by their forces to drive into Iran, by air and by ground, to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities

According to Debka Files the Egyptians are reporting that Saudi officials are pressing the US to explain why they were not told of US assistance to Israel in planning the attack on Iran. These same reports say that some Gulf intelligence services and navel units have actually tracked some of the Israeli/American movements and are able to document them.

You may read this report, in its entirety, at DEBKA FILES HERE.

Why do we give this report and others concerning these Israeli naval movements credence? Because Iran has been making aggressive noises lately. As others have noted and reported, Iran tends to do this when they feel nervous and threatened. This would explain their most recent threats to strike the west “a stunning blow” on February 11th.

A couple of things: The American President, Obama, is NOT, I repeat, is NOT, a supporter of Israel. Number two: Bebe Netanyahu doesn’t give a d**n what Obama does or does not support! Netanyahu will do whatever is necessary to preserve the lives of Israelis and the nation of Israel – and -- in our opinion, he should.

Obama’s lack of support for Israel is another mistake, a HUGE mistake on his part. The American people, generally speaking, support Israel. We tend to always pull for the underdog, especially if that underdog is a democracy. Remember, the US was the first nation to recognize the State of Israel as a new state. We have supported Israel, to one degree or another, ever since -- right up until Obama.

We would suggest the Obama Regime get real -- and get real fast -- because there is another player in all this – Russia. Russia will almost certainly be involved in any fight between Israel and Iran. They will be in the fray on the side of Iran. Russia has a very real interest in Iran as a countermeasure to what they see as U.S. Mideast dominance.

No matter how one interprets the latest news about the Israeli Missile Boat maneuvers, one thing is certain: Israel is preparing to strike Iran and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. That is a given. It is also a given that no matter what Obama thinks about Israel, the US WILL be involved in the fight against Iran and Russia.

In all likelihood Iran’s surrogate Syria will attack Israel from the north to force Israel to commit a large portion of its military resources to a fight on its own ground. Anything thrown at Syria will not be thrown at Iran.

Obama, and other national leaders with weak knees, should not be surprised if Israel uses nukes against Iran to ensure Iran’s nuclear facilities are completely destroyed. Netanyahu knows he will be condemned by most European nations if he facilitates his nuclear arsenal. That is NOT, however his concern. Netanyahu’s only concern is the preservation of Israel.

Iran has repeatedly declared that it will "wipe Israel off the map" and the IDF is taking this threat seriously -- as it should.

Whatever happens, Israel has been preparing for war with Iran for many months. The Israel Defense Forces, some months ago, purchased three new Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) and have several submarines on alert in the region.

All of this comes at a time when President Obama is asking for a 25% cut in the US Military. Even without a third front, a third war in the Middle East in which the US military is involved up to it’s waist, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to reduce the size of the US Military by one soldier, let alone by one-quarter of its force. With the current developments in the Gulf, America may find that it must re-establish the draft to ENLARGE its standing military force. In fact, the Progressives are so enamored of the draft that may be exactly what they are attempting to do.

My crystal ball remains dark. I cannot predict what will happen in the short run between Israel and Iran. In the long run, however, a crystal ball is not needed. At some point in the future, Israel and Iran WILL collide in war. Alongside Israel will be the US. Alongside Iran will be Russia. With US forces stretched to the limit, the use of nuclear weapons by the US will certainly be on the table. The only question is – will Obama have the intestinal fortitude to use them. Or -- will he allow US forces to be annihilated?

J. D. Longstreet

Iran Launches Space Mission: What's Next?

By Maggie M. Thornton


As Germany, the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia meet in Germany this week to brainstorm scuttling Iran's nuclear goals, Iran sent them a shot across the bow. They launched a Safir-2 rocket with satellite, successfully, into space. The Heritage Foundation tells us only ten countries have done so to date. Perhaps we are ambivalent about this acheivement, but it is time to wake up and smell the saffron.

The range of a Safir-2 is estimated to be 1500 miles - long enough to reach Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. No need to feel secure though, because Iran has a more powerful and longer range missile already in it's arsenal - the Shahab-3.

Iran's launch yesterday showed the bottoms of their soul-less shoes to the free world - just as the thwarting of U.N. resolutions have done.

Do we think Iran has no interest in a nuclear-laden ICBMs with a bulls-eye set on America?

Quoting President Obama (read the entire transcript and see the video here):

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons.

I will negotiate with Russian to take our ICBM's off air-trigger alert,...

Read how Europe is reporting Obama's plans today.


33 Minutes