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.

Has Iran Gone Nuclear Already?

Although the report comes originally from Maariv, an Israeli paper notorious for being far left and their reports have been far from the truth, I submit this to you, my truth seeker, so you can make an honest assessment.

Some Israeli government analysts believe Iran already has at least one nuclear bomb, an Israeli journalist wrote in an article published Friday.

Shalom Yerushalmi, writing in the national daily Maariv, said that “government security sources up to date on development in Iran,” told him recently that Tehran has crossed all points of no return and already has its first nuclear weapon, and maybe more.

The report marks the first time a government official has been quoted saying Iran already has a nuclear weapon. No sources in the piece were named.

The information, if true, would mark a major shift in international relations and would be a game changer in terms of a regional power balance.

“It’s too late for Israel [to prevent an Iranian bomb]. Iran has crossed all the borders and all the constraints, and it has a first nuclear bomb in its possession, and maybe more than that,” Yerushalmi writes, basing himself on what he says is the assessment he heard this week from state security sources. ”We are facing a historic change in the strategic balance of forces in the region.”

He then quotes a source who he says is deeply familiar with what he calls the relentless war against the Iranians. “This is no longer about how to prevent a bomb,” the source is quoted saying, “but about how to prevent its being launched, and what to do if and when.”

Yerushalmi, still basing himself on the anonymous security sources’ assessment, goes on to compare the current behavior of Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and new President Hasan Rouhani, in their interactions with the West, to a soccer coach at the end of a hard-fought match which he knows he has now won. The Iranian leadership is behaving with the air of “those who have achieved their target, and therefore can today afford to be more generous and to offer new (self-serving) messages.” The Iranian leadership can afford to be friendlier, he writes, “because victory has been secured.”

Maariv led its Friday paper with a photograph of a smiling Rouhani, alongside the headline, “What’s hiding behind the smile,” and a sub-headline quoting the security sources saying Iran now has “at least one bomb.” It then adds that most in the security establishment, however, still believe that this “nightmare scenario has not yet been realized.”

While most Western countries believe Iran’s nuclear program is intended for military purposes, officials in Israel, the US and elsewhere say Tehran has yet to “break out” toward a bomb, a process that could take over a year.

Iran, which on Thursday agreed to renewed talks with world powers on curbing its nuclear program, says its program is for peaceful purposes.

On Friday, Iranian and UN officials met to discuss whether to resume inspections meant to determine whether Tehran worked on atomic arms, in a test of pledges by Iran’s new president to reduce nuclear tensions.

Iranian envoy Reza Najafi said in Vienna that it would be unrealistic to expect that “in just one day of meeting we can solve our problems.”

Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said only that he hoped the meeting could “intensify the dialogue.”

The UN agency wants access to a site it suspects was used to test conventional explosive triggers meant to set off a nuclear blast.

A report released last month by the IAEA said that while Iran was testing new centrifuges, which could help it eventually create a nuclear weapon, its uranium stockpile was still below the amount needed for a bomb.

“It is unlikely, at this point, that Iran could dash toward further enrichment to weapons-grade without the IAEA detecting Tehran’s activities,” Reuters quoted the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy and research group.

Israel sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat, and Jerusalem has campaigned vigorously around the world for heavy sanctions to be placed on Iran, with a threat of military action should those fail to stop the nuclear program.

Next week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to deliver a speech at the United Nations during which he is expected to press for maintaining pressure on Iran despite a recent easing of tensions between Tehran and the West. In comments Tuesday, Netanyahu urged the world not to be “fooled” by Iran’s newly moderate rhetoric, which he said was a “smokescreen” to obscure its continued drive toward nuclear weapons.

“Israel would welcome a genuine diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. “But we will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smokescreen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the world should not be fooled either.”

SOURCE

If true this would explain why Iranian President Hasan Rouhani is talking about the UN stopping the sanctions.  After all they have already gotten nuclear weapons and sanctions did not stop them.  But President Barack Hussein Obama's appeasement not only is helping Iran, he is pleased with the progress they achieved.  Along with forcing Israel into the Auschwitz Borders, Obama is well underway to appease his Muslim masters and destroy the West in the process.  For after all  Obama has been in communications with Iran, capitulating to their demands, and accepting the fact that Iran not only has a nuclear weapon, but will attack Israel with the weapon while the world stands by as they finish the job Hitler started.

Working Towards The Fuehrer

By Findalis


A timely and topical rant from my friend Patriot USA at Patriot's Corner.  A look back with a warning to the future.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Adolf Hitler was a lazy bastard. He slept late, often until two o'clock in the afternoon. After he got out of his pit, he'd have a read of the papers then go for a stroll. In the evening, he often watched movies selected for him by Goebbels. ⁽¹⁾

The world was at war, and somehow, the "Vienna vagabond" ⁽²⁾ was at the center of the storm. An average of twenty seven thousand people died each day between September 1939 and August 1945. At least sixty million lives were lost overall. The lives of the survivors were forever touched by the events of World War II. The war went beyond anything previously experienced by humanity and the only way people could describe what happened was to say that "all hell broke loose". ⁽³⁾

That's an appropriate turn of phrase, because the Satanic nature of Hitler's regime is unmistakable. Hitler, a failed artist with no formal training, created a symbol for the Nazis to follow during his rise to power. That symbol was the Hakenkreuz, the hooked cross. We know it as a black swastika on a white disc, with a red background. ⁽⁴⁾

At the first Nazi party rally held in Nuremberg, Hitler used the Blutfahne to bless the Nazi flags carried by his followers. This flag was stained with the blood of Nazis who had been killed during the failed putsch of November 1923. ⁽⁵⁾

The Fuehrer demanded absolute loyalty from his followers. German soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler personally. ⁽⁶⁾ One Nazi party member said, "There are things one cannot explain, cannot describe. I never stopped thinking of him. Sometimes, he meets us in our dreams." ⁽⁷⁾

An oath sworn to a man, believed by his followers to be their Savior, made under a hooked cross and consecrated with the blood of other Nazis. Historians have struggled to explain how such a regime managed to establish the camps.

Adolf Hitler may have spent most of his time lazing around at his home in the mountains, and he may not have issued an explicit order to establish a system of death camps, but an explanation of how the camps came to be an integral part of the Third Reich is certainly possible.

Hitler had stated that he intended to do away with democracy in Germany, and that's exactly what he did once he attained power. The Nazi regime has been described as chaotic, ⁽⁸⁾ but in fact the Nazis operated the Third Reich in accordance with basic evolutionary principles. Hitler was a follower of Darwin, and believed that his subordinates should compete amongst themselves, and the most devout and able Nazis would rise to positions of power. ⁽⁹⁾

In the absence of clearly defined orders being formally issued to his subordinates, the words of the Fuehrer served to establish the goals of the Nazi regime. Hitler had declared the Jewish race to be his enemy throughout his political career, so it was natural for avowed Nazis to pursue anti-Semitic policies. The British historian Ian Kershaw explains how this worked, citing a speech by Werner Willikens, who was employed in the German Ministry of Food: "Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuehrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuehrer." ⁽¹⁰⁾

Nazis worked towards the Fuehrer by perpetrating crimes they thought Hitler would approve of. There was no legal or moral reason to restrict their behaviour in any way. Their enemies had from day one been treated with the utmost brutality. On the Night of The Long Knives, the Nazis had even turned against their own and murdered the leader of the SA, Ernst Roehm. ⁽¹¹⁾

The most ruthless anti-Semitic measures were taken. In accordance with the principles of Darwinism, the ongoing expression of the Nazis' hatred of the Jewish people could not evolve differently, by going back in time and choosing a path which had not been taken. The Nazis' anti-Semitic policies could only become more radical until eventually, a "final solution" was reached.

In the Third Reich, all roads led to the death camps.

Many people living in first world countries today have no personal experience of war, and they have no context in which to place the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. This limited view of reality is sometimes referred to as a "normalcy bias". It may be difficult for some people to think clearly about the Holocaust. But the question must be asked: Could it happen again?

If such a regime arose today, its disciples would not march under the swastika. That symbol is now associated with the Nazis, and the political operators of the 21st century would never permit such an overt display.

In the landmark television series The World At War, one woman who lived in Germany in the 1930s said that Adolf Hitler appeared to many people to be pursuing order and stability. By the time his real agenda became known, it was too late for anyone to oppose him. Christabel Bielenberg, who was married to a German at the time, said: "I think that everything that came to us when we were living in Germany came very gradually. That was part, perhaps, of the way Hitler managed these things. It came on us rather, drip by drip, rather like an anesthetic, one could almost say, and it was only when a specific thing that he did hit you personally that you actually realized what was going on." ⁽¹²⁾

We know that it is possible for a man who has done nothing, achieved nothing, and whose character and beliefs are a mystery, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of considerable political power. In an age where information is accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the touch of an iPad, no one has any idea who the current American President really is.

Winston Churchill, 4th Queen's Own Hussars

One of the first things Obama did as President was remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Churchill was the man who, more than any other, recognized the danger posed by the Nazis and stood resolutely against them. ⁽¹³⁾

After insulting the Brits, Obama did the same to the Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu served in the IDF and fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for a scheduled meeting, Obama handed him a list of demands based on the false "land for peace" premise, and told him to consider that while he went off to have dinner with his wife. Obama said he'd "be around" if Netanyahu decided he was willing to bend over on behalf of the state of Israel and take it up the ass. As one of the reporters who covered the incident noted, all that Obama managed to do here was reveal himself to be ideological and vindictive. ^(14,15)

These two incidents are telling enough, but a further incident involving a head of state gives Obama's game away completely. When he met a real, live Muslim king, his upbringing came to the fore and the President of the United States of America bowed down before him.

Barack Hussein Obama

As President, Obama has changed the status of Israel in the Middle East by letting her enemies know that instead of standing by Israel, his administration is backing away. As President of America, Obama has given hope to Israel's enemies. ⁽¹⁶⁾

If that's what Obama meant by "hope" and "change" on the campaign trail in 2008, one shudders to think what is meant by his new slogan: "Forward!" ⁽¹⁷⁾

An American President doesn't need to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv for Israel's citizens to start dying. All he needs to do is let it be known that he sympathizes with the Islamic world, and that America no longer stands with Israel. There are plenty of organizations in the Middle East willing to murder Israelis. They're not satisfied killing a busload of people at a time either. They've been doing that for years, and it hasn't worked. The Star of David still flies over Israel.

The Nazis also tried to operate at that level, using "gas vans". ⁽¹⁸⁾ It didn't work for them either; as we know, the Nazis went on to develop their "final solution" to the Judenfrage.

Hitler may have committed suicide in April 1945, but there are still a lot of people today trying to act in ways that would have pleased him.

Whether it's politicians trying to do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain and his pals did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, a corrupt Western media failing to report the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into the town of Sderot, or the educated, so-called "moderate" Muslims living in the West who harbor the same "ancient hatred" of Israel in their hearts as the so-called "extremists" who act upon it, there is no shortage of people who, almost seven decades after the collapse of the Third Reich, are still working towards the Fuehrer.

References

1. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 435
2. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 2301
3. Hastings, M. All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945, p.xv
4. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 1140
5. History Channel, The Third Reich, DVD no.1, 12-13 mins
6. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 50
7. History Channel. The Third Reich, DVD no. 1, 12-13 mins
8. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 45
9. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 34
10. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 596
11. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 5355
12. ITV. The World At War: A New Germany, 40-41 mins
13.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177508/obama-throws-churchill-out-oval-office/nile-gardiner#
14.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html#
15. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html
16. Horowitz, D. and Laskin, J. Obama And The War Against The Jews, Kindle loc. 330
17.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
18.  http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc/film.php?RefId=DFG0667E
19. www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm, quoted by Horowitz & Laskin, Kindle loc. 322
20. Gilbert, M. The Second World War: A Complete History, p. 681

From the School of Neville Chamberlian: The Democratic Response to President Bush’s Address

Note: Neville “Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century in the popular mind, because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938."

The Democratic "appeasement of our enemies" response was delivered by delivered by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin on Wednesday evening.

Here’s an excerpt of that response:
. . .The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation.
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction. . . .
. . .Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.
It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

So what exactly do the Democrats want to do? In an interview with Durbin following the response this is what Durbin said:

. . .QUESTION: [Inaudible]... Do you think that the White House might actually change its position on it or scale it back?
DURBIN: I don't know. But I'll tell you this: I think that it's important that we finally have a voice.
It's been four years since we voted on the use-of-force resolution. If you look at the purpose of our invasion of Iraq, frankly every single element is unnecessary today. There is no Saddam Hussein. There are no weapons of mass destruction.
What we're talking about now is to really bring Congress into the debate, the American debate, about what's going to happen next in Iraq.
And we believe that if we can bring forward a resolution that really brings the president's policy before Congress [to] ask for bipartisan support; that's a debate that's long overdue.

So basically, the Democrats still want to sit at the table with Iran and Syria!

. . .QUESTION: In addition to withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group ... said that the U.S. should talk to Iran and Syria...
DURBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: ... you know, bring them into the fold with Iraq. And President Bush said -- he basically refuted that recommendation as well. How do you respond?
DURBIN: I think that's a mistake. If there's any surge that we need, it's a surge in diplomacy.
We need to have countries in that region, in the Middle East, who are interested in the stability, ultimate stability of Iraq, to get involved in its future.
We can't do this alone. The Iraqis, as I've said in this statement, have to really resolve that they're going to make their own nation strong and defend it.
But for its long-term future and the stability of its borders, we really need to engage other countries. I don't know how we can boycott countries in that region.
We need to at least sit at a table and find out if there is some common ground. That's the only way that I think we're going to find any long-term stability.

Read the entire response at theEagle.com

Hummm . . . Let’s see what common ground we can find to bring Iran “into the fold”?

The following excerpt from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2005 speech is from InformationClearinghouse.com (Bold added by me. Take note of how Ahmadinejad takes a jab at the weak. The left here and in Europe should take note. )

“But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:”

They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

"(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)"

To read the rest go to InformationClearinghouse.com

Ahmadinejad On Israel:
This is from the BBC.
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
"Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved."
The president's remarks were quickly condemned by Israel and the US.

Others writing about President Bush’s address and the Democratic Response:
Wake Up America
theneweditor
Almanak
Freedom Eden