Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Adelson turns against Jeb about Israel


Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a generous Republican donor and staunch supporter of Israel, has reportedlybecome “incensed” at former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush over comments that a Bush foreign policy adviser made about Israel.

Former Secretary of State James Baker, who is among Bush’s advisers, gave the keynote address last week to the D.C. gala dinner of J Street, a left-wing group that opposes the Israeli government and supports the Obama administration’s policy.
Baker told J Street that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to blame for the stalled Middle East peace process, that Netanyahu was too hawkish on Iran, and that the U.S. should not support an Israeli strike against the Iranian regime.
As Breitbart News reported last week, Jeb Bush invited Baker to join his list of foreign policy advisers, despite knowing that the Bush family ally had a checkered record on Israel and is distrusted by many Jewish voters because of alleged prejudice.
Exactly a year ago, Adelson hosted Jeb Bush at a private fundraising event in Las Vegas, coordinated with the Republican Jewish Coalition ahead of its annual spring meeting. The event was the most exclusive item on the weekend’s agenda.
Adelson’s apparent shift, reported by the New York Times, would be a major blow–although Bush has already raised so much money that he may not feel worried.
The potential may now be open for another candidate to win Adelson’s favor.

Israel's Right to the Land

Israel's Right to the Land

A skillful presentation by U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Senate floor, March 4, 2002.

by Senator Jim Inhofe

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.
I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the Six Day War, as if that were something new...
[But] there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace. When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference, because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
I will discuss seven reasons why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.
We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East -- that is us -- all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door. I have some observations to make about that.
But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land.
The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. All the archeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.
The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world.
The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites.
The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.
The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War One, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War One on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War One. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.
One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem. The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.
That day, Allenby sent World War One biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them.
They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so Allenby captured Jerusalem without firing a single shot.
Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, "man sent from God" or "prophet from God." They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.
The British government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.
The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.
The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan -- the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.
Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.
This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. The Palestinian Royal Commission said:
"The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."
That was 1913.
The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place." In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.
Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.
The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe during World War Two. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism, and before then under the Czars.
These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?
They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home state of Oklahoma seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.
The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region.
Israel votes with America in the United Nations more than England, Canada, France, Germany -- more than any other country in the world.
They are our strategic ally. It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany -- more than any other country in the world.
The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores.
One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.
Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai campaign, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.
Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2-to-1.
There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the Gulf War. Our president asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.
I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said: "Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that ourselves?"
Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.
But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the Six Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel -- which they won't be -- but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.
I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: "The Lord said to Abram, "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee."
That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.
The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land. Eight years ago on the White House lawn, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion. At that time, the official policy of the government of Israel began to be, "Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace." This process continued unabated up until last year.
Here in our own nation, at Camp David in the summer of 2000, then-Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table. He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.
Barak even spoke of dividing Jerusalem. Arafat stormed out of the meeting.
And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting? A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and caused the explosion. Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission to be there? It was no surprise.
The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details. They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last eight years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.
In fact, it has been greater in the last eight years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived. They offered a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, "No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us... They want to destroy us."
That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the little part they call the West Bank. They want it all.
We have to get out of this mindset that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.
These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.

Virginia State bar boycotts Israel

Virginia State Bar,
At a time of growing anti-Israel activity by the Obama Administration, and at a time when anti-Semitism has risen by more than 20% in the past year alone, the Virginia State Bar has decided to boycott the Jewish country of Israel.
The boycott Israel movement has gained significant steam over the past 5 years, including prominent endorsements from Roger Waters, Alice Walker, Danny Glover, and Stephen Hawking.
Israel, the only country in the world with a Jewish population of higher than 2%. Israel, the only country in the Middle East that allows women and gay people to be treated with equality. Israel, the country where almost 20 Arabs are in the Israeli Parliament. Israel, where 1.6 million Arabs have the right to vote.
Are you aware that the federal government is charged with enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act? Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel.
I am writing to express my great concern and disappointment about your decision.
Virginia resident

Obama's obsession with any deal with Iran is a disaster even if no deal is reached

What If There’s No Iran Deal?

Each week seems to bring a new damning portrait of President Obama’s foreign policy from a different major news outlet. They say essentially the same thing but, like fingerprints, aren’t exactly the same. And Politico’s piece on Thursday by Michael Crowley stood out for providing a quote from the Obama administration that may rise above even the infamous “leading from behind” slogan the White House has rued since the words were spoken. What it lacks in bumper-sticker brevity it more than makes up for in stunning honesty.
Here’s how the Politico article closes, with a quote from an administration official:
“The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what every one agrees is the biggest threat to the region,” the official said.
The Obama administration’s official perspective on the Middle East currently engulfed in brutal sectarian conflict, civil war, and the collapse of state authority is: Let it burn. Nothing matters but a piece of paper affirming a partnership with the region’s key source of instability and terror in the name of a presidential legacy.
But there’s another question that’s easy to miss in the frenetic, desperate attempt to reach a deal with Iran: What if there’s no deal?
Obviously the president wants a deal, and he’s willing to do just about anything for it. The Obama administration long ago abandoned the idea that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and only recently began hinting at this shift in public. Officials have no interest in even talking about Yemen while they’re negotiating the Iran deal. It’s a singleminded pursuit; obsessive, irrational, ideologically extreme. But it’s possible the pursuit will fail: witness today’s New York Times story demonstrating that the Iranians are still playing hardball. (Why wouldn’t they? Their demands keep getting met.)
Surely it’s appalling for the administration to be so dismissive of the failure of a state, such as Yemen, in which we’ve invested our counterterrorism efforts. But it also shifts the power structure in the region. Take this piece in the Wall Street Journal: “Uncertain of Obama, Arab States Gear Up for War.” In it, David Schenker and Gilad Wenig explain that “The willingness of Arab states to finally sacrifice blood and treasure to defend the region from terrorism and Iranian encroachment is a positive development. But it also represents a growing desperation in the shadow of Washington’s shrinking security role in the Middle East.”
They also note the Arab League’s record isn’t exactly a monument to competent organization, so it’s not a great stand-in for an American government looking to unburden itself as a security guarantor for nervous Sunni allies. And it adds yet another note of instability.
Yemen’s only the latest example of the realignment, of course. The death toll in Syria’s civil war long ago hit six digits, and it’s still raging. Bashar al-Assad, thanks to his patron Iran and Tehran’s complacent hopeful partner in Washington, appears to have turned a corner and is headed to eventual, bloody victory.
The Saudis are toying with joining the nuclear arms race furthered by the Obama administration’s paving the Iranian road to a bomb. In Iraq, as Michael Weiss and Michael Pregent report, our decision to serve as Iran’s air force against ISIS has grotesque consequences, including that our military is now “providing air cover for ethnic cleansing.” Iran’s proxies, such as those in Lebanon and on Israel’s borders, will only be further emboldened.
And the lengths the administration has gone to elbow Israel out of the way–fromleaking Israel’s nuclear secrets to intervening in its elections to try to oust those critical of Obama’s nuclear diplomacy–only cement the impression that to this president, there is room for every erstwhile ally under the bus, if that’s what it takes to get right with Iran. The view from France, meanwhile, “is of a Washington that seems to lack empathy and trust for its long-time friends and partners — more interested in making nice with Iran than looking out for its old allies.”
The ramifications to domestic politics are becoming clear as well. The point of Obama portraying foreign-government critics as Republicans abroad is that he sees everything in binary, hyperpartisan fashion. The latest dispatch from the Wall Street Journal on the issue includes this sentence:
In recent days, officials have tried to neutralize skeptical Democrats by arguing that opposing President Barack Obama would empower the new Republican majority, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Taking a tough line on Iranian nukes is bad, according to Obama, because it could help Republicans. It’s a rather amazing bit of myopia and partisan mania from the president.
And yet all this damage Obama is doing is for an Iran deal that might, in the end, not happen. And what if that’s the case? We can’t stitch Yemen, Syria, and Iraq back together. The failure of the negotiations won’t make the Saudis or the Israelis or the French trust Obama any more.
Obama’s clout on the Hill will plummet. And his legacy will be in ruins. After all, though he has been on pace to sign a bad Iran deal, it would at least buy him time for his devotees to spin the deal before its worst consequences happen (which would be after Obama leaves office, as designed). In other words, signing a bad deal for Obama allows him to say that at least from a narrow antiwar standpoint, all the costs we and our allies have incurred were for a purpose.
Of course, the grand realignment Obama has been seeking with Iran can’t and won’t be undone. That’s happening whether a deal is signed or not. And while Obama will have spent much of his own political capital, the president’s wasted time will pale in comparison to the smoldering ruins of American influence he leaves behind.

Clinton's took money from Iranian front group. Wonder why she sided with Obama on iran deal?

Clintons Refused to Return Money from Iranian Government Front Group

Man pardoned by Bill Clinton tied to Iranian foundation
The Clinton Foundation refused to return more than $50,000 of contributions from a group described by federal government investigators as a “front” for the “Mullahs who dominate Iran.”
The Alavi Foundation contributed $30,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2006, and again contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 in 2008.
The Washington Post reported in 2003 that federal law enforcement officials said that Alavi was “closely tied to the mullahs who dominate Iran” and “funds a variety of anti-American causes.”
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara filed a lawsuit in 2009 to seize a New York City building partially owned by The Alavi Foundation alleging that it had been acting as a “front for the government of Iran” for two decades.
“For two decades, the Alavi Foundation’s affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors at the United Nations, in violation of a series of U.S. laws,” said Bharara.
Despite the allegations, the Clinton Foundation held its ground, stating in 2009 that it had no plans to return the money it received from The Alavi Foundation.
The 2008 donation to the Clinton Foundation came just two days after Alavi’s partner, the New York-based ASSA Corp., was designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury Department.
In 2013, a federal judge upheld Bharara’s case and ordered the seizure of the 36-story building. Bharara said at the time that the ruling “paves the way for the largest-ever terrorism-related forfeiture, and provides a means of compensating victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.”
The Clinton’s ties to the case don’t end with donations from Alavi.
One of the tenants of the building, Marc Rich, had previously fled the United States for Switzerland after he was indicted on 65 charges including “fraud and illegal trading with Iran.” Rich was trading with Iran even as it held American hostages..

Iran is the worst nation on earth and our jihadist president wants to give them nuclear bombs. delineating their crimes

Obama is aiding and abetting these monsters to be the new regional power.
1.1983 Iran helped finance and direct the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of American military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel.
2. Iran has also been implicated in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, which killed 19 American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
3. More recently Iran has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. Iran through terrorist proxies most notably Hezbollah, has a global reach. Hezbollah operates in Africa, Europe, US and South America. Iran Has a Huge Global Network of Terrorists Who Could Deliver Nuclear and “Dirty” Bombs.If Iran decided to attack a target with a “dirty” bomb, it has the means to deliver it.
5. Iran has a top secret underground nuclear site enriching uranium intended for nuclear weapons. It's a site that has been hidden from the west for years. That's according to an Iranian opposition group that in a news conference today described the complex as being buried deep underground. The facility has radiation proof doors to prevent any leaks that could be detected by international inspectors.
6.  Iran now controls 5 Arab capitals including in the former sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya and of course Iran. Think they will stop there.
7. They have repeatedly said they will not stop until the flag of islam flies over the White house and repeatedly they plan to destroy Israel. “ on March 31, 2015 http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable/”. They shout “death to America” as they “negotiate” and blow up mock US aircraft carrier.
Why in the world would anyone REWARD this worst of all terrorist nations by letting them EVER have nuclear weapons?

1. Iran defector (former spokesman for Mullahs) says US is doing IRAN's bidding
2, Why/ Obama is a pro Islamic Jihadist, and wants to weaken America, Israel 

and our traditional allies.  There is no other reasonable explanation. He is a PRO ISLAMIC PRP JIHAD US PRESIDENT> http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.html

goes way back in his life. An explosion of Isis terror network spreading under Obama's watch as he called them JV and pretends to battle them. This does not show the wild growth of al Quida under his watch, and the spread of Iran's terrorist network. 

His top aid is Valarie Jarett., born in iran.

 Her father can be seen in this article from 1979 explaining how Muslim billionaires were targeting, financing and directing  Blacks with high potential for US politics.
see it here http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.html

3, Obama's actions have been consistently advancing Islamic jihad and hurting the west and USA.
He SAID he thought Iran could be "successful regional power" despite them being world's worst terrorist state.
4. Obama has lied to us consistently about Iran.
a. Says Iran won't use nuclear weapons because of their faith. LIE "http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable/"
b. He says their is Mullah fatwa against nuclear weapons. LIE
c. He says iran has abides by past agreements. LIE
d. He says 999.9% Muslims want what we want. LIE
e. says his policies have slowed Iran's nuclear weapons program LIE
f. says this deal with DENY Iran nuclear weapons. LIE. It GUARANTEES them.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet  says breakout time will be 7 months during accord and then all limits off.
g. Says US will walk away from bad deal. LIE. Mullahs say Obama desperate for deal.
DEFECTOR says Obama is LYING. http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/highly-placed-iranian-defects-leaks-stunning-news-of-how-obama-is-deceiving-america-on-nuke-talks/

h. Lie by omission. never discloses top aids close ties to Iran.
i. says deal will bring peace. LIE. It will spark nuclear arms race and embolden the already worst terrorist nation on earth even further plus represent genocidal threat to israel, Europe and USA.
5.  Obama's background and childhood explain his pro islamic jihad worldview
Barack's father, who abandoned him was a Muslim, anti colonialist 
Barack was education in Indonesian Muslim schools

Barack's brother wore hamas scarf

Barack hung around radical anti israel pro jihad leaders throughout his life, including Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said. Dinner with them in his 30s.

Barack was tutored as youth and his main mentor was Frank Anthony Davis, a self proclaimed communist
Barack chose church for 26 years whose pastor was a self proclaimed communist who sais 9-11 was Americas chickens coming home to roost and g-d DAMN America.
Barack's middle name Hussein. 

This is an earlier draft of the catastrophic deal

all the evidence for the above is here http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.html