Jihadist, lying Obama compared Tepublicans to hard liners in Iran opposing the Iran deal. LIAR.
It is, of course the opposite. Obama, its the hardliners who control Iran. its the DEMS, not Repub, who side with them. Obama said "ALL Iranians do not support genocide. So what, only 5% of Russians were members of Communist party and when Hitler coming to power, not all Germans were nazis. it deoends on who CONTROLS the country. in Iran, it is the hardliners who side with Obama.
Never has a more dangerous or ridiculous statement been made by a USA President. But then again, we have never had a #onlyradicalmuslimlivesmatter” president before.
Diplomats are trying to pretend this Iran catastrophe is not about Obama. I’m no diplomat. I think truth is clarifying. OBAMA IS A proponent of RADICAL ISLAMIC JIHAD. The evidence is overwhelming. I think most people know it but are afraid of the implications.
Here is what this jihadist said yesterday in his speech. “Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who’ve been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”
There are no “hardliners” in Iran opposed to the deal. Phony. Obama/Kerry (whose grandfather was a kohn) made the deal with the hardliners who are laughing at us, writing books about destroying us and Israel and proclaiming victory over the Great Satan. The Republicans and a few non Nazi-like Democrats “just following orders” are trying to stop our manic president from destroying the USA and Israel.
Obama's solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, along with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. Or perhaps launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible. And give them $50 billion so there terrorists can be everywhere, all the time.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the American public rejects the president’s Iran deal by more than 2 to 1. This is astonishing. The public generally gives the president deference on major treaties. Just a few weeks ago, a majority supported the deal.
What happened? People learned what’s in it.
And don’t be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administration’s position in the very question . The Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, “international inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?”
Well, if you put it that way, sure. But it is precisely because these claims are so tendentious and misleading that public — and congressional — opinion is turning.
Inspections? Everyone now knows that “anytime, anywhere” — indispensable for a clandestine program in a country twice the size of Texas with a long history of hiding and cheating — has been changed to “You’ve got 24 days and then we’re coming in for a surprise visit.” New York restaurants, observed Jackie Mason, get more intrusive inspections than the Iranian nuclear program.
Snapback sanctions? Everyone knows that once the international sanctions are lifted, they are never coming back. Moreover, consider the illogic of President Obama’s argument. The theme of his American University speechWednesday was that the only alternative to what he brought back from Vienna is war because sanctions — even the more severe sanctions that Congress has been demanding — will never deter the Iranians. But if sanctions don’t work, how can you argue that the Iranians will now be deterred from cheating by the threat of . . . sanctions? Snapback sanctions, mind you, that will inevitably be weaker and more loophole-ridden than the existing ones.
And then came news of the secret side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. These concern past nuclear activity and inspections of the Parchin military facility where Iran is suspected of having tested nuclear detonation devices.
We don’t know what’s in these side deals. And we will never know, says the administration. It’s “standard practice,” you see, for such IAEA agreements to remain secret.
Well, this treaty is not standard practice. It’s the most important treaty of our time. Yet, Congress is asked to ratify this “historic diplomatic breakthrough” (Obama) while being denied access to the heart of the inspection regime.
Congress doesn’t know what’s in these side agreements, but Iran does. Andjust this past Monday, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to the supreme leader, declared that “entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden.”
One secret side deal could even allow Iran to provide its own soil samples (!) from Parchin. And now satellite imagery shows Iran bulldozing and sanitizing Parchin as we speak. The verification regime has turned comic.
This tragicomedy is now in the hands of Congress or, more accurately, of congressional Democrats. It is only because so many Democrats are defecting that Obama gave the AU speech in the first place. And why he tried so mightily to turn the argument into a partisan issue — those warmongering Republicans attacking a president offering peace in our time. Obama stooped low, accusing the Republican caucus of making “common cause” with the Iranian “hard-liners” who shout “Death to America.”
Forget the gutter ad hominem. This is delusional. Does Obama really believe the Death-to-America hard-liners are some kind of KKK fringe? They are the government, for God’s sake — the entire state apparatus of the Islamic Republic from the Revolutionary Guards to the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei who for decades have propagated, encouraged and applaudedthose very same “Death to America” chants.
Common cause with the Iranian hard-liners? Who more than Obama? For years, they conduct a rogue nuclear weapons program in defiance of multiple Security Council declarations of its illegality backed by sanctions and embargoes. Obama rewards them with a treaty that legitimates their entire nuclear program, lifts the embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles and revives an economy — described by Iran’s president as headed back to “the Stone Age” under sanctions — with an injection of up to $150 billion in unfrozen assets, permission for the unlimited selling of oil and full access to the international financial system.
With this agreement, this repressive, intolerant, aggressive, supremely anti-American regime — the chief exporter of terror in the world — is stronger and more entrenched than it has ever been.
Common cause, indeed.
List of Jewish kapos in congress supporting genocidal Iran deal and HONOR ROLL for Dems opposing it
Kapo list in formation. Republicans so far are 100% opposed to the deal.
Jewish Democrats in Congress voting for this genocidal bill
Kapo Sander Levin Michigan Democrat says he'll support the deal
Kapo Jan Schakowsky Illinois Dem also leading lobbying for Obama on it
KAPO We have another kapo in Congress. Wall Street Journal reporting today Congressman Adam Schiff D-Calif is supporting this genocidal deal. Just like a good Nazi did, following orders of our jihadist President. Call his office and tell him you are disgusted that he will lend his vote to this catastrophic deal and this is how history will remember him.
How many of these will be KAPOS?
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
KAPO Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
KAPO Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Our Honor roll of Dems in Congress voting VS the bill!! HONOR ROLL (Repubs seem to be unanimously OPPOSED so far)
Jewish Democrats in Congress voting for this genocidal bill
Kapo Sander Levin Michigan Democrat says he'll support the deal
Kapo Jan Schakowsky Illinois Dem also leading lobbying for Obama on it
KAPO We have another kapo in Congress. Wall Street Journal reporting today Congressman Adam Schiff D-Calif is supporting this genocidal deal. Just like a good Nazi did, following orders of our jihadist President. Call his office and tell him you are disgusted that he will lend his vote to this catastrophic deal and this is how history will remember him.
How many of these will be KAPOS?
Senate
(9 Democrats, 1 Independent)
(9 Democrats, 1 Independent)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
KAPO Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
KAPO Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
House
(18 Democrats, 1 Republican)
(18 Democrats, 1 Republican)
David Cicilline (D-RI)
Stephen Cohen (D-TN)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
MENTCHTed Deutch (D-FL)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
MENTCHSteve Israel (D-NY)
KAPO Sander Levin (D-MI)
Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
MENTCHNita Lowey (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
KAPO Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
KAPO Adam Schiff (D-CA)
MENTCHBrad Sherman (D-CA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)*
Stephen Cohen (D-TN)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
MENTCHTed Deutch (D-FL)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
MENTCHSteve Israel (D-NY)
KAPO Sander Levin (D-MI)
Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
MENTCHNita Lowey (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
KAPO Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
KAPO Adam Schiff (D-CA)
MENTCHBrad Sherman (D-CA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)*
Democratic lawmaker announces opposition to Iran deal Senator McCaskill strongly suggests she will vote against disapproval of the deal, expressing concern over adverse effect. Hopefully she will
2. NY’s Meng is among first members of her party to buck administration pressure, declare plans to vote against agreement
3. 3. 3 3. Juan Vargas, California
http://www.thetower.org/2256-democrat-on-foreign-affairs-committee-goes-on-record-opposing-iran-nuke-deal/
New York Democratic Congresswoman Kathleen Rice has come out with a forceful statement about why she opposes the Iran deal.
5. Congresswoman Nita Lowey: "In my judgment, sufficient safeguards are not in place to address the risks associated with the agreement...I cannot support this agreement before Congress."
New York Democratic Congresswoman Kathleen Rice has come out with a forceful statement about why she opposes the Iran deal.
5. Congresswoman Nita Lowey: "In my judgment, sufficient safeguards are not in place to address the risks associated with the agreement...I cannot support this agreement before Congress."
Republicans seem to be unanimously opposed at this point. Here are a few statements
R-Indiana https://medium.com/@SenDanCoats/congress-should-reject-iran-deal-9223439fdd2d Indiana
R-Indiana https://medium.com/@SenDanCoats/congress-should-reject-iran-deal-9223439fdd2d Indiana