None so Blind

If our leaders, media elites continue to fail to illuminate the true nature of the nuclear threat we face, Americans will remain blind to the most realistic means for extinguishing those threats

 

From: Canada Free Press

 

By Dr. Brad Lyles --  March 16, 2015

 

 

Americans no longer possess the visceral understanding of nuclear warfare possessed by inhabitants of the ‘60’s, ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Gone too are the days of Dr. Benjamin Spock climbing over nuclear facility fences preaching unilateral disarmament. The current generation of Americans, not seeing, not understanding, do not know they risk everything.

 

The Complicit Press and D.C. politicos share the blame in this. Following Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, not one commentator addressed in a substantive or meaningful way the implications for the U.S. and the world were Iran to detonate a nuclear device over a major city such as New York, D.C., or Tel Aviv.

Most Americans do possess a vague intuition about the realities of nuclear warfare, but they do not feel the realities.

In contrast, during the 1960s through 1980s, most Americans survived despite the background radiation of almost constant discussion of and controversies about nuclear warfare. Was nuclear war survivable? Could there be a “winner?” Should we disarm unilaterally? How powerful should our weapons be? How many should we have? How many people would be killed? Would MAD, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, keep us safe? Would the Soviets develop technology that might prevent us time to react? How dangerous would enduring radioactivity prove to be? And so on.

Everyone lived their lives afflicted with the reliable knowledge that at any time their whole world might end, and with no more than fifteen to thirty minutes’ warning, i.e. the time required for a Soviet-launched missile to reach the United States.

Those of us fifty-five and older have directly experienced innumerable debates on these topics, over years and years. We just haven’t experienced them in a long time. Younger generations haven’t experienced them at all. 

In the absence of a legitimate national dialogue about the nuclear threat, our political leaders and their acolytes in the media feel free to speak glibly about Iran’s inevitable construction of nuclear weapons, as if that were the end of the matter, as if inevitability signified acceptability. They trivialize the need to address the true risks of a 40-kiloton nuclear strike (the likely limit of Iranian yield) over Tel Aviv or New York City.

Such a strike would kill 200,000 on the first day and 400,000 in the following days and weeks. If any of our leaders or media pundits gave serious thought to these numbers, or merely a passing thought, the idea of a full-scale invasion of Iran – to prevent such a catastrophe – would no longer seem so outrageous.

Of course, this requires taking the threat posed by Iran seriously. Obama’s indelible narcissism, however, constrains him from acknowledging the threat. Instead, because of collusion between our brain-challenged leaders and the Complicit Press, intentional or no, the Obama regime feels no pushback when it claims partial success in negotiating a ten-year delay in Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon. Iran’s leaders’ own words betray any agreed upon delay, however. The nature of Iran’s leaders precludes any lessening of its threat regardless in which ten year period they obtain the bomb.

It is obvious to anyone even marginally conscious that a negotiated delay is no better than no delay at all. Iran must never be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon, with or without delay.

From the moment an Iran with a bomb emerges, 200-400,000 Americans will become reasonably at risk for instantaneous annihilation. Star Wars was never completed. We possess no effective Anti-Missile Defense system (ABM). It should be easy to understand this is a game changer: The U.S. is entirely impotent once Iran pushes the button. The U.S. possesses enviable counterstrike capacity of course. But what good will this do when NYC or D.C. are smoking ruins?

Because of this, because we are not safe, any policy relevant to a nuclear Iran must guarantee Iran can never use a nuclear weapon. It should be obvious negotiations can never provide such a guarantee. Worse, relying upon MAD cannot provide such a guarantee.

The American public has a right to know the particulars of the unprecedented danger we face. And they will only understand the particulars if they are informed of them. The American public should know at minimum: 

1. Without ABM we are sitting ducks.
2. Without confidence MAD is relevant to Iran we cannot be safe (the Iranians’ devotion to destruction of the West outweighs any fears of destruction by the West).
3. Conclusion: We can only be safe if we can guarantee Iran is never capable of using a nuclear weapon. This permits few options for our safety. Again, it should be ridiculously obvious negotiation is not an option.

To lend perspective, let’s review what happens, exactly, when an Iranian 40 kiloton nuke detonates above Manhattan. First, a new sun erupts. Within milliseconds a fireball vaporizes everything within a 1,000-yard radius from ground zero. The explosion produces an air blast and lethal radiation that kills everything and levels most buildings within a 1.5-mile radius. A heat radiation blast consumes everything within a 2-mile radius and sparks huge fires over a much larger area. Finally, the delayed effects of radiation from radioactive fallout take many more lives over the following days, weeks and months. All in all, a 40-kiloton blast over Manhattan will kill about 200,000 Democrats.

For perspective, consider the bomb dropped over Hiroshima – a 15 kiloton bomb - about one-third the size of the likely 40 kiloton bomb Iran will use. In 1945, this small 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb killed 100,000.

Consequently, the earlier fatalities figures are conservative. Using a more liberal estimate, in the event of a 40-kiloton NYC blast, we should reliably lose at least 500,000 Democrats.

If our leaders and media elites continue to fail to illuminate the true nature of the nuclear threat we face, Americans will remain blind to the most realistic means for extinguishing those threats. 

We must see if we are to survive.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

 

Liberal Democrats Are Socialists in Disguise

From: Freedom Outpost

by-FJ Rocca March 7, 2015

There are two types of Liberal Democrats: sincere ones and insincere ones. The sincere ones think you are too stupid to know what's good for you and what's bad for you. The insincere ones hope you never find out the difference. The sincere ones are easier to spot. They are blatant in what they think are benevolent dictates. Sometimes they are downright obnoxious or even stupid. When my wife expressed her frustration that many of her high school students could not read on a fourth grade level (in some cases, a second grade level) thus should not be given college preparation programs at all, but rather vocational education, another teacher responded, "You just don't want them to become part of the power structure." My wife poured water on the flame of this ridiculous remark with, "Don't you think having a job and feeding your family is powerful?"

It's different with the insincere ones, who resemble pickpockets, quietly, surreptitiously sneaking into the pocket of American culture. Let me explain what I mean. 

It is generally agreed that there are two ways of making a political revolution: by violence or by gradual assertion. The Russian Revolution was an example of the first. Social Democracy is an example of the second, changing the culture gradually by using the very institutions designed to protect it. In Europe, the Social Democrats are still active. In the US, they have become the Liberal Democrats. 

Liberal Democrats are Social Democrats with a thin disguise. The Social Democrat movement began in 19^th Century Germany. Started by followers of Marx and Engels and influenced by other reformists, the movement sought to accomplish the goal of socialism gradually, rather than by violent rebellion. Presumably, if introduced little by little, socialism would be acceptable to vast majorities of people who grew used to its culture. 

The Social Democrats sought to do this by changing the culture, introducing mechanisms such as collective bargaining, which drew attention away from individual rights and replaced that concept with collectivist institutions such as vast welfare and confiscatory redistribution of wealth. 

Typically, the Social Democrats advocated various "rights" to be conferred by government. These often included education, health care, workers' compensation, and pensions. Through its advocacy of trade unions, the concept of collective bargaining allowed the organization of working people into manageable groups, providing what appeared on the surface to be a collective voice in public policy. All of this would be managed and provided by government. However, government does not create wealth. It can only seize and distribute wealth created by its citizens through confiscatory taxation, i.e., taxes paid not in exchange for specific services, but as a pledge that needed services would be provided by government. 

To finance such a behemoth, the Social Democrats recognized (wisely, it may be commented) that without someone producing wealth, there would be nothing to redistribute. In other words, they recognized that capitalism was vital to the economic life of any and every society. Consequently, accommodation would be made with industry by establishing a kind of class structure that was invisible to the average citizen. This was a kind of payoff to those who agreed to continue producing goods and services that buoyed the economy, while allowing those in political power to maintain that power by falsely claiming a struggle with the very class it had created, the privileged cooperative of politics and business.

In the US, the Social Democrat movement has become that of the Liberal Democrats. Consider what the Democrats advocate—indeed have actually created—in today's society. Obamacare is a socialist invention, as is Social Security itself. The Federal takeover and increase in size of the vast welfare system is another such institution. Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, during whose administration the Federal Reserve was created, and especially since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, whose dictatorial manner and ambitions created the Ponzi scheme of Social Security—a perpetually bankrupt system—to Obama's proposal to provide two years of free community college to everyone, the goals of gradual socialism are being accomplished through the culture.

Consider the hue and cry that erupts from the left (and even from some on the right) when the notion is proposed to replace Social Security with a much better, privately based system of investment. Or consider the flap when anyone suggests cutting back on welfare, which has all but ruined whole neighborhoods where welfare has become generational and encourages staggering rates of illegitimacy for profit. 

At its root, socialism as a system in all its forms is unworkable without wealth that is created outside itself. Therefore, it is an unmistakable fraud, created to enable a class—government politicians and bureaucrats—to gain and maintain power. In the US today, the most egregious perpetrators of this fraud are the Liberal Democrats (although many Republicans, those impolitely referred to as RINOs, hold the same desire for power). In fact, much of the Socialist agenda has already been enacted. Norman Thomas, six times Socialist Party candidate, and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit running for political office, saying that the Republican and Democratic parties were adopting gradually, almost every plank on the Communist/Socialist party platform, thus no longer needed to run for office to accomplish it themselves. 

The lie of Social Democracy is a pernicious evil that should be relentlessly hunted down and stamped out, because its goal is socialism, a system proven over and over to be unworkable, and in fact, to create not universal wealth, but power for the elites running it. This can only be done by shouting out the truth of the inequities and iniquities in all notions of egalitarian social justice. The idea that welfare can be administered with any compassion by government is a lie and, as often as people believe it, they should be disabused of that belief by promoting the truth. 

Admittedly, this will be no easy endeavor. It will require courage and bluntness, but without changing the culture back to that of the true America, the one of our Founders, America's decline will continue.

God bless,

JohnnyD

Who is Barack Obama?

Here is an Interesting Anagram:


President Barack Obama  =  An Arab Backed Imposter


All this time it's been right in front of us!


God bless,
JohnnyD

Emails show Clinton aides running interference during Benghazi attack

From: Fox News

by - Catherine HerridgePublished March 07, 2015


Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead. 

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated that night.

"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,"  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. "What's notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack."

The emails emerged as Clinton fields criticism over revelations that she used personal email during her tenure as secretary. She is now asking the department to make public thousands of emails she has turned over.

On Friday, the State Department spokeswoman was pushed to explain how they will review the Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and what will be made public.

"We will use FOIA standards for the review,"  spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "What we determine is appropriate under those FOIA standards will be public."

Harf also was questioned on a State Department unclassified cable, obtained exclusively by Fox News. The cable shows in 2011, Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for government business, citing security reasons -- while she carried out government business exclusively on private accounts.

"This isn't her best practice guidance,” Harf said. “Her name is at the bottom of the cable, as is practiced for cables coming from Washington … some think she wrote it, which is not accurate."

Nevertheless, cables sent under Clinton's electronic signature carry her authority.  

Mills, meanwhile, is a focus of the select congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. During congressional testimony, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who helped lead the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attacks, confirmed under cross-examination that he personally warned Mills that a witness would be damaging to the department.

Critics say it is more evidence the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, was deeply flawed.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Zero cops killed by Obama's 'bad' ammo

Police 'disgusted' by prez's claim 'officer safety' behind ban

From: World Net Daily

by - Leo Hohmann - March 4, 2015

The White House claim that the ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle should be banned as part of a “common sense” effort to protect police officers’ lives is being derided by police officers themselves as a shameful lie.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said this week that the .223-caliber M855 ball should be banned because it can penetrate an officer’s soft armor and can be fired not just from sporting rifles but “easily concealable weapons.”

The term “easily concealable” was used to describe the AR-15 handgun. A bulky 6 pounds and 25 inches long, the semi-automatic version of this weapon, with a magazine, would be difficult to conceal, say firearms experts. And it would likely not be the first choice of any street thug or gang member, as it retails for between $1,000 and $2,000.

In fact, gun rights advocates and law enforcement agencies contacted by WND say they have been unable to document a single incident in which a police officer has been taken down by a criminal using an AR-15 handgun in the 20 years since this particular round, the M855 ball, has been exempted from the federal ban on armor-piercing bullets. It was exempted based on its use for sporting purposes.

“We have not been able to find a single instance where a police officer has been shot from this type of handgun using a bullet that pierces his soft-body armor, and if the administration had any examples you know they would be pushing it in everybody’s face to further their executive action,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “We’ve scoured everywhere, gone into every source possible to try to find an instance of this and have not been able to find one.”

So Earnest’s comments only further infuriated gun owners who were already seeing red over the possibility of losing access to some of the most common ballistics used for sport-target shooting and hunting.

WND polled several large police agencies, looking for evidence that vest-wearing officers have been killed or seriously wounded by this particular form of ammunition fired from a handgun, only to come up empty.

“Not in my jurisdiction,” said Sheriff David Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. “We’re doing a search nationwide to see if there’s any data that exists as proof of this comment coming out of the White House but so far we haven’t found anything.”

Clarke said he was skeptical that the White House was really concerned about officer safety.

“I’m disgusted that this administration would use the safety and well-being of our nation’s law enforcement officers to accomplish their gun-control agenda by circumventing the Congress and circumventing the Constitution in rewriting this law,” he said. “That’s all this is. They don’t fool me. No fraternal order of police, no sheriff is going to fall for this.”

Sgt. Dana Pierce, public-information officer for Cobb County, Georgia, Police Department, one of the largest metro Atlanta police agencies, was equally baffled by the need to ban the M855 ball on the basis of protecting officer safety.

In his 34 years in law enforcement, Pierce said he’s never heard of any officer being shot at, or even threatened, by a criminal wielding an AR-15 handgun.

But just to make sure, he checked with the officer in charge of weapons training and weapons collection at his department.

“I haven’t seen any so I called our training range and asked, in all fairness, has anyone ever taken one of those (AR-15 handguns) off the street? The lieutenant there who runs the range said no,” Pierce told WND. “Anytime a weapon like that would be used against an officer there would be an officer-safety bulletin go out and the range would be notified. If there was a situation where either they took one of these off the streets or an officer had been threatened with one of these weapons we would immediately launch an internal memo, and we have never had any of those go out to my knowledge. So for Cobb County police, at this moment, this is not something we are so concerned about.”

Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, also broached the issue during last week’s CPAC convention.

“This is a blatant overreach. Apparently he thinks he can do whatever he wants,” Cox said of Obama. “He can completely do an end-run around Congress. This ammunition was exempted 20 years ago. In 20 years no .223 round has been used in a crime fired from a handgun platform to kill a police officer, or that penetrated a vest.

“So again, it’s not just a solution in search of a problem. It’s a solution to their gun control problem. And that’s what they’re using this for.”

Clarke said the real purpose of the ban is clear to him.

“This is nothing more than raw gun control. You ban a bullet and you basically ban the gun that uses that bullet,” Clarke said. “It’s typical of the lawlessness coming out of this administration.”

Even if the AR-15 handgun were a threat to officers’ safety, Clarke said the logic behind the Obama administration’s strategy is questionable.

“We all want to do what we can to protect our law enforcement officers, but every time an officer is unfortunately killed in a tragic incident, banning whatever gun was used is not a good strategy,” he said. “I don’t know what that is going to accomplish.

“Officers are killed in auto accidents all the time. We don’t talk about banning automobiles,” Clarke added. “No, officers have never asked the White House for this. If they were interested in protecting officers they wouldn’t blame the gun. They would blame the career criminal.”

Clarke sees the White House talking points as playing upon the emotions of people who may not know the facts.

“It’s no different than how some groups use grieving parents to try to advance their gun-control agenda whenever there is a tragic shooting,” he said. “Don’t try to advance your gun-control agenda on the backs of law enforcement officers. If I thought there was some kind of validity to this I would get behind it. But I know what it is. This is pure, naked gun control.

“It doesn’t take a lot to see right through this thinly veiled attempt at gun control.”

Criminal don’t typically go out and buy expensive, high-powered rifles or high-end, obscure handguns, he said.

“It’s just too much coincidence that it’s this one (AR-15) that they chose, the most popular one,” he said. “And then they tried to coat this around law enforcement officers’ safety. I find that despicable. Use someone else to try to do this.”

Gottlieb said the Obama administration has been asked to supply evidence that there is a real threat to law enforcement officers from the AR-15 handgun. So far, there has been no response, he said.

“Zero. Because there is no report that anybody has, anywhere, that a police officer has been shot by this type of handgun. This administration has been asked to supply evidence and they’ve never done so. If they had it, they would be out waving it in our faces in order to push their executive action. The fact that they aren’t shows they don’t have any such evidence.”

Gottlieb said he doesn’t believe the administration cares what gun owners think on this issue. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is taking public comments on the AR-15 ammo ban through March 16. The proposed ban and how to make a comment is described in a 17-page document on the ATF website, particularly the last page.

The ATF has said it will review all the comments and take them into careful consideration. Gun rights advocates are skeptical of that claim.

“This administration, in the past when people have raised questions about their executive actions they just go ahead and do it anyway. And just like this public comment period I don’t think they are even going to read the comments, they’re just going to do what they want,” Gottlieb said. “None of us have any feeling about this other than that it’s a kangaroo court.”

Gottlieb believes Attorney General Eric Holder wants to pad his progressive legacy before he leaves office.

“Holder said his one regret was that he wasn’t able to do anything on gun control. This is Holder’s baby,” Gottlieb said. “This is what he is trying to leave behind as his legacy.”

Gottlieb said if the Obama administration gets its way on the .223-caliber round, that will set a precedent.

“There’s other ammo out there that could be fired in a handgun, the .306 for example. And if they get away with this there no doubt will be other types of ammo targeted,” he said. “This is their trial balloon. They know if the owners can’t get ammunition it’s no longer a functional firearm. They’ve tried to ban these guns and weren’t able to do it so they’re going after the ammunition.”

Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and blogger for the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, said he has also been searching for AR-15 criminal use since Obama proposed his rewriting of the ammunition regulations.

“I cover this every day and I’ve never heard of a police officer being shot with one of these (AR-15) handguns, which by the way is not easily concealable using any of this ammo,” Workman told WND. “That’s a crock. No. I know of absolutely zero incidents of the shooting, wounding, or fatally wounding of a cop with one of these handguns that is chambered for the .223-caliber round, or even someone using the AR-15 rifle for that matter. You might presume it’s happened (with a rifle), I don’t know, but it would be very rare.”

Workman said this particular round is typically used for target shooting,while some hunters in the West use them to hunt coyote and prairie dogs.

“It’s a cheap competition ammo, and a lot of guys use it for that, because they’re not into hand loading and they like to buy ammo on the cheap and this is fairly inexpensive.”

At least it was fairly cheap, before the proposed ban was announced about two weeks ago. Now it is flying off of shelves, and if shooters can find it at all they will pay at least triple the normal cost.

And there’s another issue at work here, Workman said.

“Soft-body armor was invented to stop handgun bullets, period,” he said. “That’s because most of the bad guys out there are packing handguns whether stolen or cheaply purchased and Kevlar vests are designed to stop those handgun bullets. I don’t know of a single vest out there that will stop a center-fired rifle bullet from .223-caliber up.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, referred to the safety of officers threatened by AR-15s as “an invisible epidemic.”

“If you can find one, it will be the only one,” he said. “Look how stupid they think we are. These bullets are so evil they come leaping right out of the factory boxes and into the chests of their victims. It’s really obscene.

“They want a gun ban so badly that they’ll make up any old thing they can. When you want to get something bad enough any excuse is a good excuse. Protecting cops? Who they actually hate? They have this notion that anyone with a gun acting in self-defense is bad. If the guns are so bad and so much of a problem and these terrible bullets, why doesn’t he lead by example. He has the Secret Service. Tell them to leave their guns at home.”

According to the FBI’s uniform crime statistics for 2013, rifles were used in only 285 homicides that year. Another 308 people were killed with shotguns and 5,782 with handguns. But 1,490 were killed with knives or cutting objects and 686 were killed by someone’s hands, feet or fists.

“More people are murdered in the U.S. every year with blunt objects, knives or with hands, fists and feet than with rifles or shotguns,” Workman said. “Nobody in the media touches that. I’ve written about that frequently and it gets no attention.”


God bless,
JohnnyD

Netanyahu: Obama plan 'path to bomb'

Israeli leader blasts 'very bad' deal with Iran

 
From: World Net Daily

by: Garth Kant March 3, 2015

WASHINGTON – The deal President Obama is about to offer “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves its path to the bomb,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to one of many thunderous standing ovations Tuesday morning before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

He delivered a forceful argument lasting 40 minutes against the agreement the Obama administration is striking with Iran regarding its nuclear program, insisting it has two major flaws:

• It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear program; and

• It would lift all restrictions on Iran in about a decade.

 
The prime minster warned, “We don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope Iran will change for the better.”

Saying no deal was better than a bad deal, Netanyahu implored the Obama administration to “insist restrictions not be lifted on Iran until it quits its aggression in the region and in the world.”

And, to yet another roaring standing ovation, the Israeli leader thundered, “If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.”

Netanyahu said any deal must do three things:

• Stop Iran’s aggression against neighbors in the Mideast;

• Stop Iran’s support of terrorism around the world; and

• Stop Iran from “threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”

 
Netanyahu made clear Israel would act alone, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer observed that the key to the speech was Netanyahu had just demonstrated Israel would have the support of Congress it it were to act alone, even if it did not have the support of the president.

Netanyahu said the greatest danger facing the world is “the marriage of militant Islam and nuclear weapons.”

“We can’t let that happen,” he added, to another loud standing ovation.

He received yet another when he declared, “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

Making his case to Congress, the American people and the world, Netanyhu said the U.S. must insist on a better deal and keep up the pressure on a vulnerable Iran, which is especially vulnerable with the recent drop in oil prices.

“If they walk away they will be back, as often happens in a Persian bazaar, because they need the deal much more than you do,” he said.

“We’ve been told no deal is worse than a bad deal. Well friends, this is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We are better off without it.”

He noted “some” had said the only alternative to the deal would be war. That was not true, Netanyahu said, insisting “the alternative to this deal is a much better deal.”

“We don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope Iran will change for the better. We can insist restrictions on Iran until it quits its aggression in the region and in the world.”

Poignantly, the Israeli prime minster said before a global audience, “The days when the Jewish people remain placid in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”

Praising the presence in the audience of concentration camp survivor, author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nazi-hunter Elie Wiesel, the prime minister told him, “Your life and work gives meaning to the words, ‘Never again.’”

Netanyahu observed the only difference between Iran and ISIS is the latter is armed with “butcher knives and Youtube,” whereas the former sought to obtain nuclear weapons.

And, as for Iran backing Iraq in the battle against ISIS, Americans should be aware, because in this case, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

Netanyahu pointed out the key elements of deal are now a matter of public record which one didn’t need spies to obtain because, “You can Google it.”

Ruing that Iran could get the bomb by agreeing to the deal because all sanctions would expire after a decade, Netanyahu noted that time span is “a blink of the eye in the eye of a nation and its children.”

Iran seeks 190,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, which could give it a vast nuclear arsenal in a matter of weeks, Netanyahu said, once it makes a decision to do that.

Flabbergasted, the prime minister noted U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has even acknowledged that could happen once the deal expires.

“Think about that, the world’s leading sponsor of terror could have a full arsenal of nuclear weapons with full international complicity.”

Netanyahu also insisted that provisions denying Iran intercontinental ballistic missile technology capabilities be part of any deal.

Calling Iran a country that “hangs gays, persecutes journalists and kills Christians,” Netanyahu warned lawmakers “this regime will always be an enemy of America.”

“It’s battle with ISIS doesn’t make it a friend of America,” because the two are “only competing for the crown as most militant Islamic state. They just disagree on who will be the ruler of the Islamic empire.”

The prime minister also warned, “Iran is not a Jewish problem any more than the Nazis were. Iran regime poses a great threat not just to Israel, but the entire world.”

In a barb directed at the Obama administration, Netanyahu observed, “At a time when many hope Iran will join the community of nations, it is gobbling up those nations.”

He incredulously noted that even while negotiations were under way, one week ago, Iran had carried out a mock attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Netanyahu addressed the joint session over the strenuous objection of the Obama administration, which claimed it was inappropriate for a foreign leader to give such a speech so close to an election and not to have notified the White House before accepting the invitation from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Aides to the Israeli prime minister said the speech actually could hurt his re-election chances and that his only purpose in making the address was to warn the world of the grave danger of making a weak deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu came to Congress to urge it to provide a check and balance to the administration’s eagerness to make what he believes would be a fatally flawed agreement with the Islamic regime. He pointed to leaks indicating White House negotiators do not intend to stop Iran from processing enhanced uranium, a key ingredient in atomic weapons.

Nearly 60 congressional Democrats boycotted the speech to show solidarity with the White House, which did not send a single representative to hear the Israeli prime minister speak. But demand to see the speech in person was sky-high on Capitol Hill.

Boehner gave Netanyahu a bust of Winston Churchill in recognition of the fact the Israeli prime minister and the former prime minister of Britain are the only foreign leaders who have addressed Congress three times.

Many have likened Netanyahu’s warning about the danger posed by Iran to Churchill’s warnings of the dangers of Nazi Germany that went unheeded until Word War II broke out.

Netanyahu said a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the world’s security and would pose an immediate, enormous and unacceptable threat to Israel’s very survival.

He insisted any deal strip Iran of its ability to process enhanced uranium, but Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, said earlier this week that was “not realistic.”

Netanyahu said it was unrealistic to expect any deal that allows Iran to process uranium to not lead to the country’s development of nuclear weapons.

Iran insists its nuclear program is meant only for peaceful purposes, but numerous nations, such as Canada and Iceland, run nuclear power plants without developing their own enriched uranium.

The only possible reason, Netanyahu insisted, for Iran to process uranium would be to build nuclear weapons. He is adamant that any treaty not allow Iran to have the centrifuges to process uranium.

For reasons known only to themselves, members of the Obama administration are not trying to prevent Iran from having centrifuges but only limiting the number of centrifuges it may have. And only for 10 years.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly, publicly and unabashedly called for the destruction of Israel.

As WND recently reported, a Kuwaiti newspaper cited by the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an claimed Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

In the wake of Obama’s purported threat, Netanyahu was said to be forced to abort the strike on Iran.

Israel National News published an account of the report from Al-Jarida. It said the Netanyahu government decided to attack Iran “some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.”

The report claimed an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the Obama administration disclosed details of the attack plan to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and that Obama “then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.”

The Kuwaiti paper quoted “well-placed” sources saying Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman chose to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities after discussions with top security commanders.

According to the report, Netanyahu and his commanders “agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program.

“In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.”


God bless,
JohnnyD

Black 12-year-old goes nuclear on Obama

 February 24, 2015

Scorches president's 'downright hatred for this nation'

A 12-year-old middle-school student from Georgia is raising eyebrows as he’s scorching Barack Obama in an epic YouTube speech, accusing the president of having a “downright hatred for this nation.”

C.J. Pearson posted the video Saturday, seeking to “applaud Mayor Rudy Giuliani for his comments about President Barack Obama.”

“Here’s the truth of the matter: I don’t want to be politically correct. I don’t care about being politically correct at this point.

“President Obama, You don’t love America. If you really did love America, you would call ISIS what it really is: an assault on Christianity, an assault on America and downright hate for the American values that our country holds – freedom of speech, freedom of religion and every single thing that our country stands for.”

Watch the video:

He adds, “I hope that one day people will get enough guts to speak out against your downright hatred for this nation.”

When it comes to the Islamic terror group ISIS, Pearson said, “When they kill innocent Americans that have done no wrong except report on what is their constitutional right as journalists and you do nothing about it, you don’t care about their lives. You could care less!

“But here’s what you need to realize: Here in America, we don’t back down to terrorists. We fight them on their own battleground, and we annihilate them till the very end.

“Here in America, we don’t allow the government to take away what we work for, but we continue to work harder so that we may continue to succeed.”

The speech has already been viewed more than a half-million times on YouTube.

Pearson heads a group called “Young Georgians in Government.”

His Facebook page notes he is “committed to fighting for conservative principles and engaging young people in the political process.”


God bless,
JohnnyD