Boris Johnson - Just Another Cowardly, Empty Suit

When Boris Johnson first became the UK's Prime Minister, my original opinion was that he would finally see Brexit completed, deal with the migration problem and put the UK back on the right path. Yes, he fooled me too, although given the alternative of a Labour Party with anti-semitic Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson was the best choice available.

It has turned out that the difference isn't all that much, really.

Bojo has done little or nothing to deal with the UK's problem with violent migrants. In fact, none other then Nigel Farage has actually filmed the UK authorities allowing boatloads of Muslim migrants shipped across the Channel by France into Britain with virtually no vetting.

Crime in London continues to skyrocket, and Mayor Sadiq  Kahn of course has done little or nothing to stop it. Nor have London's police, who are obviously under orders not to do so. Just recently, the Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters took a large part of the city apart. 

Enoch Powell

In the latest dust up, the mob was allowed by the police to do quite a bit of  beating down on anyone they wanted to as well as a lot of looting and destruction,  vandalizing statues of Queen Victoria, Lord Nelson, one of King James II, George Washington and Winston Churchill as well as a number of historic buildings like the Cenotaph War memorial, The National Gallery,  The police essentially ran away as themob chanted "Run piggy run.". Those who attempted to stop the carnage were assaulted by the mob which had no fear of them at all.

And why would they? London’s assistant commissioner for police Anil Kanti “Neil” Basu said he would “probably” have joined Black Lives Matter protests himself if he was not a police officer. That even though 60 of his police officers were injured by the rioters, some of them quite seriously.

And Boris Johnson's comment on the vandalizing of a statue  of one of Britain's greatest leaders? "Churchill sometimes expressed opinions that were and are unacceptable today.”

 Like perhaps Churchill's assessment of Islam? Sheer cowardice on Bojo's part, but this fits in with Mayor Kahn's new campaign to 'diversify the landmarks of London.'  And believe,that's not all that's being 'diversified' in London as well as other cities in Britain.

And remember Boris Johnson's talking about a new and better relationship with Israel? Don't bet on it. He's proved himself to be basically a more sophisticated and smoother version of Jeremy Corbyn.

His latest stunt is to  join other hostile EU countries in  threatening Israel with sanctions if Israel applies Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and parts of Judea and Samaria where Israeli cities exist..the opposite of what he said before.

MP Crispin Blunt, a  member of Bojo's own party put this together in collusion with something called the Council for Arab British Understanding. There's no question this was done with Bojo's consent.

Blunt was one of 130 British parliamentarians who signed a letter to Johnson in May urging him to impose sanctions on Israel if it moved ahead with its sovereignty plan.

Bojo's remarks at question time about this? Here they are:

“I believe that what is proposed by Israel would amount to a breach of international law and we strongly object to it, and we believe profoundly in a two-state solution and will continue to make that case.”

Sanctions then?

My, my! First of all, Israel didn't propose this. President Trump did as part of his peace plan.

Second, according to international law, ALL of Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank to the uninitiated) belongs to Israel.  And Britain happily signed on to that.

In 1922, Britain, as the  Mandatory Power appointed by the League of Nations decided to ask for permission to divide the Palestine Mandate into two parts, one for a Jewish state the other for an Arab state because they wanted to reward Abdullah, one of the sons of the Hashemite Sharif of Mecca with a kingdom.*

This new treaty,the San Remo Accords was ratified  between Britain,the League, the Jews and the Arabs, It stated that the Jews would receive everything west of the Jordan River (22%) and the Arabs  would get everything east of the Jordan River(78%). The Brits made sure the new Arab  kingdom, named Trans-Jordan was quickly created. After which they went out of their way to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in numerous ways.

The most disgraceful of these was to prevent Jews from migrating to Palestine while allowing unlimited Arab migration. In 1939, Neville Chamberlain, a known anti-semite issued an order not to let any Jews into Palestine at all... at a time when thousands of Jewish refugees who had fled to France and other countries had nowhere else to go. He also  appointed a rabid Jew hater and Nazi Ally, Amin al-Husseini as leader of the Palestinian Arabs. During WWII, when Israel's Jews fought with the Allies, Husseini was in Europe recruiting Bosnian Muslims for Hitler's armies and translating Mein Kamph into Arabic.

After WWII, when Labour's Clem Atlee took over, he made the decision to allow Husseini back into Palestine. At the same time, the Brits were still not allowing Jews into Palestine, and even had their own concentration camp on Cyprus for any survivors of the Holocaust they caught trying to get in, and in some cases, they even sent Jews back to the very same camps in Europe they had been  imprisoned in.

In 1948, when Israel declared its independence  the UN recognized it, although  Britain didn't. The UN also made the San Remo Accords part of its charter, in Article 80.

So according to international law, the area in question all belongs to Israel.

When the Arabs made it very plain in 1948 that they intended a jihad to get rid of the Jews, the UK, which when it pulled out left a number of strategic areas like the Taggart forts in Arab hands They also armed the Arab nations involved and in the case of Jordan, even sent  officers to command them under Colonel John Glubb, a notorious anti-semite. In other words, three years after Auschwitz was liberated, the Brits were  aiding and abetting what could have become a second Holocaust. 

As for the two state solution, aside from the fact that's already been tried and has utterly failed, there is no reason for it since Jordan exists and most of the Arabs who started calling themselves 'Palestinians' after the'67 war have Jordanian citizenship, including the so-called refugees, They've had it since 1954, courtesy of Jordan's parliament. And that includes Mahmoud Abbas.

If the Brits want to give these people a country so much, perhaps they should hand them a piece  their country. Why not? Parts of it are already filled with Muslims, there are already sharia courts, more mosques than churches, honor killings, sex grooming gangs, acid throwing etc. and the Brits don't seem disposed to change any of  that.So they'd be right at home

As for Boris Johnson, he's essentially just another Theresa May with a penis.

He is obviously not the solution to what's ailing Britain, although it seemed like it at the time.

It's obvious to me that the solution is more like this....and I hope the Brits wake up.

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

Social Media Giants Cave In To Facist EU 'Speech Codes'

Social giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft have cravenly agreed to do their best to enforce EU 'hate speech' diktats on 'extremist content' from their websites, by creating a joint database that will share 'hashes,' their term for digital fingerprints they can automatically assign to so-called extremist content they have removed from their websites. The idea is that this date can be shared to enable the other platforms to ID and eliminate the same content on their platforms.

As we know by now, that 'extremist content' isn't going to include death threats to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump or threats to gang rape his wife, genocidal threats against Israel, jihadist content or racism from groups like #blacklivesmatter. What it will include is any criticism of militant feminism, criticism of Islam, news that isn't flattering to the influx of Muslim 'refugees' and/or mentions any crimes they commit or government policies favoring and enabling them, criticism of the EU or its governments and indeed, a fair amount of anything promoting conservative ideology.

Twitter is doing this already in America, as is FaceBook. Twitter is especially notorious for 'shadow banning,' a secret practice that allows the twitter to think his or her content is being published when in reality it's not visible to anyone else.That way,they can still claim the shadow banned victims as 'users' for selling advertising.

Fittingly, this EU diktat and the threats for non-compliance come predominantly from Germany. Volker Kauder, a senior member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) has said openly that social media companies could face fines and criminal prosecution if they failed to comply. (emphasis mine)

"I expect from big companies like Facebook that they adhere to laws. If they are not respected than we must think about new possibilities, fines for example," he said.

Facebook declined immediate comment on his remarks.

Germany is seen as a forerunner when it comes to forcing Facebook to step up efforts to police online hate speech, which has risen here following an influx of almost one million migrants, mainly from the Middle East, last year.

Politicians are also worried about how hate speech and fake news could sway public opinion ahead of elections next year in which Merkel will be running for a fourth term and facing an increasingly popular far right.

Befehl ist befehl ja? So Achtung! Gehorchen oder sonst! *

In today EU, freedom of speech is highly restricted and you can face criminal prosecution for what amounts to legitimate criticism of government policy, especially when it comes to Islam or government policies that bringing in multitudes of unvettable Muslim 'refugees' with the inevitable accompaniments of increased crime, sexual assaults, unrest and increased social welfare costs. You might ask Geert Wilders about that one.

The 'fake news' accusation is ridiculous and applies far more to folks like Der Spiegel, the BBC, MSNBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, CNN and similar outlets, as we've learned during thois last election and the Brexit controversy.

What the Germans and their EU counterparts want is ot extend that sort of fascism to social media and make it universal. In fact, that's exactly what we would have gotten here in America if Mrs. Clinton had been elected.Trust me on that one.

Given the ideology of the kind of people who run these social media sites, they would have gone along with it totally, the same way they're following orders from the EU. Of course, if they do so, at least in America, alternate platforms will simply spring up, like Gab, a coming substitute for Twitter.

But as far as the current social media giants, forewarned is forearmed. Remember, inside every 'progressive' is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

*(Orders are orders, right? So attention! Obey or else!)

U.S. wire payments to Iran Prove Obama Lied About Money Laundering

 

It's been proven that the United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months, a Treasury Department spokesman admitted Saturday. So President Barack Obama was not telling the truth when he said that such payments were impossible.

This proves that the president knowingly lied, that the payments in cash were open appeasement to Iran as well as ransom for hostages, and constituted outright felony money laundering.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) discovered the two wire transfer payments during briefings with Obama administration officials.


At an August 4, 2016 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government that coincided exactly with the release of hostages Iran was holding, Obama said, “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn't send them a check and we could not wire the money.”

But a Treasury Department spokesman has now revealed that on at least two occasions, the U.S. did make payments to the Iranian government using wire transfers.

In July 2015, the U.S. government paid the Islamic republic $848,000 over a claim over architectural drawings and fossils that are now housed in Iran. Isn't it nice that our president is so scrupulous about paying Iranian claims when he won't allow U.S. citizens to sue Iran in our courts for damages? The second payment was made in April 2016,when the U.S. wired Iran $9 million to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water from the Arak heavy water plant which is used to produce plutonium that can be used to make nuclear weapons:

The Treasury Department spokesman explained that the lifting of those sanctions allowed Iran “to gain incremental access to the international financial system, which opened up more options for executing transactions, such as the heavy water transaction” that occurred in April 2016. The spokesman declined to offer an explanation as to why the July 2015 payment was possible despite the full array of sanctions in place at the time.

Actually, both these payments violated sanctions still in place based on Iran's human rights abuses. The July 2015 payment was made while both human rights and nuclear-related sanctions were still in place, while the April 2016 payment was made while the human rights sanctions were in place.

That $400 million cash payment that Obama said could not have been delivered except in cash was part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement with Iran, the remainder of which was also delivered in cash. The president also claimed that the $400 million wasn't a ransom, but was paid to settle a dispute over military equipment ordered by the shah of Iran before the Ayatollahs took over.

That too is a fairy tale by our president, as anyone who knows anything about how arms deals and other large commercial deals are done between countries.

There's no way it was 'their money' we were holding:

The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs, the money was never released to America by Iran's bank either.

So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

And the reason it was released in cash? Simple...the Ayatollahs wanted a huge, physical amount of cash to photograph and humiliate America for propaganda purposes. Also, cash is fungible and easier to use without a paper trail to trace it. This was money laundering, plain and simple. And that is a felony.

So Obama lied about that too. End of story.

Turkey Invades Syria - To Attack The Kurds, Not ISIS

Turkey's leader Tayyip Erdoğan has devoted some impassioned rhetoric to fighting ISIS, but until now that pretty much summed up Turkey's contribution...which makes sense if you think about it as I pointed out previously.

Actually, Turkey's relationship with the Caliphate has been relatively benign. Among other things, Erdoğan has allowed the purchase of ISIS oil by various Turkish middlemen, helping the terrorist army fund its operations. In some cases, those middle men include members of  Erdoğan's family. And through it all,  our 'NATO ally' Turkey has played a major role in allowing foreign fighters, weapons and oil to flow across the border.

What  Erdoğan has concentrated his military on is not ISIS but the Kurds, a U.S. ally and so far the most effective force on the ground battling ISIS.

On August 24th the Turkish military invaded Northern Syria. They used a contingent of 1,500 Turkish sponsored "Syrian rebels", aka Islamist jihadis from all over the world, accompanied by some Turkish special forces and twenty tanks to capture the city Jarablus at the Turkish-Syrian border. There's no question that this was pre-arranged in advance. ISIS moved all of its fighters and their families out of the city, and not a single shot was fired. After the 'victory' the Turkish flag was raised.

 Erdoğan's announced rationale is to get rid of "any terror activity on our borders."  He's also made it plain that he considers the Kurdish forces 'terrorists' and the equivalent of ISIS, even though the Kurds have been the ones actually fighting ISIS with the most success. He also issued an ultimatum to the Kurds to withdraw all of their forces and civilians below the Euphrates River.

Obviously, if keeping 'terrorists' away from his border was Erdoğan's chief concern, that could be accomplished by better border security on the Turkish side. A look at the map shows his real objective..to carve out a nice slice of Northern Syria and destroy the Kurds:


 

The Kurdish forces (labeled SDF by the U.S.) had previously advanced to the west and liberated the predominantly Kurdish city of Manbij from the Islamic State with the aid of U.S. air cover. And a new SDF Military Council was announced. But the man slated to head that  was assassinated a scant three hours  after the introductory press conference, with a fair amount of evidence pointing towards Turkish involvement in the murder.

Today, the Turkish military attacked Manbij, indiscriminately bombing and shelling civilians.The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 40 civilians were killed in strikes on two areas. That's probably a very low figure. According to al-Arabiyah, SDF spokesman Shervan Darwish said the airstrikes and shelling started overnight and continued Sunday along the front line, killing many civilians in Beir Khoussa and nearby areas. He said the bombing also targeted Amarneh village. He said 50 Turkish tanks were taking part in the offensive.

Keep two things in mind here. First, if Erdoğan's 'Operation Euphrates' is successful, the Kurds are pushed into ISIS held territory without the defensive protective shield of the Euphrates River. And second, remember that these are U.S. backed allies we're talking about that our 'ally' Turkey is attacking in force and attempting to push to an indefensible position.

Wouldn't you expect the Obama Administration to intervene?

Of course they won't. They're simply standing aside and allowing Erdoğan's armies to do whatever they want to the Kurds. In fact, while all this has been going on, Obama's VP Joe Biden was making penitence in Ankara to Erdoğan. As a sign of massive disrespect to America and the Obama regime, Biden was met at the airport by -wait for it- the deputy mayor of Ankara.

This disgusting exhibition isn't just limited to Obama. For 30 years, successive administrations, the Bushes, Clinton and now Obama have betrayed the Kurds, one of our few real allies in the region, usually in favor of Turkey. Obama and his minions seem to be paying no attention to the fact that Turkey is already working on an alliance with Iran and Russia, with Erdoğan establishing a direct line of communication from Ankara to Syria's Bashar Assad and Turkish MiT Secret Service director Hakan Fidan visiting Damascus to discuss 'mutual cooperation.'

President Barack Hussein Obama has proven once again that actually being a U.S. ally is not only worthless but potentially lethal. Unfortunately, the Kurds have found that out again the hard way. But don't believe for a minute this won't have serious repercussions on America in the future.

The Latest Lie...'We Got The Hostages Before We Gave Iran The Money'

 

Just when you think the Obama Administration has reached rock bottom when it comes to rank dishonesty, they dig deeper.

Many Americans were upset and disgusted by the spectacle of America appeasing Iran once again by handing over $400 million as ransom to release four American the Iranians were holding as hostages.

As I pointed out here, President Obama blatantly lied at a press conference he gave when he said that That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever and that the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered.

He also lied egregiously when he said that the Israelis were now in love with the Iran deal, but let's look at the latest horse manure Obama is having his minions push.

As the Wall Street Journal among other reported, the Regime was disturbed that the President's spiel not only didn't poll well, but that congress was taking notice. So they did what they always do - they doubled down and let their allies in the media push the narrative and then cover it up thoroughly. get a whiff of this load:

New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn’t amount to ransom, because the U.S. owed the money to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.

But the handling of the payment and its connection to the Americans’ release have raised questions among lawmakers and administration critics.

The use of an Iranian cargo plane to move pallets filled with $400 million brings clarity to one of the mysteries surrounding the cash delivery to Iran first reported by The Wall Street Journal this month. Administration officials have refused to publicly disclose how and when the transfer took place.

I'll just bet they're refusing to publicly disclose it!

The first lie is that this was a 'failed arms deal,' the same stuff the president tried to feed us. Arms deals between governments are done using Letters of Credit, where the buyer (in this case, Iran) places funds with their bank as a guarantee of payment to complete the transaction with instruction to release it to the seller (In this case,the U.S.) upon delivery. The buyer's bank issues the Letter of Credit and sends it to the seller. The seller delivers the goods and the buyer's bank releases the funds. No delivery, no funds released. And anyway, who pays for a legal claims settlement with a planeload of cash in foreign, untraceable currency?

The president also lied about the need for an Iranian cargo plane to ferry $400 million in cash to Iran because 'we don't have a banking relationship with Iran'. If the U.S. was going to pay ransom, they could very easily have deposited $400 million in a Swiss bank that does have that relationship, had them issue a letter of credit to the Ayatollahs and instructed the bank to release the ransom money to Iran when the hostages were freed. Converting American cash dollars the way the Obama regime did for this sort of purpose has a name. It's called money laundering and it's a major felony.

The reason the president and his minions did it was precisely because it was a ransom, and the Iranians, like all kidnappers set the terms...because they wanted to be able to humiliate the Great Satan another time and publicize and display how America bent over to their demands. Which is exactly what they have done. They're not at all embarrassed about calling it a ransom.


The president also lied when he said his administration doesn't pay ransom for hostages. I was able to think of several instances just off the top of my head where they've done exactly that.

Finally, just today, the Obama regime finally admitted the president flat out lied when he told the American people this wasn't a ransom. Just like the rest of his little performance. And now, the next question is what the remainder of the $1.7 billion Iran received was for. Terrorist kidnappers don't ordinarily take ransom in installments. What else did this president buy besides the release of 4 hostages?

And let's not leave out the latest nonsense, that the money wasn't released until the hostages were freed The hostages themselves have debunked that one, with one of them in particular being quite vocal about how the Iranians told them explicitly that they wouldn't be allowed to board the waiting plane to leave until the ransom was paid. There were other installments, fo ra total of $17 billion. By all accounts, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Rest assured they'll put it to uses that violate U.S. statutes on material aid to terrorism.

The contempt this president's policy of ransoming hostages shows for America is bad enough, and rest assured we'll see more attempts at kidnapping American before Barack Hussein Obama leaves office. It pays.

But what's even more evident is how much this disgusting episode shows blatantly how much contempt this president and his regime have for American people. They're not even bothering to try to sprinkle a little perfume around to disguise the stench of horse manure like this any more.

Hostages, Ransoms, Iran, and Israel - Obama Lies Again

 

It's been revealed that American hostages held unjustly by Iran were released this January, but only after a sum of $400 million in cash sent by the U.S. was received by the Islamic Republic. This transaction was meant to be hidden, but now it's come out, it has immediately raised questions. Was this a ransom? Why was this hidden from the American public?



The totally misnamed Josh Earnest, Obama's spokeshole was quick to say that no ransom was paid, and Hillary Clinton said - it seems to be her trademark -that this was old news and 'no one cares about it anymore.' Well, it worked for Benghazi and her illegal private e-mails and server, so why not?

But it was left for Barack Obama to pull off the biggest, most shameless lies of the bunch. He gave a press conference and asserted the following:

• That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever.

• That the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered. And that America's own lawyers advised paying this settlement because Iran had pursued litigation in court and by settling, 'we saved America billions of dollars.'

• That this was old news, that the Iran deal was working and that even Israel admitted it. Obama also said those who had been most critical of the deal should admit they were wrong:
  
  “What I’m interested in is if there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock,” he said.“That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, ‘You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”
  
  “The Israeli military and security community … acknowledges this has been a game changer,” he said. “The country that was most opposed to the deal.”

Well, let's examine these claims. First of all have we paid ransom before for hostages during Obama's term in office?

Remember these?


In 2011, the Obama Administration paid $1 million dollars to Iran as 'bail money' to get them to release two hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer who accidentally wandered over the Iranian border two years before and were being held in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. An additional $500,000 in 'bail' was paid earlier for the release of Sarah Shourd, Bauer's girl friend when she became seriously ill in Evin. So, a total of $1.5 million in ransom money.

In 2012, the Obama Administration used USAid as a conduit to pay $4.6 million to the Egyptian Government for the release of 43 NGO operatives...including Sam LaHood, the son of the then Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

Then there was deserter Bowie Bergdahl. Remember him? Not only were 5 extremely skilled and dangerous Taliban commanders sent back to Afghanistan, but there a great deal of evidence that the Obama Administration also paid a ransom of something like $5 million to the Taliban for his release.

Even if Bergdahl's ransom consisted of just the five Taliban commanders alone, those of you with loved ones serving in AfPak can thank the Obama Administration and Mrs. Clinton, then Secretary of State for making things far more dangerous and life threatening for them.

These are just a few instances that come readily to mind, and I'm certain there are other instances. So contrary to what the president said, yes, his administration does pay ransoms for hostages. And if I remember, he mentioned that countries that do that see the price go up. That's certainly been the case for the United States!

 

Let's look at the president's next claim, that the cash payment of $400 million wasn't a ransom, it was a claims settlement for an arms deal that the Iranians were already pursuing via litigation. And the money just arrived there at the exact same time as the hostages were being released just by coincidence.

Now anyone who's ever paid a court judgment knows this is sheer fantasy. Settlements of this kind involve legal documents including one called a satisfaction of judgement filed by the litigant at the same time payment is made. And the president's nonsense - that's the most benign word I can use here - about the fact that it needed to be all cash 'because we don't have a banking arrangement with Iran' is a blatant falsehood. There absolutely no reason the U.S. couldn't have deposited the funds in a Swiss bank by check for the Iranians to have wired to wherever they wanted in any currency they desired.

There's a name for what the Obama Administration chose to do instead. It's called money laundering and it's a felony offense. No wonder even some of the officials in Obama's serially lawless Justice Department were concerned about this one.

The Iranians wanted cash for a simple reason - to humiliate the Great Satan and show the money off to prove it actually was a ransom. Which is exactly what they've done.

One of the the hostages has recounted that even though the plane to take them home was ready for takeoff, the Iranians told them that they were waiting for the plane with the money and they weren't going to be released until it arrived.

Another falsehood the president told us is that this was supposedly an arms contract that was never fulfilled. I know a little bit about arms dealing and how it's legitimately conducted. The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs the money was never released to America either.

So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

Finally, let's look at his claim that the Israelis are on board and just love the Iran deal.

Now, there are a few Israeli members of the military and security establishment that agree with the president, but what's notable is that they're all ex-members and almost all associated with the left wing Zionist Union (AKA Labor) party that the president tried and failed to put into power with substantial injections of cash and paid activists when he interfered with Israel's elections. They're the people whose mindset and opinions the Israeli electorate overwhelmingly rejected.

And the people who they elected and who have actual responsibility for Israel's security?

Avigdor Liberman, Israel's defense minister compared the Iran deal to Munich in 1938.

"The Munich Agreement didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed, and because the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of [Adolf] Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders,” the ministry said.

“These things are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel,” it said, pointing to a recent State Department report that determined that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

Yitzhak "Tzachi" Hanegbi, currently Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in charge of National Security and Foreign Affairs has a long history as part of Israel's security and defense establishment and who until recently chaired the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He said, “I don’t know to which Israelis he (Obama) spoke recently. But I can promise you that the position of the prime minister, the defense minister and of most senior officials in the defense establishment has not changed.”

“The opposite is the case. The time that has elapsed since the deal was signed proved all our worries that, regrettably, we were justified before the deal was made.”

And Prime Minister Netanyahu? Netanyahu merely issued a statement that Israel “has no greater ally than the United States” but made plain nonetheless that Israel’s position on the Iran nuclear deal “remains unchanged.”

While he felt the need to be somewhat more diplomatic than Liberman (who later yielded and walked his initial statement back a bit), it's worth noting that Netanyahu used the example of Munich himself previously. And it's a correct one, with both involving a weak leader seeking to appease a vicious, aggressive enemy and buy 'peace' at an ally's expense. Czechoslovakia had a strong, well equipped military, strong, built up defenses on the German border and a world class armaments manufacturer in the Skoda Munitions Works. If Chamberlain had not sold out his ally, Hitler might never have felt secure enough on his Eastern front to start WWII and engage Germany in a two front war for some time. Certainly, it would have given the West a lot more time to arm and prepare if nothing else.

There should be no question in anyone's mind that President Barack Hussein Obama sees Israel as eminently disposable, just like Chamberlain saw the Czechs.

 

At any rate, another outright lie from this president.

And there was not a single question or followup at his press conference challenging any of these gross fabrications.

No one even challenged him by asking for his reaction to Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei essentially dumping the Iran deal and any future negotiations in a very public manner. (Hat tip to Moon of Alabama via The Glittering Eye)

Which is exactly why he keeps doing it. Because what used to be a free, independent press is now largely his enabler, a group of courtiers and political activists that covers for him. For them, that is more important than truth, the nation's well being or even a semblance of ethics. And thus, they reinforce President Obama's gigantic ego in believing that he can lie with impunity and that he really is smarter than everyone else.

Why Obama Backed Herzog - The Secret Plan To Betray Israel

It's already well known that the Obama administration sent its top political operatives  like Jeremy Bird, national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign and  and loads of cash via a front group called “One Voice International" in an effort to illegally influence Israel's elections. Obama's goal was to unseat Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu and Likud in favor of Yitzhak Herzog and the far Left marriage of Labor and Tzipi Livni's Hatnua party, known as the 'Zionist Union.'

While President Obama's hatred for Netanyahu is also well known, the real reason for his touting of Buji* and the Zionist Union went far beyond that. And the full story has just surfaced now.



As confirmed by a report yesterday by Israel's Channel 10, Ephraim Sneh, one of Herzog's advisers has admitted that Buji had a private and secret agreement with Palestinian strong man Mahmoud Abbas that he was prepared to put into place if Zionist Union had won as Obama planned, and he had been elected Prime Minister. This agreement largely mirrored what The Obama Administration was trying to force on Israel, and in fact that's why Buji made the agreement in the first place, to get Obama's support, money and political muscle to try and make sure it happened.

As Buji admitted when confronted on this yesterday, here's what this 'deal' consisted of:

• A full withdrawal by Israel to the pre-1967 lines and the removal of every Jew living in Judea and Samaria. East Jerusalem was to be ceded to the Palestinian Authority as its capitol. There was a provision for land swaps on 4% or so of the territory to allow for Jewish communities like Gush Etzion, but cut off from Israel by Palestinian East Jerusalem in front of them and surrounded by 'Palestinian' territory in the rear, I'll leave it to your imagination how long those communities would last.

• Buji also agreed to the right of return for Palestinian 'refugees' and financial compensation for those whom chose not to return. No mention, of course, of any compensation  for the almost 1 million Jewish refugees resettled in Israel whom were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after everything they owned was plundered.

• Another part of the agreement Buji signed on to was a 'symbolic presence' of Israeli security forces in the strategic Jordan Valley, with most of the security forces being composed of Jordanian and Palestinian forces. Again, I'll leave it to your imagination how long that would last before the unlucky IDF soldiers serving in the Jordan Valley were murdered or taken hostage, with any whom escaped being faced with a retreat through miles of hostile territory.

In other words, rather than a deal, it was a surrender to Mahmoud Abbas's wildest dreams.




When asked about it by Channel 10, here was Buji's reply:

“During the talks with the Palestinian Authority president in 2014, I made efforts aimed at reaching understandings that would have prevented the wave of terror that I anticipated, just like the efforts I am now making so that the abandonment of the initiative for a regional conference by the extreme right-wing government won’t lead us to another war.”

Can you imagine how much worse the casualties in that 'wave of terror' would have been if this servile snake had gotten his way? With the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians controlling the high ground in Samaria and the Shomron as well as East Jerusalem?



And that initiative for a 'regional conference' which will not include Israel? What Herzog is pimping for amounts to a diktat in favor of Abbas and 'Palestine' sponsored by France, the Arab League and the EU, rather than the mandatory bilateral negotiations both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to as part of Oslo and the Road Map. That alone should give you an idea of what treaties with the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians are worth...even if the casualty list since that devil's bargain with Arafat was made doesn't convince you.

This is exactly why Israel's toxic Left continues to lose support.

Fortunately, in spite of all the efforts and all the money spent to push it through, Buji and Obama's evil plan failed miserably, more proof indeed, if it was needed, that G-d does indeed protect Israel.

What this amounts to, aside from a lack of basic common sense is a collaboration with Israel's enemies. In America, part of U.S. law still on the books is the Logan Act, which prohibits private American citizens from making agreements with foreign powers. I'm unaware if Israeli law contains similar provisions, but if it doesn't it should.

President Obama has made a fetish out of trying to interfere with Democratic elections in Canada, Britain and Nigeria, where he got a former Muslim dictator Muhammadu Buhari back in power by withholding vital arms supplies, including helicopters, needed by Christian President Goodluck Jonathan to fight Boko Haram. Hundreds of Nigerian Christians died because their military was simply outgunned and incapable of fighting back, and Buhari ended up winning the election.

But nowhere else did President Obama attempt to actually facilitate the destruction of a country

As for Herzog, this alone should be an excellent reason to end his career in Israeli politics forever. His father, Chaim Herzog must be rolling in his grave with shame.

* In Hebrew, 'Buji' is slang for a little doll or toy. In an interview with MK Herzog's mother, she unfortunately revealed that this was her pet name for him as a child and in view of his extremely diminutive stature, Yitzhak Herzog has been stuck with it ever since. It is not considered a term of endearment by most Israelis whom use it to refer to MK Herzog. Nor does Yitzhak Herzog care for it in the least.

Barack Obama's Real Legacy - America, Humiliated

When is a world power in serious decline? One indication is when neither its leaders, its military or its citizens begin losing the ability to command respect from foreign powers.

Our recent engagement (if you could call it that) with Iran is one shameful indication of such a decline.

The official story out of Washington is that two of our Riverine gunships manned by U.S. Marines somehow accidentally wandered off course into Iranian territory, where one of them broke down. The Iranian IRG naval forces showed up,impounded the two boats and detained our sailors briefly, repaired the damage and after an apology and confession of wrongdoing from the American commanding officer sent them on their way. Much was made of how kindly the Americans were treated by their captors, and how this was a triumph of diplomacy, exactly why the Iran deal needed to be implemented.

Most of the above paragraph is sheer horse manure. Instead, the capture of the two gunboats was deliberately planned and carried out in international waters and designed to send a sharp message the White House, which shamefully collaborated in this farce.

The gunboats were reported taken near Farsi Islands, which is the official naval base for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. According to the White House, these two boats were en route to Kuwait from our base in Bahrain. Since these boats are shallow draft vessels, they could have sailed fairly close to the Arabian side of the Gulf, hugging the shoreline. These are fast boats, and the trip should have taken just over an hour.There was no reason to go anywhere near Iran.



Somehow, these two gunboats wound up 70 miles off course, near an IRG naval base. And captured by what amounts to a couple of small motor boats with a fraction of their armaments and manpower:



Given the advanced radar, GPS systems and skill of the crew, does it seem logical that these two gunboats would err this much? The answer, of course is that they didn't.

Former SEAL Matt Bracken caused a firestorm online with comments on Twitter and Facebook, and what he had to say was corroborated from one of my regular readers who shared his knowledge of these kinds of missions.

For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.

This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters.

What likely happened is that IRG forces intercepted the two gunboats on the normal route between Bahrain and Kuwait, jammed their communications and ordered them back to Farsi Island. The gunboats likely cooperated because they were ordered not to create an incident. And their ROE prohibit them from firing unless they were fired upon by their superiors. It's quite likely the IRG was aware of these rules of engagement.

The IRG stripped the ships of their GPS units and all communications devices and even took the sim cards from the crew's cellphones, so no real record of where the gunboats were actually seized would exist. Then they forced them to pose on their knees, to take pictures that went all over the world. And of course, there was that confession by the captain of violating Iranian waters:



The Iranians made a huge propaganda coup out of this:

A senior Iranian military commander in charge of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that the 10 U.S. sailors who were recently captured and subsequently released by the Islamic Republic “started crying after [their] arrest,” according to Persian language comments made during military celebrations this weekend.

Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the IRGC, which is responsible for boarding the U.S. ships and arresting the sailors, claimed in recent remarks, the “American sailors started crying after arrest, but the kindness of our Guard made them feel calm.”

Hossein went on to brag that the incident provides definitive evidence of the Iranian military’s supremacy in the region.

“Since the end of the Second World War, no country has been able to arrest American military personnel,” the commander said, according to an independent translation of his Persian-language remarks made Friday during a “martyrs’ commemoration ceremony” in Isfahan.

“I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself. Despite having all of the weapons and equipment, they surrendered themselves with the first action of the guardians of Islam,” Ahmad Dolabi, an IRGC commander, said in Persian-language remarks at a prayer service in Iran’s Bushehr providence.

“American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world,” he added. “But they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief.”

That aside, why would Iran carry out such a mission just now? President Barack Obama and Secretary Kerry are a walking dream for the Ayatollahs and are literally giving them whatever they want. Why rock the boat and cause trouble for this president, with sanctions relief and billions of dollars on the way?

The Iranians themselves provide the answer. Congress has understandably begun to be revolted by the servile nature of this Iran deal put into play without their oversight, especially with elections upcoming. Bills are pending in congress supporting increased oversight and new sanctions over Iran's violating the deal - or at least what John Kerry tells us the deal is - by testing its ballistic missiles. Obama has alluded before that he would veto such legislation, but after the sailors were captured he made a major point of it, and even worked some positive language about how good this Iran deal was for America into his State of the Union Address. This was simply a quid pro quo, and the Iranians were quite open about it.Official Iranian media announced that the capture and humiliation of US sailors and gunboats was a lesson to “troublemakers” in the U.S. Congress.

The last thing the Iranians wanted to present President Obama with was a full blown hostage crisis. This was merely their way of making sure that the sanctions relief went as scheduled, that the appeasement of Iran continues and to remind our president who is calling the shots.

And Obama is far from alone. The IAEA has certified that Iran has met all requirements to have the sanctions officially removed, something that was trumpeted by the usual suspects. Of course, what they're not telling us is that the IAEA isn't inspecting anything in Iran at all.

Over the weekend, the Iranians received $150 billion in sanctions relief, and five US hostages (there's no real way to describe them otherwise) were released by Iran...by only in exchange for a greater number of Iranian spies and people in jail for violating the sanctions.

The message this sends to Iran's rogue, fascist regime is easy to imagine. They know now that almost any actions they take will be ignored by President Obama, because he's desperate for the Iran deal to be his legacy in what otherwise is an execrable record of failure, lies and deceit, especially in foreign policy.

Rewarding Iran's aggression merely because they are making a show of temporarily cooperating in curtailing their illegal nuclear weapons programs hasn't remotely brought the diplomatic reset between America and Iran that President Obama and John Kerry said it would. It is only encouraging more of the same behavior from Iran, and as long as this president is in office we will see it in increasing doses.

The bill for this sort of appeasement is always paid eventually.Unfortunately, that delay always results in payment with interest. When that costly payment is eventually made, it will be a major part of Barack Hussein Obama's despicable legacy as America's president.

Breaking: Senate Dems Block Vote On Iran Deal

Senate Democrats successful filibustered a vote on the Iran atrocity today. Harry Reid managed to get 42 Democrats to block the vote.The official tally was 58-42.

“Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­ors just voted to fili­buster and block the Amer­ic­an people from even hav­ing a real vote on one of the most con­sequen­tial for­eign policy is­sues of our age,” ad­ded Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell after the vote as quoted by the National Journal.

McConnell, of course could have used the nuclear option ala' Harry Reid when he was majority leader to head this off, and in fact he still could. But I doubt he has the testosterone to do it, even when faced with an issue of grave national security.

“I think when [the Ir­a­ni­ans] con­tin­ue their ter­ror­ist activ­ity—their proxy war against the United States and our al­lies—you will be able to point to that and say, well, this is something that would not have happened but for the $100 bil­lion of ad­di­tion­al fund­ing that went in to fund this activ­ity,” said Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn. “Or the lift­ing of sanc­tions which al­low the sale of 1 mil­lion bar­rels of oil a day.”

This is a day of craven, cowardly appeasement. Only 21% of the American people supported this monstrosity. While the Senators involved may pay a major price politically for their dishonorable action, it is the American people whom will ultimately pay the price in blood and treasure.

The Democrats own Iran now

The New Iran Deal - the Stench Of Appeasement

Over the weekend, I received intel from some of my sources outlining the framework of the proposed deal by John Kerry and the P5+1 with Iran regarding its illegal nuclear weapons program, where I reported on here. It was so bad that I don't mind telling you that it took me a couple of days to get to a place where I could write about what was involved, and I hoped that for once my sources were exaggerating a bit or that the West might finally come to its senses and walk away.

Today, the deal, known as the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action' was announced, ad as usual, my notorious Little Birdies did not exaggerate at all, and the 'Plan of Action' is pretty much what they said it was with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms.

Iran will be able to veto any IAEA inspections, and will be able to pick and choose where those inspections take place. It will likewise be able to delay any inspections through the mechanism of an 'arbitration system' giving Iran plenty of time to clean up and move anything they want to conceal while still technically being in compliance.

As I reported, the sanctions officially won't be lifted until 2016. In the real world, the sanctions have disappeared already and countries are already cutting deals with the regime. That includes the UN arms sanctions on Iran as a supporter and enabler of terrorism, which are supposed to remain in place for five years but will supposedly be lifted after certification of Iran's compliance. In the real world, Russia and China among other countries will cheerfully violate the sanctions, which they never approved of in the first place. Money talks, and Russia especially is not going to take weapons sanctions seriously anymore.

The Iranians have apparently agreed to reduce their centrifuges to 6,000 and to destroy most of their stockpile of enriched uranium. Since we only know approximately how much of each they have and inspections are at Iran's discretion, this is a fairly meaningless concession on their part. Expect that many of the centrifuges Iran disposes of will be the old, first generation IR-1s, which the Iranians want to replace anyway, and as part of the agreement, the Western powers have also agreed to work with Iran to help it install and operate more advanced centrifuges. As far as the nuclear stockpile goes, again, we have no clue how much they really have, and there are technical ways to 'destroy' enriched uranium that allow it to be reprocessed at a later date.

There was also no mention in this 'plan' of Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peaceful application and produces plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons. Presumably, Arak will continue to operate.

I'm not surprised at all Iran signed on to this. It provides this fascist regime with billions of dollars to keep it in power, develop nuclear weapons and expand its power in the region. And it demands nothing significant from them.

President Obama announced what a wonderful deal this was, saying that because of this deal, "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East."

For a sitting president of the United States to say this is the very height of either ignorance, arrogance or sheer deception..perhaps all three. Because of this president's 'diplomacy,' the Saudis have already announced that they will now obtain nuclear weapons and Egypt is working on a deal with Russia for a new reactor to enhance its own already existing nuclear program. And let's not even mention the almost certain Iranian bomb to come.

A second blatant lie in this morning's output by President Obama is that "the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. "

As I pointed out above, the exact opposite is the case. Before this was announced, I gave you what has turned out to be a pretty accurate preview yesterday of the sort of horse manure this president would use to sell this to the American people:




And here's another thought to consider. This dubious achievement is Obama's legacy. Even if Iran cheats, does anyone really think this president is going to be the one to admit he was wrong and take action? Anyone who has been paying attention to Barack Hussein Obama's conduct in office knows better. He will ignore it, claim plausible denial and leave it to be someone else's problem. Just like Bill Clinton did on North Korea and other fiascoes.

The president made a point of castigating the Republican controlled congress as 'playing politics' and letting them know that he will veto any attempts by congress to reject this ridiculous travesty.

Surprisingly, to me the best comment on this came from none other than Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who derided the agreement as a "dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal," saying that it still allows a path for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.

"A comprehensive agreement should require Iran to verifiably abandon – not simply delay – its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," Bush said in a statement. He added: "This isn't diplomacy – it is appeasement."

Winston Churchill had this to say after Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich in 1938 with his own version of peace in our time: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

It's very possible that having made the same choice, we will have the same result, and at a time of Iran's choosing, not ours. They remain committed to the destruction of the country they call the Great Satan, and that has not changed.

Obama To U.S. Hostage's Families: 'You're on Your Own"

 

President Barack Hussein Obama just announced new policies on U.S. hostages.

If you read between the lines of the always servile AP's drivel, the new policy allows families to attempt to scrape up the ransom for their loved ones, facilitated by the creation of what the president referred to as a "Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell" to 'coordinate recovery efforts among various government agencies.' Oh, and threats of criminal prosecution against families willing to mortgage their home and empty their bank accounts to try and get their loved ones back will cease.

Shamelessly, the president said that his administration would continue to abide by the "no concessions" policy when it came to hostages, but that families "who have suffered enough" would no longer be bound by that.

Instead, our government will now have a framework to operate as a go-between and courier between kidnappers and ransom payers.

What this president just did was to legitimize the wholesale kidnapping of Americans...not just by people like ISIS or the government of Iran but by entities like the Mexican drug cartels, who can now concentrate on going after targets of lesser dollar value but in greater volume.

Who says President Obama doesn't create jobs?

 


This president, contrary to his supposedly high moral stance here paid millions of taxpayer dollars and released five top Taliban commanders from Guantanamo in exchange for a deserter like Bowe Bergdahl, because he wanted to for obvious reasons. Today, he announced that not only American hostages but their families are now on their own, except that fancy 'Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell' to help communicate with the kidnappers and handle the transactions of victims for cash.

I wonder how long the American people are going to continue to put up with being treated with such contempt.

The Burning Man And The Walking Dead

By now, the burning alive of captured Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh by Islamic State has become common knowledge.

His captors imprisoned him in a cage, doused it with gasoline, and made a trail of gas leading to it, so that he could see the flames approaching. They then lit it on fire, filmed his agony as it spread to the cage and engulfed it and then put out a slick,professionally produced video of the whole thing, released by Islamic State's Al-Furqan media center. The video was titled 'Healing the Believers' Chests,' which has a meaning worth exploring it detail.

The video itself started with footage of Jordan's King Abdullah essentially declaring war on Islamic State and announcing his support for the anti-IS coalition. It then interspersed shots of al-Kasasbeh sitting in a darkened room and giving details on the air strikes he participated in against Islamic state with TV-style news reports showing the results of the airstrikes. And of course, an emphasis on scenes dead and dying child victims. It then cuts to the immolation of al-Kasasbeh.

The reaction from the West was illuminating. Both UK PM David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond referred to this as 'murder'. President Barack Hussein Obama's statement didn't even go that far:



“You know, I just got word of the video that had been released. I don’t know the details on the confirmation. Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt. We’re here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction. Thank you very much, everybody.”

Both PM Cameron and President Obama's remarks reveal a great deal about their mindset. To Cameron and Hammond, this is a 'murder' carried out by criminals. President Obama didn't even go that far, just seeing IS as some malcontents who need 'increased vigilance' and 'determination' to be thwarted. That's how they see it..not as war, or as terrorism or, mercy no, anything to do with Islam, but just a band of criminals.

Want to know how Islamic State sees it?

As a wartime execution, as tactics, as fully justified by Islam and not as murder at all. And as barbaric as they are, they have a point. Murder, after all, has a personal element, for sex, for money or to shut someone up. This wasn't murder.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration,  and that their enemies were Hezbollah, the Syrian forces of Basher Assad and the corrupt Shi'ite Iraqi government and its troops. They did not attack U.S. forces or those of any European country. The way they see it, we declared war on them, and without formally announcing it as the Qu'ran mandates. And it was the U.S. that intervened with air strikes, that has put together a loose coalition of Sunni autocrats to attack them and has been allowing Shi'ite Iran to intervene directly and wage war on them.

Of course, after the brutality Islamic State has made its trademark, especially  on any non-Muslims like Christians and Yazidis, a case could be made for going to war against them. But it wasn't and we haven't. All we've done is supply some arms and advisers to the Kurds and the Iraqi Shi'ite army and perform some air strikes and drone attacks.

Because to actually go to war against Islamic State might also involve certain problems, since literally everything Islamic State is doing is fully justified by the Qu'ran. That's why the Obama Administration and UK PM David Cameron are ever so careful not even to whisper the word 'Islam'  where IS is concerned.

Now, Jordan, being an Arab Muslim State did declare war on IS, and publicly. That's exactly why Islamic State showed that footage of the King doing so in their video, why they were careful to include the Jordanian pilot's confession of participating in the bombing attacks and why they were careful to show a number of brutalized children that IS  claimed were victims of those attacks.

You see, they learned this tactic from Hamas and Hezbollah. And while they probably may have figured out by now that it only works in creating an uproar in places like Europe and in the UN if it's Israel defending itself, it will likely have that desired effect on many Muslims.

In fact some Arab members of the coalition were already easing themselves out, although the White House is claiming that they're all still committed to defeating Islamic State and were just taking a breather.We'll see, but it's a fact right now that only Jordan is now more committed than it was after Moaz al-Kasasbeh's death. That's why the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a big part of the coalition,  just sent a squadron of F-16s to Jordan that the  Obama Administration just gifted the UAE as a 'reward' for joining up .

King Hussein's renewed commitment can be understood because Jordan is a U.S. client state heavily dependent on foreign aid, and because al-Kasasbe's death has been a unifying issue in an increasingly disunified kingdom. How long that lasts is anyone's guess.

The Sunni autocrats are wary for a couple of reasons. First, as they see the Obama Administration becoming increasingly closer to Iran, they also understand now that the Sunni forces of Islamic State represent one of the few checks to Iran in the region.

Obama allowing Iranian backed Shi'te rebels to overthrow a Sunni ally of America in Yemen and essentially okaying an Iranian colony and a brand new strategic threat to the Saudis and the UAE to emerge was a major wake up call. The Saudis are now bracketed by Iranian client states from the north in Iraq and from the south by Yemen, and they fear being surrounded and overwhelmed.



The second reason is that the Saudis and the other Sunni autocracies are gradually becoming leery of fighting Islamic state has to do with their need to placate conservative religious constituencies in their own kingdoms. However barbaric Islamic State seems to us, their ideology isn't 'whatever it is'  to quote President Obama but a mainstream fundamental reading of the Qu'ran and Sharia.

Which of course, is the core of the matter.

The fighters for Islamic State have a cause, one they're deeply devoted to, the creation of a Islamic Caliphate.Their devotion to that cause is absolute, so absolute that they unhesitatingly attacked and destroyed a professional Iraqi army that vastly outnumbered them and had far better equipment, including tanks. They not only have attracted the loyalty of numerous young men and women from Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere in both the West and the Muslim world, but pledges of loyalty and allegiance from numerous Muslim groups like al-Nusra and Boko Haram.

They are united, their fighters are disciplined and effective, and have a clear objective, that of victory, because they know they're in a war and so do their leaders. They have both media savvy and a good knowledge of what inspires their fellow Muslims..or makes them quake with fear. For instance, the burning of the body of a Muslim is strictly forbidden, because according to sharia it prevents them from ascending to the Muslim Paradise. Burning al-Kasasbe to death was Islamic State's way of declaring al-Kasasbe a Kuf'r, a non-Muslim for his role in killing his fellow Muslims. Rest assured that message got across to the men Islamic State's warriors will be fighting against.They now have the symbol of the Burning Man embedded in their consciousness,almost like a flag Islamic State's warriors can carry before them into battle.

On the other hand, facing them, we have nothing but division among our forces. With  the exception of the Kurds, what we have is an increasingly wary Sunni coalition that doesn't trust Iran or  our commander -in chief, and with good reason. And the Kurds are getting just enough military supplies and equipment from the U.S. to hold their own with Islamic State, as a bow to the wishes of Turkey, Iran and Iraq, none of whom want the Kurds to be strong enough to assert their independence.

We also have the demoralized Iraqi army, the Iran backed Shi'ite militias including Hezbollah, and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, all of whom are playing their game, not ours, which is to create a nuclear armed Shi'ite bloc of their own for the Ayatollah. And stuck in the middle, we have our handful of U.S. advisers and our sea and air forces who at present are handcuffed with rigid rules of engagement and tactics that essentially ensure that victory - whatever that is - isn't a serious option.

Our leaders go to some pains to announce that we're not in a war , and refuse to even name whom we're fighting against. There's no clear goal or objective,beyond our disconnected president's vague throw away notions of 'defeating and degrading them' something he appears not to be overly concerned about anyway.There's no real strategy at all, our troops are demoralized over a lack of mission and even our generals are openly complaining about how non-entities without military knowledge or experience like NSA Susan Rice are micromanaging things.


What this president does seem to be concerned with primarily is empowering Iran in the region, a strategic nightmare and a deadly course for America.

Let no one assume that we will somehow escape the specter of the Burning Man,either the one Islamic State carries or one launched by Iran at the Great Satan at a time of their choosing.

Under Barack Hussein Obama's failed leadership, we have become vulnerable to a degree unimaginable before he took office. And if that does not change, we are on the road to becoming the Walking Dead.

Disgraceful - UK Takes Sides With Hamas Against Israel In Gaza War

 

A number of British Jews continue to wonder at the rise in Jew hatred in the UK. I can't imagine why. After all, there's a great deal of truth in that old saying that a fish rots from the head.

Israel buys a few components to defend itself from the likes of Hamas from the UK..a few parts used in the Hermes drones, a few parts used in radar systems and pilot ejector seats on Israel's planes. . There are about 12 arms export licenses involved, something like $70 million (£42 million) in exports involved since 2010, so it's small..

 

Today, British Business Secretary Vince Cable announced that Great Britain will void all 12 export licenses if hostilities with Hamas resume, whether Hamas is the aggressor or not.Essentially, the UK has picked sides in the war and is protecting Hamas, which the European Union (EU)of which the UK is a member includes on its list of terrorist groups.

  And it's not just the Conservatives. UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party's coalition partners made a statement  last Tuesday supporting the suspension of all arms exports to Israel.

David Cameron traveled to Israel last March in the midst of Hamas bombarding Israel to try to strengthen commercial ties with Israel in an attempt to revitalize Britain's economy, particularly in the high tech sector and was accompanied by a number of business men. While he was there he said this:

“Let me absolutely clear about these attacks from Gaza, we condemn them completely,” Cameron said. “They are a reminder once again of the importance of maintaining and securing Israel’s future and the security threats you face, and you have Britain’s support in facing those security threats.”

He also said that “these attacks are completely indiscriminate, aimed at civilian populations and that is a demonstration of how barbaric they are.

We now see what that 'support' is worth - like Cameron's word, absolutely nothing. And British Jews with eyes to see also now know exactly why the Jew hatred and Israel bashing in Britain is so endemic.

The UK supports the genocidal Hamas. It's that simple.And this pathetic attempt at blackmail of Israel  proves it

The components Britain is attempting to blackmail Israel with are easily obtainable elsewhere. But Britain's honor? Gone beyond redemption.

Drool, Britannia.

 

Obama And The EU Give Huge Prize To Hamas

 

The FAA has banned U.S. carriers from flying to Israel until further notice due to a Hamas rocket hitting a house a mile away from Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport.

The FAA advisory reads:

The notice was issued in response to a rocket strike which landed approximately one mile from Ben Gurion International Airport on the morning ... [and] applies only to U.S. operators, and has no authority over foreign airlines operating to or from the airport

The EU was quick to follow along with The European Aviation Safety Agency telling France's AFP it would issue a "strong recommendation to avoid until further notice Tel Aviv Ben Gurion International Airport."

This not only affects Israel economically (this is the height of the tourist season in Israel), but increases Israel's sense of isolation during wartime, and that is deliberate.

Both the Obama Administration and the EU want to stop Israel's offensive in Gaza and preserve Hamas' Islamist reichlet. This is their way of increasing pressure on Israel to leave Hamas in place.

Just imagine what would happen if President Obama made a clear statement  slamming Hamas for the war crime of targeting a civilian airport and threatened to cut off all funding for Hamas/Fatah  unless the rocket fire at Israel's civilians stopped immediately? But not this  president.

 

As Israeli Transport Minister Yisrael Katz said, this was a ridiculous overreaction. "There is no reason for these companies to stop flights. They have given a prize to terror."

After all, Malaysia Airline Flight 17, was traveling through an area with no international restrictions
when it was shot down over the Ukraine, where an armed conflict was known to exist.

I advise anyone traveling to Israel to take El Al.

On the plus side,this provides an incentive for Israel to step up its offensive and take out Hamas once and for all. And it also shows why 'Palestine' in Judea and Samaria shouldn't be based on the pre '67 lines, if it exists at all.

As an aside, President Obama has already pledged $47 million of your tax dollars to Hamas/Fatah for 'rebuilding' in Gaza, plus an additional $15 million to UNRWA ...and not a dime to Israel for its own rebuilding. Since he has to be  aware that the money he gave Hamas for 'rebuilding Gaza' and 'humanitarian aid' went to building Hamas' terrorist infrastructure and the tunnels the Israelis are now fighting to destroy, there's no mistaking where his sympathies lie. 

Iran Gets $2.8 Billion Bribe To 'Extend' Nuke Talks Deadline 4 months

Well. the July 20th deadline of talks between Iran and the P5+1 over Iran's illegal nuclear program came and went. This was supposed to be 'Iran's last chance' according to  Secretary Kerry and other assorted  foreign policy leaders. So what happened?  New, increased sanctions? An embargo on Iranian oil? Ominous remarks about 'consequences', perhaps?

Um, no.

The P5+1, AKA The U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China plus Germany came up with something even worse. As Reuters and other sources are reporting, not only did they they give the Ayatollahs another 4 months to 'negotiate' while the centrifuges spin, but they actually bribed them with a further release of $2.5 billion in frozen funds just to keep the faux negotiations going. So not only does Iran get another 4 months for weapons development, they get the badly needed funds to continue!

You literally can't make this stuff up.

And to add to the mix, a recent Pentagon report  shows Iran using the time and money it'd gotten from the West via November's agreement that wasn't really an agreement  to increase its military capabilities, especially in the area of ballistic missiles.




There are really only two possibilities here. Either Secretary Kerry and the rest of the Obama team are so abysmally stupid and incompetent that they can't see how they're being played and where this is leading. Or they know, and simply don't care,  but want to make it look like they at least tried to do something to prevent a nuclear Iran.

 

Nothing else makes sense. When the four months are up, Iran will have bought themselves an entire year's worth of time to continue their development of nuclear weapons and their delivery. Not only that, but the West has actually given them the funds to do it.

This makes Neville Chamberlain and Munich look like amateur hour.At least Chamberlain had a piece of paper from Hitler, while Kerry and President Obama don't even have that much.

This will not end well. And that is a massive understatement.

A Ceasefire In Gaza? A Huge Mistake

News has surfaced of a proposal by the Egyptians to broker a ceasefire to end hostilities between Israel and Hamas. There are times when a ceasefire is advantageous. From Israel's standpoint, a ceasefire now is a strategic mistake of major proportions.

Essentially, the Egyptian proposal returns the status quo to the same place it was after Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, AKA 'Quiet for Quiet'. It also includes a provision for Egypt is to convene with representatives of both Israel and Hamas separately or further negotiations 48 hours after the cease fire goes into effect. Even more ominously, there is a provision for a reopening of the border crossings on the Egyptian side, under Egyptian and Palestinian Authority control.



Does anyone trust forces belong to the Palestinian Authority to carry something like this out after their forces joined Hamas in firing rockets at Israel? After the attacks and riots carried out at the Palestinian Authority's orders in Israel?

That isn't the worst reason for Israel to engage in a ceasefire now.

Much has been made in certain quarters about Hamas' 'humiliation' at having none of its demands met. Don't believe it. Hamas and its groupies will spin this in a Tel Aviv minute. It will be Hamas who stood up to the Jews and whose rocket attacks caused Israel to beg for a ceasefire, Israel who was humiliated into leaving Hamas intact and in control of Gaza.

And that still isn't the worst reason  for Israel to engage in a ceasefire with Hamas at this time.

Hamas has never kept a ceasefire. They regard these intervals as a time to regroup, refurbish their arsenals and get ready for the next attempt at killing as many Israelis as they possibly can.And each time, their military capabilities increase. In their latest assault, for the first Hamas was able to reach central Israel. Israelis in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv finally have at least a clue as to what Israelis living in Sderot and the South have had to put up with since the Disengagement. Hamas not only revealed weaponized drones it received from Iran, but for the first time Hamas targeted Dimona, where Israel's nuclear facility is reportedly located. Had they been successful, the casualties would have been catastrophic..a real attempt at genocide as opposed to what Mahmoud Abbas is braying about, something inadvertently amusing from such a long time Holocaust denier.

This time, they failed. Is Israel willing to gamble on letting them have another try, after they've had time to increase their arsenal? Are the members of Israel's government now salivating to approve a ceasefire prepared to take the blame if there is a major strike by Hamas on Israel with multiple casualties in the near future, with Hamas perhaps shielded from retaliation by a nuclear armed Iran?

The only ceasefire Israel should approve should have two conditions; the complete demilitarization of Hamas supervised by the IDF and a demand that the 'international community', so unconcerned about the attacks directed at Israel for months and so exercised about Israel defending itself withdraw recognition and support of the Hamas-Fatah government.

Since that's unlikely to happen, Israel has ample grounds to reject what amounts to a respite for the genocidal Hamas in their quest to murder Jews. They need to be defeated utterly. It will not be easy or without cost, but Hamas cannot be left with a secure base in Gaza to continue attacking Israel.



Anything less will simply set the stage for the next round, when Hamas may be stronger and conditions on the ground may not be anywhere near as favorable, with an Egyptian government hostile to Hamas and the West and the UN preoccupied with Iran and Iraq and Hezbollah enmeshed in Syria.

Real peace comes from victory. And there is no such thing as peace or accommodation with Amalek, or its latest incarnation.

Cross posted at the Times of Israel.