Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that President Obama’s ‘red line’ about Iranian nuclear weapons is written in vanishing ink.
Ahmadinejad suggested that Obama will give him more flexibility on the nuclear program after the American presidential election.
“Do you believe that he [Obama] will repeat such a policy?” Ahmadinejad said during a Washington Post interview this weekend. That was his reply when asked if Obama will reiterate his oft-stated position that “the U.S. is prepared to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon—that’s Obama’s ‘red line,’” as David Ignatius put it. “I think we should just leave that,” Ahmadinejad said. “If he does repeat it, then our answer will be amply clear. But do you really believe the people of the United States support conflict? Will the people of the U.S. accept meddling and intervention in the affairs of others? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so.” Keep reading…
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
by AWR Hawkins 24 Sep 2012 post a comment When Iranian President Ahmadinejad ascended the podium to speak on the rule of law at the UN today, Israeli UN envoy Ron Prosor rose from his seat and walked out while the U.S. envoys remained, according to Fox News. Update: Raw video from the UN confirms that U.S. representatives attended the entire speech.
Ahmadinejad alluded to what he sees as Israel's illegitimate nuclear arsenal, and criticized members who haven't stopped Israel from acquiring it: "Some members of the Security Council with veto rights have chosen silence with regard to the nuclear warheads of a fake regime, while at the same time [impeding]...the scientific progress of other nations."
He also bore down on those who have revolted at Holocaust revisionism. He did this by calling attention to those who "infringe upon other's freedom and allow sacrilege to people's beliefs and sanctities, while they criticize posing questions or investigating into historical issues."
Throughout all of this, the U.S. envoy remained seated.
Outside the hall where Ahmadinejad was speaking, the Israeli envoy referred to Ahmadinejad as, "the leader of an outlaw country that is a serial violator of the fundamental principles of the rule of law." He added, "It is a shame and a disgrace to give someone like him the opportunity to speak on such an important topic."
ON BREITBART TV
US Officials Stay Seated For Ahmadinejad's Speech, Israel Walks Out
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
September 26, 2012 By Doug Book
A ruling handed down on September 13th by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.
In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”
Like too many organizations that claim to represent the best interests of the nation of Iran and Iranian-Americans, the NIAC is tightly connected with and known to be funded at least in part by the George Soros empire. Small wonder NIAC advice on dealing with Iran was replete with claims that Israeli propaganda was responsible for the negative image imposed on otherwise peace-loving, misunderstood Iranian mullahs. Not exactly a friend of Israel is George Soros.
And how did the reputedly “non-partisan” NIAC suggest the Obama Administration proceed with negotiations? Simple. The Council “…opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels “patience” regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program.”
What better way for NIAC representatives to serve their hidden masters in Tehran than by promoting a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the US and Iran. And to the NIAC, peaceful coexistence meant “…acceptance of [the] Iranian government, accepting Iranian hegemony in the Gulf and its place in other parts of the Middle East, removal of sanctions and pressure against Iran, abandon of assistance to the Iranian people’s resistance against the regime and etc.”
For the U.S., the consequences of this game of intrigue played by the Administration’s hand-picked, Iranian representatives are summed up in this statement by Barack Obama: “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.” And indeed, this is the path Barack Obama has followed. Not exactly reassuring words from a president charged with keeping the American public safe from a nuclear-bound administration of religious fanatics dedicated to our demise.
And it is thanks to an ill-advised lawsuit that proof of the NIAC’s wrongdoing has finally been placed before the American public. In 2008, Trita Parsi and his organization filed a defamation suit against perpetual critic Seid Dai. Dai had publicly accused Parsi of secretly working with the ruling Iranian Regime against the interests of the United States and the Iranian people. But when Parsi filed suit hoping to silence-through-intimidation such potentially lethal criticism, it opened the floodgates of legal discovery allowing Dai to demand internal NIAC documents and emails that eventually “… confirmed [Parsi’s] ties to the [Iranian] mullahs…”
Not only did recovered emails reveal that Parsi had held “…numerous secret meetings with top level IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] officials,” “Court documents show the NIAC was guilty of: lying to members of Congress, fraudulent membership numbers, tax law violations and evasions, Lobbying Disclosure Act violation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, foreign bank accounts, defrauding of federal funds, bribing of eye witnesses, etc…”
And so egregious were NIAC attempts to duck its legal responsibilities of discovery that Judge John Bates dismissed the Parsi defamation suit, ordered sanctions against Parsi for his failure to comply with discovery, and ordered Parsi to pay significant percentages of Dai’s costs and fees.
This is an immensely important story, not surprisingly “missed” in its entirety by the mainstream media.
But why has the Romney campaign not demanded Obama’s rationale for handing the foreign policy decisions of the United States and the security of the American people over to representatives of the Iranian government itself? Could voters be pleased upon finding the president had placed America’s safety from possible nuclear attack in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Posted on ImpeachObamaCampaign.com-By ROBERT PHILIP DEAN-On August 15, 2012:
“Iranian-born Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s Senior Adviser, spoke recently during a forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, in which she implied members of the TEA Party needed simple instructions and outlines to understand Obama’s major government overhaul of healthcare, the stimulus package, bailouts, and his road to socialism. When asked if she thought a simple booklet would help us conservative simpletons understand Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform America,” she agreed, stating ““Hope and Change were so catchy because it was really very simple and it was something everyone understood the definition. And so I think part of what our challenge is is to find a very simple way of communicating.” Her condescending attitude and remarks garnered a historical retort from The American Patriot Alliance in an open letter to Ms. Jarrett.
Dear Valerie,
Greetings and salutations in the name of Our Lord & Saviour Christ Jesus.
It saddens me somewhat that recent events and situations developing from within the White House have caused me to write this letter, though in reality it should have been done much sooner. I understand there must be a devastating conflict raging within the walls of ‘The People’s House’ between your boss Obama’s Muslim faith and Wednesday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, showing that we are STILL a “Christian Nation.”
But I write to you today somewhat distressed over comments you made during a speaking engagement at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. During that forum, in which you blasted the TEA Party as an “‘anti-government” organization that thrives on scare tactics,” an audience member asked,
“Could the Obama administration write much simpler booklets on housing foreclosure, on the health care bill, whereas a typical person, including those in the tea party, could understand the basics of it?”
Your reply, and acknowledgment of his analogies, are yet another condescending assessment of the philosophies within, and the people of, the TEA PARTY that emanate from within the Obama administration, and let me quote you:
“Hope and Change were so catchy because it was really very simple and it was something everyone understood the definition. And so I think part of what our challenge is is to find a very simple way of communicating.”
First of all, Valerie, Obama’s 2008 “Hope & Change” campaign slogan was not only simple; it was shallow and void of any and all intelligence, direction, purpose, or specifics (which definitely made it VERY EASY for his supporters to understand). But Conservatives and members of the TEA Party got it. We knew EXACTLY what his meaning and objectives were all about… a fundamental change (YES Val, we ALL remember Obama’s plea to “join me as I ‘FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE’ America!”) of the United States from a Republic form of government whose power is vested in “WE, The People” to a Marxist/socialist tyranny where government has complete control over every aspect of American life. As in what we eat, what we earn, what we drive, how we receive healthcare and insurance, in addition to a complete erasure of our sovereign borders and national identity. In other words, a complete destruction of the foundation, principles, and moral values upon which America was created by our Founding Fathers. All of which fits perfectly into your Islamic Shari’ah form of Theocracy (which, considering you and Obama were born and raised in it, you surely understand and advocate).
But you went even further than agree that a “simple little booklet” could help us understand your ultimate plan for the destruction of America. You continued to make direct attacks against the TEA Party, calling those of us who LOVE America, “anti-government extremists” (Janet Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi must have been ever-so-proud of you!),
“Even if they are in favor of, let’s say, a different form of health care insurance reform, fine; but what’s happening is it’s an anti-government – I mean, that’s the tea party. They really are, um, are, uh, trying to rebel against government at all. And I think that that’s … again, it’s an extreme.”
“And it’s always a lot easier, again, to scare people and to get them angry when they’re already scared, and they’re already uncertain. And I think that’s what the tea party is trying to capture.”
So now that you have made your views and opinions abundantly clear, let me proceed to my second point…
America already HAS that booklet, Ms. Jarrett. It was inspired by God Almighty and printed with the blood of the Patriots who sacrificed their lives to remove themselves from tyranny and repression. And inside that booklet are the designs, laws, and hopes of a people entrusted with the greatest gift from God, and the most incredible experiment in the history of human government. I believe you know well the booklet I speak of. It has been a source of contention, frustration, obstacle, and hatred for the Obama administration and the socialist/Marxist advocates who have attempted to bring America to her knees since January 2009… The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. (You can view these original documents at the National Archives just down the street from your office and see them for yourself!)
Whilst I am aware you are quite familiar with these documents, I would like to take the opportunity to provide you a refresher course on their content, none of which is open to your (or Obama’s) interpretation…
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” ~Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
As you can see so simply, Valerie, the Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to the tyrannical form of government you and Barrack Obama wish to institute amongst the American people, so much so that their very signatures on the bottom of this document provided for them a Death Warrant. Their faith, convictions, and moral strength sustained them throughout the American Revolution and provided the foundation for a new government amongst men, one that cherished individual, God-given rights, equality, and the liberties and freedoms that came with their sacrifice. This was a time of men, and when the last report from gunfire resonated across the American landscape, they had brought forth from their blood the genesis of a Nation of Exceptionalism. That commitment led to the establishment of the greatest governing document in the history of mankind… The Constitution of the United States of America.
Within our Constitution, which you so conveniently attempt to deny, are the Rights and Freedoms of the people of this great Nation; the restrictions of government; and the undeniable duty and responsibility we have to ensure, by rebellion if necessary, that never again may a nation enslave her people by treason and tyranny (something you should consider carefully, Ms. Jarrett…)
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” ~ Preamble to The Constitution of the
United States of America
But the Founding Fathers weren’t perfectly satisfied with the Constitution and wished to expand upon its meaning and definitions to ensure there were NO questions as to their thoughts and intentions, and that every American citizen was afforded the same equality, rights, and privileges without prejudice or qualification. THAT, Ms. Jarrett, is the difference between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY (the former protecting the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, whilst the latter provides for the denial of those rights in favor of, and advance of, MAJORITY rule). These are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, known asThe Bill of Rights.
For the sake of expediency, I just want to touch on a couple of the Amendments as they are really quite important to us and in essence lay out our rights and responsibilities to guard against the “fundamental change” in America and the establishment of tyranny you and the Obama administration have so fervently been advocating. Let’s start with the First…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This should be quite simple for you and your followers, Valerie, and I am always baffled at the misunderstandings and interpretation. We as citizens of the United States have the God-given right to speak FREELY against our government, to assemble in protest, and to question our government’s actions and motives (both verbally and in print); and equally, we are free to worship God in any manner we wish. Additionally, it is our RIGHT and our DUTY to petition the government by any means necessary. In case you haven’t realized, this was a very poignant grievance within the Declaration against King George:
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Now it may just be me, but that whole statement sounds hauntingly familiar in light of the actions of the Obama administration. But that’s just me, and of course 100 million of my Patriot friends. For the past three-and-a-half years, we have watched not only the Executive Branch of the federal government, but Legislative and Judicial as well, attempt to usurp, deny, and strip the American people of their First Amendment Rights through legislation, court ruling, and Obama’s favorite ~ Executive Order. From his refusal to enforce the Constitution and Rule of Law, to his failure as Commander-in-Chief to secure our nation’s borders and remove those illegal, criminal elements that have come to this country and taken advantage of our nation’s resources without contribution or loyalty, he has pandered to special-interest groups such as his Union supporters, homosexuals, Muslims, and illegal aliens in direct conflict with the Oath of Office he swore when he was inaugurated (contained in Article II, Section I). That, Ms. Jarrett, is a very serious dereliction of Constitutional duties (and one that was addressed in the Constitution, to wit):
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” ~ Article III, Section 3
So as you can see, Valerie, WE The People take these matters, and our responsibilities to question and resolve them, VERY seriously. Which brings me to my next point.
Whilst the First Amendment is the basis of the freedoms and liberties afforded the American people, our right to be secure in those liberties, freedoms, and our persons, is further expanded up on by the Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” ~ Fourth Amendment
But what say, our own government should turn against us? What recourse do we have? While we know we have a right and a DUTY to protest and protect those rights, how can this be accomplished against a government who views its citizens as enslaved subjects? That, my friend, is called the SECOND AMENDMENT… something our Founding Fathers were once again VERY clear and concise about.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR Arms, shall NOT be infringed.” ~ Second Amendment
Let us be clear here, Ms. Jarrett– the Second Amendment in NOT about hunting, personal protection, or sport. It is about the citizens of this Nation protecting themselves against a TYRANNICAL government, one which we are seeing more and more of these days within our own borders under the Obama administration. From the illegal Fast & Furious operation to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, we have seen legislation passed and Executive Orders issued that attempt to weaken and prevent the American people from owning and maintaining firearms. Let me make something very clear to you, Ms. Jarrett… there will be blood on the streets of America, and on the hands of the administration, if EVER you attempt to remove from our homes or possession those instruments that provide us the ability to wage rebellion against an out-of-control Administration/Congress, or to restore this Nation to her previous exceptionalism. Understand though, we do not advocate the overthrow of the United States government, but rather a tyrannical administration seeking to strip away those rights, freedoms, and liberties forged in blood by the sacrifices of our forefathers, brothers, and sisters. A government maintained under the Constitution and her Amendments is perfect. It is those wishing that system of government irreparable harm who must be removed. And furthermore, I am proud to be one of the more than 89 million legal, registered gun owners who did NOT kill anyone today, and I have no plans to kill tomorrow either, unless circumstances require judicious action on my part.
So in closing, let me remind you, Ms. Jarrett, and your mindless minions that we HAVE that “BOOKLET”, and I will be more than happy to forward you one if you so desire (or you can get one from The CATO Institute). But we GET YOU! WE are well aware of what your desires are for this most incredible Nation. The TEA Party is about a restoration of America and the government, not a complete absence of it. And be aware: we WILL, come November 6, 2012, achieve our goals. NEVER underestimate the resolve and determination of the American People. It’s happened countless times throughout our 236 year history, and for the enemies of freedom and liberty, it didn’t turn out too well for them.
God bless you, Ms. Jarrett, and I hope this letter has served to remind you of the foundation, history, and fortitude of the greatest Nation on Earth. Semper Fi.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Bush-era official: 'It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions'
Digital Globe / AP file This 2004, satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe and the Institute for Science and International Security shows the military complex at Parchin, Iran, about 19 miles southeast of Tehran.
By Helene Cooper and Mark Landler
updated 10/20/2012 5:46:40 PM ET WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.
Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.
News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and a day before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.
It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make a case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.
It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.
The White House publicly denied the report on Saturday evening. “It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman. He added that the administration has “said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”
Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.
There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s opaque supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.
Source: No deal yet on US-Iran nuclear talks Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Washington and Tehran since the American hostage crisis in 1979.
“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”
The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.
Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say is likely to figure in any deal on the nuclear program.
Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.
“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Tehran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.
Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” he said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”
The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review among officials at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine the American negotiating stance, and what the United States would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.
Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”
“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” he said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.” Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.
Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.
Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.
Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.
Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.
But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month.
For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.
Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.
But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message to their American counterparts that Tehran would be willing to sit down for one-on-one talks.
At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.
A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.
In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.
Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned,” reports veteran national security correspondent Thomas E. Ricks.
It now appears likely that Gen. Mattis, a Marine Corps legend, will leave his post as head of America’s most important combatant command in March, several months earlier than planned. Ricks continues:
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?
Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I’d call him a tough-minded realist, someone who’d rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.
The reported departure will have consequences for U.S.-Iranian relations, civil-military relations, Marine Corps morale, and inter-service politics, Ricks writes. “I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team,” he adds. “They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow.
These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.”
Obama is expected to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear program this year.
Evidence of Iranian entanglement in Iraq, low-intensity conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East, the Syrian civil war, Afghanistan, and in international terrorism continues to mount.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
[IMG]http://media.irishcentral.com/images/419*251/John-Brennan-nominee-.jpg[/IMG] John Brennan
Photo by Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters
An ex-FBI agent has claimed that President Barack Obama’s CIA nominee John Brennan secretly converted to Islam.
Hardball reports that John Guandolo, an anti Islam activist, thinks that the future head of the CIA is a secret Muslim.
“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia,” the far right pundit told the radio host of Tom Trento.
“His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him.”
The former FBI agent’s claims concerning Brennan are very similar to Showtime’s ‘Homeland’ award winning drama, where the lead character, a former prisoner of war converted to Islam while in captivity.
“That fact alone is not what is most disturbing,” Guandolo continued. “His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor … [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of environments, which makes him completely unfit to the be the director of Central Intelligence.”
Guandolo now works with the Strategic Engagement Group, who according to their website specializes in “unconstrained analysis in defense of America.”
In 2009, Guandolo resigned from the FBI after it was exposed that he had an affair with a key witness while he was investigating the corruption case of former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
President Barack Obama has notified Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that his administration will soon start the partial and gradual easing of economic sanctions against Iran, DEBKAfile reports exclusively from its Washington and Jerusalem sources. The reduction would apply to “non-significant” yet “substantial” sanctions, the message said.
Israel is the only American ally to receive prior warning of this decision – and the only one to be briefed in detail of the understandings Washington has reached with Tehran, including Iran’s concessions on its nuclear program. Neither European, nor Persian Gulf leaders led by Saudi Arabia have been let in on the scale of reciprocal concessions approved by Obama and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
These concessions will start coming to light when they are put on the table of the nuclear negotiations beginning in Geneva on Oct. 15 between Iran and the P5+1 group (five Security Council permanent members and Germany). Read Full Article
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
How screwed up is it that the President of the United States is nicer to US enemies than he is to members of the opposing political party? But that’s where we are, Obama will negotiate with Iran but not Republicans in Congress, and most of the media lets him get away with it.
The president will make a deal with Iran, leaving America vulnerable to nuclear attack. But he won’t join with the GOP to save America from default. Who are more evil, Republicans or ayatollahs?
With talks with Iran in Geneva under way involving the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, the Obama administration’s diplomats this week are reportedly offering Islamofascist Iran fast relief from economic sanctions if Tehran makes a deal on its nuclear program — apparently even one that lets it keep enriching uranium.
Under the “moderate” with the nice smile, cleric Hasan Rouhani, the regime may soon agree not to enrich to 20% purity, dangerously close to weapons-grade quality. This is touted as a confidence-building measure. In return, the U.S. may ease economic sanctions.
Obviously, there are enemies, and then there are enemies. It’s one thing to be a terrorist regime.
It’s another thing to be members of the other party and oppose President Obama’s agenda.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question:
1. a Palestinian state and
2. the advancement of Islam in America.
The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency.
And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job?
Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America.
Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.
Iranian-born Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s Senior Adviser, spoke recently during a forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, in which she implied members of the TEA Party needed simple instructions and outlines to understand Obama’s major government overhaul of healthcare, the stimulus package, bailouts, and his road to socialism.
From the White House, Valerie Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She oversees the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chairs the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, she was the Chief Executive Officer of The Habitat Company. She also served as Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, and Senior Advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.
Ms. Jarrett has held positions in both the public and private sector, including the Chairman of the Chicago Transit Board, the Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley. She also practiced law with two private law firms.
Jarrett also served as a director of corporate and not for profit boards, including Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees. Jarrett received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1978 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981. (Suppose the administration withheld anything? I do.)
The New Republic JoAnne Mor
We have often heard Valerie Jarrett is the de-facto President. That might not be far from the truth.
Our team has been exhaustively researching this woman,…again.
We went back over notes, articles and saved links, as well digging deeper into new documents that we’ve gotten a hold of. Valerie Jarret is very powerful.
As you may know, Valerie Jarrett is Obama,’s closest cabinet member. That is no coincidence. She is one who helped get him where he is. Entire article below.
Sure, he knew all the street radicals, but it was Valerie who really got his foot in the door. Without her, he’d still be hustling votes for other “Made” Chicago politicians.
First we’ll start with a little personal backround on Ms Jarrett, then we will lay out the sheer magnitude of the corruption that infests Chicago and has now taken hold in the White House itself.
Valerie Bowman Jarrett is an American who was born in Iran, to two American parents. She lived in Iran until the age of 5, then London for another year. The family moved to Chicago when Valerie was almost 7.
“Jarrett received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1978 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981. Jarrett went to the exclusive University of Chicago Lab School before transferring to her mother’s alma mater, Northfield Mt. Hermon, in western Massachusetts for the last two years of high school.
“After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, she went to work for Chicago’s first African-American mayor, Harold Washington, whose election many Sixties radicals attributed to themselves. After Washington’s death in 1987, she stayed on under his successor, Richard Daley.
In City Hall, she and her colleague Susan Sher recruited Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, and Jarrett quickly melded her way into their lives.
Advocacy
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Jarrett served as a Director of corporate and not for profit boards, including Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees, and Vice Chair of the University of Chicago Board of Trustees. She was a Director of the Local Initiative Support Corporation, The Joyce Foundation, and a Trustee of the Museum of Science and Industry.
Hiring Michelle
A former Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development under Harold Washington, Jarrett continued to work in the mayor’s office into the 1990s.
In 1991, while Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, Jarrett hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama.
Finance responsibilities
Valerie Jarrett ran the finances for Obama’s 2004 Senate bid and served as treasurer of Obama’s HOPEFUND.
Friendship with Marilyn Katz
Marilyn Katz worked with Students for a Democratic Society. She is a personal friend of Jarrett’s. “
Ok. Now that you have some background, we are going to take you on an epic adventure. This adventure is the truth and I will corroroborate the facts with docs and links.
This adventure will take us beyond Chicago, beyond the White House , all the way to the mid East and back.
We will introduce you to some of the most corrupt operatives, foreign Billionaires and many more shady players and events.
Valerie Jarrett not only worked for powerful Mayor, Harold Washington, but she was also the daughter in law of another Powerful Chicago politician and Socialite, Vernon Jarrett, a full blown Communist/Progressive. I won’t go into too much detail on him, but his Communist associations are well documented and easy to find.
After Washington left office, Valerie stayed on with the new Mayor, Daley.
Through these powerful men and her position inside the Chicago machine, Valerie soon en massed astounding power.
In Part 1, we told you of how Valerie Jarrett controls developing in Chicago. We told you of all the boards she sits on, her Development companies, her partner Allison Davis and her connections to Obama and Michelle.
Now we want to introduce you to other movers and shakers in the Chicago corruption machine that Valerie Jarrett controls.
Nadhmi Auchi is an Iraqi Billionaire. He was convicted of fraud in the oil for food scandal. Auchi is an arms dealer, Oil mogul and invests in many real estate properties. Auchi was barred from entering the US due to his fraud conviction.There is a lot of info on Auchi out there. More on Auchi:
Three weeks before Obama bought his mansion, Auchi loaned Rezko $3 million Dollars. The mansion deal was arranged by Rezko, who we know was already doing business with Jarrett. Remember, she was on the boards and committees that controlled real estate & development in Chicago.
The bank was Mutual bank of Harvey , run by Amrish Mahajan.
The data available in the Sun-Times spreadsheet is corroborated by the following data, which is democratically available at the Federal Election Commission ‘s website:
MAHAJAN, AMRISH CHICAGO, IL 60607 MUTUAL BANK
OBAMA, BARACK VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC 12/20/2003 500.00 24020030170 04/14/2004 1000.00 24020461757
Not only was Mahajan a member of Rezko’s bundling network; his bank, the Mutual Bank of Harvey, granted Rita Rezko the $500,000 mortgage she needed in order to purchase the lot on which the Obama mansion in Chicago sits.
As many of you may recall, the Obamas could not have purchased the mansion they could not afford unless transactions for the mansion and the lot closed on the same day. Obama needed to locate someone who would buy the lot, and he approached Rezko, the convicted slumlord with whom Obama toured the property before they mutually agreed to the following arrangement :
The home and lot sales closed on June 15, 2005. A land trust controlled by the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, and the Obamas secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust to complete that purchase. That same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey.
The structure of this transaction begs the following question: What bank would lend a government employee who earns $37,000 per annum a $500,000 mortgage? What bank would assume such a risk?
The Mutual Bank of Harvey, of course, for the Mutual Bank of Harvey’s President is a man who is deeply connected to the Chicago machine that backed Barack Obama.
Indeed, Amrish Mahajan was one of Mayor Daley’s first political appointments in 1989, when he was named to a seat on Chicago’s Plan Commission, where he would be joined by Obama’s former boss and Rezko’s business partner Allison Davis and by Valerie Jarrett, Daley’s Chief of Staff who chaired the Commission from 1991-1995 .
Mahajan, in other words, worked with those who devised and profited from Daley’s failed public housing experiment in Chicago , a public housing policy Obama helped fund as state Senator and US Senator .
Rezko, according to the Boston Globe , was one of the major beneficiaries of Obama’s legislative advocacy for funding of Daley’s public housing experiment. Other major beneficiaries are Jarrett and Allison Davis.
Mahajan was also a beneficiary, for his bank had made $3.4 million dollars in loans to Tony Rezko’s slum landlord business since 2002 . A banker for one of the slumlords who benefitted from the Daley housing program Obama helped bankroll, Mahajan was returning a favor when he wrote a $500,000 mortgage in 2005 for the wife of one of his clients.
” Jarrett was an associate between 1981 and 1984 at Ballard, Shepard and Pole Ltd. and then moved on to a real estate practice at Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath and Rosenthal. But Jarrett “wasn’t happy with private practice,” recalled Judd Miner , “. . . and she wanted to get involved in the Washington administration.” Miner recruited Jarrett to the city’s Law Department with the corporation counsel under the late Mayor Harold Washington.
According to the Sun Times, “A few years later, back in private practice, Miner would make another recruiting coup: a young Harvard Law School graduate named Barack Obama. And over at City Hall, Jarrett, Daley’s deputy chief of staff, would hire another lawyer fleeing corporate life, Michelle Robinson, Obama’s then-fiancée.” Could it be possible that Jarrett already knew Obama at this point if she had worked for Miner? The Sun Times also mentions that Obama and Michelle’s marriage might never have happened if they had not met at the Chicago law frim of Sidley & Austin in the summer of 1989. Michelle Robinson was the lawyer assigned to be his adviser. Somewhat curious….
It is noteworthy to mention that after Jarrett left Daley’s office she took Michelle Obama with her to the Chicago Housing Department to be her assistant. This coincided precisely with the time Obama was installed at Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland where he was writing the “bids” for Tony Rezko’s companies. Is it possible that these bids were coincidentally being approved by Jarrett and Michelle? Very curious…”
No doubt that she’s THE power, critical influence and perhaps the actual decision maker in this odyssey of Barack and Michelle Clampett on their incompetent, vindictive, nouveau riche celebrity power tour, while the security and leadership of this country’s become an irritating side job.
Also, no doubt why Tony Rezko refuses to entertain any discussions about Obama as he serves his long prison sentence. Apparently, NO ONE crosses Valerie, as former Chief of Staff and brother of former mayor Richard Daley (as well as former Clinton Sec. of Commerce) Bill Daley, from the Chicago political swamp machine himself, discovered. Lord, help us.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
President Obama speaks by telephone with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
(Pete Souza for the White House via Agence France-Press)
Critics of the president’s feeble Iran policy have known all along this was coming. If the report in the New York Times is accurate, the president is about to countenance a nuclear-armed Iran. The administration doesn’t put it that way, and the Times is compliant enough not to mention it directly, but that is precisely what is entailed: “On the eve of a new round of talks between world powers and Iran, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday that the United States was prepared to offer Iran limited relief from economic sanctions if Tehran agreed to halt its nuclear program and reversed part of it.” The planned “relief” is to last six months, much longer than some experts believe is needed for Iran to go nuclear.
So the Iranians, if Obama gets his way, will have achieved what they want — relief from sanctions and months to complete what some experts say will take only weeks: the achievement of a nuclear weapons capability. The Times buried the lede, but did allow, “Time is of the essence, nuclear experts have said, because Iran’s nuclear program has advanced to the point where it could quickly produce enough enriched material for a nuclear device.” A conservative foreign policy expert who has warned against the impending nuclear breakout by Iran retorted, “So the Obama administration is conspiring with Tehran to stop Congress from imposing sanctions on Iran.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is having none of this. He announced, “We’ve crafted an amendment to freeze the administration in and make it so they are unable to reduce the sanctions unless certain things occur. They have the ability now to waive sanctions. But we’re very concerned that in their desire to make any deal that they may in fact do something that is very bad for our country.” It is remarkable, really, that Congress has to prevent Obama from giving away the store, but there has certainly been broad bipartisan support for keeping and extending sanctions. Corker and his colleagues seem fully cognizant of what is at risk here. (“This would keep an interim deal from happening unless there is actual tangible changes that take place.”)
As bizarre as this might seem, the president certainly could veto such a measure so he can make a deal with the mullahs. I suppose he might try to defy a bipartisan coalition, but then a bipartisan coalition to override a veto could put a halt to his shenanigans.
The deal, as reported, violates the principles the president and Secretary of State John Kerry have laid out. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams told me, “Any deal with Iran must fit within the administration’s own acknowledgment that ‘a bad deal is worse than no deal.’ An interim deal that freezes only portions of Iran’s program does not prevent Iran’s nuclear surge; instead it allows Iran’s program to continue to grow. [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani himself has proudly claimed that this is what he achieved in the past.” Abrams explained, “If the terms allow Iran to keep all its 18,000 centrifuges, and all its 3.5 percent-enriched uranium, and continue to enrich uranium, and keep the Arak plutonium facility intact, that’s a bad deal. Iran’s breakout ability remains the same; it is not really further from a bomb.” Indeed it might be worse than even the Times report lets on. Abrams cautioned, “As I understand the proposed deal, there is, in addition, no mechanism for verification, so even the partial freeze may not be honored. We should not lift sanctions in any way for such a bad deal. We should insist on terms that clearly and verifiably keep Iran further away from a bomb.”
Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has been directly involved in crafting sanctions legislation. He pointed out troubling language in a background briefing given by negotiator Wendy Sherman: “Put simply, what we’re looking for now is a first phase, a first step, an initial understanding that stops Iran’s nuclear program from moving forward for the first time in decades, and that potentially rolls part of it back.” Potentially. Dubowitz argued, “I think it’s the word ‘potentially’ that stands out. When you’re weak, you’re weak. The problem is that an interim nuclear deal may only delay Iranian nuclear breakout by a month or so. And while the Obama administration may spin this as time to allow for a final deal that increases break-out time, the administration will pay too high a price by blocking new sanctions from ever seeing the light of day . . . Obama has already bent to Iranian pressure. He has blocked new sanctions in exchange for no nuclear concessions. If that’s not sanctions relief, I don’t know what is.”
No matter how many times the president said it was “unacceptable” for Iran to get a bomb, conservatives have doubted from the get-go that he had any intention of using military force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. His gambit, we have long suspected, has been to “engage” Iran and work out a paper agreement, just as we did on North Korea, which ostensibly prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but in fact allows the rogue nation to do so under cover of diplomacy. The president who has denied “containment” is an option will, in essence, leave the world with a fait d’accompli, a nuclear-armed Iran. We don’t have any choice, you see, but to work on “containment” now.
It is noteworthy that Sherman was intimately involved in crafting the bogus arrangements that were supposed to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. A long-time Democrat with a pro-Israel organization observed, “Breathing life back into Iran’s economy in return for token and superficial moves that put Tehran no further from nuclear break-out — and doing so when they are weakest, begging for financial relief — would be a strategic error in-line with the mistakes that led to North Korea’s break-out. That is the definition of a bad deal for the West, and no doubt the Supreme Leader’s hope.”
Former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton was blunt: “Countries determined to keep nuclear-weapons programs are not going to be chit-chatted out of them, even if Washington makes substantial concessions. We should label this policy for what it is, as Jim Baker did regarding Clinton’s North Korea policy in the 1990′s: It is appeasement.” And it’s the same dance with the dictators Sherman has performed throughout her career.
So the question before us is now whether Iran would even agree to this desperation move (why not go for full sanctions relief? why allow verification at all?), and if Congress, pro-Israel groups and the American public will countenance allowing a revolutionary Islamic state sponsor of terror to get the bomb.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Re: Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
Israel’s Netanyahu unhappy with thaw in US-Iran relationsFILE -This Sept. 1, 2013 file photo shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Israel. Mortified that the world may be warming up to Iran, Netanyahu is taking an unpopular message to the White House and the United Nations this week: Don't be fooled by Tehran's new leadership. With the White House cautiously optimistic about its dialogue with Iran, the meeting on Monday, Sept 30, 2013 between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama could be tense. (AP Photo/Abir Sultan, Pool, file)
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
Associated Press
Sunday, September 29, 2013
(Published in print: Monday, September 30, 2013)
JERUSALEM (AP) — Mortified that the world may be warming up to Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking an unpopular message to the White House and the United Nations this week: Don’t be fooled by Tehran’s new leadership.
Netanyahu contends Iran is using conciliatory gestures as a smoke screen to conceal an unabated march toward a nuclear bomb.
He will deliver those strong words of caution — and fresh intelligence — in an attempt to persuade the U.S. to maintain tough economic sanctions and not allow the Islamic republic to develop a bomb or even move closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state.
With the White House cautiously optimistic about its dialogue with Iran, Monday’s meeting between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama could be tense.
“I will tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and the onslaught of smiles,” Netanyahu said before boarding his flight to the U.S. on Sunday. “Telling the truth today is vital for the security and peace of the world and, of course, it is vital for the security of the state of Israel.”
Israeli leaders watched with great dismay what they derisively call the “smiley campaign” by Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, last week. Rouhani delivered a conciliatory speech at the United Nations in which he repeated Iran’s official position that it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon and declared his readiness for new negotiations with the West.
Capping off the visit, Rouhani and Obama held a 15-minute phone call as the Iranian leader was traveling to the airport. By the end of the call, the first conversation between the nation’s leaders in 34 years, Obama was suggesting that a breakthrough on the nuclear issue could portend even deeper ties between the U.S. and Iran.
U.S. and European diplomats hailed a “very significant shift” in Iran’s attitude and tone.
For Netanyahu, such sentiments are nothing short of a nightmare.
For years, he has warned that Iran is steadily marching toward development of nuclear weapons, an assessment that is widely shared by the West because of Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium and its run-ins with international nuclear inspectors.
The Israeli prime minister contends Rouhani’s outreach is a ploy to ease international sanctions and buy time. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran an unacceptable threat, given repeated Iranian assertions that the Jewish state should not exist. Israel has a long list of other grievances against Iran, citing its support for hostile Arab militant groups, its development of long-range missiles and alleged Iranian involvement in attacks on Israeli targets in Europe and Asia.
On Sunday, Israel announced the arrest of a Belgian-Iranian businessman on espionage charges.
Netanyahu says the new Iranian leader must be judged on his actions, not his words. In the meantime, he says sanctions and other international pressure, including the threat of military action, must be increased. He has likened Iran to North Korea, which used the guise of international negotiations to secretly develop a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu appears to enjoy widespread domestic support for his tough approach. Israel’s Channel 10 TV released the results of a poll Sunday night showing that 78 percent of respondents don’t believe Iran wants to resolve the nuclear problem. Fifty-nine percent said they do not think the U.S. will reach an agreement with Iran, while just 29 percent said they expect a resolution. The station did not say how many people were questioned or provide a margin of error.
Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. who now serves as an adviser to Netanyahu, said the prime minister would present Obama with “some very hard facts” based on intelligence showing that Iranian behavior has not changed.
Similarly, in his speech at the U.N., “he will make it very clear that Israel and the world at large should continue to be on guard,” he said.
Over the years, Israel has issued shifting assessments of how close Iran is to producing a weapon. Last year, Netanyahu presented a cartoon diagram to the U.N. showing that Iran would enter the final phase of weapons production by mid-2013. Israel has since backed off that assessment.
Netanyahu’s intelligence minister, Yuval Steinitz, said international pressure forced Iran to slow production.
While American officials are well aware of Israel’s concerns, they say there are no plans to reverse the latest diplomatic push.
Two senior Obama administration officials said that the U.S. expects Israel to be skeptical about Iran’s overture, and that the U.S. is similarly skeptical.
Obama will try to convince Netanyahu that the U.S. won’t consider lifting sanctions until Iran takes concrete actions to show it is serious about a verifiable, transparent agreement, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
Obama will also seek to assure his Israeli counterpart that if the U.S. reaches a deal with Iran, it will ultimately advance Israel’s security interests by resolving the nuclear issue without the need for military intervention.
Obama’s bottom line remains that Iran can’t be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, the officials said.
Israel, though, wants the U.S. to establish clear “red lines” to prevent Iran from pressing forward with its nuclear program and moving toward threshold status — having the capability to build a nuclear weapon without actually possessing one. That scenario is unacceptable to Israel.
Netanyahu has laid out four demands: that Iran stop enriching uranium; that its stockpiles of enriched uranium be removed from the country; that a fortified underground enrichment facility be closed; and that Iran not make plutonium, another possible path toward nuclear weapons.
Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, predicted a “very difficult conversation” on Monday.
The Americans “like Rouhani. They think he represents a new policy, a new approach and therefore should be given at least a chance. Netanyahu’s strategy is to say that this whole thing is a big hoax,” Gilboa said. “There are no buyers for his message.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
The face of the Obama administration’s outreach to Iran may have just been unmasked, and it’s allegedly Valerie Jarrett.
Last month, the New York Times informed America that the Obama administration has been running secret talks with Iran in order to facilitate a working relationship once tomorrow’s election is over. Official disavowals were not long in coming, even as off the record sources confirmed that the talks were taking place.
And thanks to YNetNews, we may now know who the administration’s designated voice is: Obama confidante and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. From the article:
A Chicago lawyer is the key player behind the secret talks between the US and Iran, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday. A close friend of Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett is assisting the US government communicate behind the scenes with the representatives of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.
Jarret, who was born in the Iranian city of Shiraz, is a senior advisor to US President Barack Obama.
TheBlaze reported on the background underlying these negotiations near the tail end of last month, in a story by Isreal-based correspondent Sharona Schwartz. Here’s Schwartz’s take on what a full-scale diplomatic relationship with Iran might mean:
While the body of the report offers no further detail about what full diplomatic relations would mean, a graphic accompanying Maariv’s report (pictured above, beneath the images of Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) states renewed relations would include: direct flights between Washington or New York and Tehran; granting entry permits for American visitors to Iran and for Iranians to visit the U.S.; “security cooperation and defense of citizens visiting in the host country”; diplomatic dialogue at a senior level; and an exchange of senior officials’ visits.
If true, Maariv’s report provides another example of Obama’s long-held belief that negotiations can stop Iran’s nuclear march.
Jarrett’s status as a White House confidante and major figure has been well-known for some time, but this bit of news marks her first foray into being an official foreign policy surrogate. If Obama is reelected tomorrow, however, it certainly might not be the last.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
(NEWSMAX) -- The Obama administration is weighing whether to offer Iran the chance to recoup billions of dollars in frozen overseas assets if it takes steps to scale back its nuclear program, U.S. officials and congressional aides said Friday. The proposal would face a skeptical Congress determined to make the end of Tehran’s uranium enrichment activity the condition for any sanctions relief.
The brainstorming comes after two days of nuclear negotiations between Iran and world powers ended this week in Geneva. The talks — the first since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office — ended on an upbeat note although it fell short of specific and concrete commitments by Iran to stop enriching uranium or ship out its stockpiles of higher-enriched uranium.
The proposal is one of several under consideration to spur negotiations to ensure Tehran can’t produce atomic weapons. Enriching uranium can produce material for peaceful energy purposes or nuclear arms.
Under the plan being weighed, Iran would be able to access money fromoil sales overseas that it currently can only barter with because of U.S. and international sanctions. Senate aides put the total between $50 billion and $75 billion. It’s not clear what Iran would have to do in return to prompt the Obama administration to allow banks to release the money. Read more via Newsmax...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Re: Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
I had a 'crazy' thought; Obama is almost certainly a secret Moslem, and heck Valerie Jarrett probably is too, and since she has access at all hours to the private quarters of the President and First Lady, will it come out in the future that Obama is not just a moslem but a polygamist too? Are Michelle AND Valerie Jarrett his secret Harem?
Re: Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
Originally Posted by Thorongil2012
I had a 'crazy' thought; Obama is almost certainly a secret Moslem, and heck Valerie Jarrett probably is too, and since she has access at all hours to the private quarters of the President and First Lady, will it come out in the future that Obama is not just a moslem but a polygamist too? Are Michelle AND Valerie Jarrett his secret Harem?
Re: Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
Continue Reading My Following Blog Posts That Relate To This Disturbing Issue:
AP
1 Comment
FILE -This Sept. 1, 2013 file photo shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Israel. Mortified that the world may be warming up to Iran, Netanyahu is taking an unpopular message to the White House and the United Nations this week: Don't be fooled by Tehran's new leadership. With the White House cautiously optimistic about its dialogue with Iran, the meeting on Monday, Sept 30, 2013 between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama could be tense. (AP Photo/Abir Sultan, Pool, file)
Originally Posted by Thorongil2012
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks