Iran Labels Obama’s Ten-Year Nuclear Demand As ‘Unacceptable’

Flickr/World Economic Forum

Iran rejected Barack Obama’s demand that they stop all sensitive nuclear activities for at least ten years, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

This happened as the U.S. and Iran met for a second day of negotiations and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech before Congress on Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted by Fars as saying that “Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” and “Obama’s stance … is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases.”

The U.S. and its allies believe that Iran is using its civil nuclear program as a cover for a military nuclear program, a charge that Iran vehemently denies.

Netanyahu stated yesterday in his speech before Congress:

If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons, lots of them.

However, Obama insisted that Netanyahu had presented no “viable alternatives” to dealing with Iran.

Zarif met with Kerry for more than five hours on Tuesday and stated, “The only way to move forward is through negotiations.”

Kerry said, “We’re working away. Productively.”

The U.S. has played a lead role in the talks with Iran, although it represents five other powers: Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia, a group known as the P5+1 and the E3+3.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated, “I would even go so far as to say that in 10 years of negotiations, we never achieved as much progress as we have made this year.”

What do you think of Iran rejecting Obama’s demand? How should the U.S. deal with Iran going forward? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Gallup Reports Sharp Drop In Democrats’ Favorability Toward Israel

ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com  ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

The percentage of Democrats who favor Israel above the Palestinians dropped ten points this year to 48 percent, according to a Gallup poll.

The number of Democrats who looked at Israel favorably dropped from 74 percent to 60 percent.

In contrast, the percentage of Republicans who favor Israel above the Palestinians rose to 83 percent, which has risen from the low 50s in the late 1990s.

Americans overall sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians (62 percent), while 70 percent of Americans look at Israel favorably.

Why are Democrats becoming less favorable toward Israel? CNS News writes that it is because of tension between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama over the Iran nuclear negotiations:

In recent months relations between the White House and Netanyahu government have become increasingly strained, as the Israeli leader continues to argue that a proposed nuclear agreement with Iran will be “dangerous.”

Netanyahu stated:

“It is astonishing that even after the recent IAEA report determined that Iran is continuing to hide the military components of its nuclear program, the nuclear talks with it are proceeding,” he said. “Not only are they continuing, there is an increased effort to reach a nuclear agreement in the coming days and weeks.”

In a Gallup poll last month, the number of American Jews who identify as Democrats has dropped since Obama’s election in 2008. In fact, 71 percent of American Jews identified as Democrats in 2008; and by 2014, that number had dropped to 61 percent.

What do you think of the Democrats’ less favorable attitude toward Israel? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Texas Governor Greg Abbott Shares His Solution For Illegal Immigration Problem In Texas

Flickr/The Texas Tribune

Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday, “Already this calendar year, since January 1, we have had more than 20,000 people come across the border, apprehended, unauthorized. And so we have an ongoing problem on the border that Congress must step up and solve.”

He also stated, “We all saw what happened on the Texas border last summer, but we need to understand that the problem is not going away.”

Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer reminded Abbott that there are 800,000 illegal aliens living in Texas right now, and then said, “You don’t have enough buses to send them back to Mexico, and I don’t expect you can put all of them in jail. What are you going to do with them?”

The governor gave two solutions. “One is,” he said “the president himself said as these people were coming across the border that he would repatriate them as soon as possible. So, we need to see whether or not the president himself is going to live up to the commitment that he made.”

The second was for Congress to take action: “And so we need Congress to have the latitude to fulfill its responsibility to solve the problem.”

Abbott shared his plan to secure the border: “I’m going to add more than 500 more Department of Public Safety officers, more Texas Rangers, more technology. We are coming out of our own pocket, Texas taxpayers’ pockets, to secure the border and doing the job that the federal government must do.”

Abbott recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of 26 states against Obama’s executive amnesty of illegal aliens.

The governor said that it is “essential” to win the case on constitutional grounds “because what we have here is a situation where the president has violated the rule of law and really contradicted the Constitution by actually making up the law and imposing his own standards on the immigration system.”

What do you think about Governor Abbott’s solutions to get illegal immigrants to stop crossing the border? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s How ISIS Militants May Soon Be Slipping Into The U.S…

isis6

ISIS militants may soon be slipping into the US via the thousands of Syrian “refugees” coming to the country.

According to Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism unit, the U.S. does not have the resources to prevent ISIS fighters from slipping into the US alongside the many other refugees being let in.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, recently held hearings on the process of vetting refugees and wrote a letter to the White House voicing the committee’s “serious national security concerns.”

In a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, McCaul and other Republicans stated that “The continued civil war and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments on specific refugees.”

Steinbach told the committee:

“The difference is that in Iraq we were there on the ground collecting (information), so we had databases to use,” he added. “The concern is that in Syria, the lack of our footprint on the ground in Syria, the databases won’t have the information we need. So it’s not that we have a lack of a process, it’s that there is a lack the information.”

Ned Price, a National Security Council spokesman, stated that rigorous screening of all Syrian refugees would take place:

“Our screening protocols for refugees are rigorous, continually refined, and build on years of experience vetting individuals coming to the United States from around the world,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “They permit us to proceed in a way that seeks to both safeguard public safety and serve our mission of providing refuge to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Still, McCaul and other Republicans are not so sure about the vetting of the refugees.

What do you think? Are ISIS militants bound to slip in among the Syrian refugees? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

h/t: Pat Dollard

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Jordan Moves Thousands Of Troops To Iraq Border To Protect Themselves From ISIS

ISIS

Jordan has moved “thousands” of troops to the Iraq border after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive, according to two Jordanian government officials who spoke with NBC News.

According to NBC, “the troops were sent to prevent the infiltration of ISIS fighters into Jordan and as a show of force.”

King Abdullah of Jordan promised to hit ISIS  “hard in the very center of their strongholds” after the Jordanian pilot’s murder.

Nevertheless, according to Matthew Henman, an analyst at Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre in London, Jordan’s response is “an intensification of ongoing efforts to secure the border to stop movement of men and weapons,” not the beginning of an invasion.

Still, the possibility that the troops could be used offensively against ISIS has not been ruled out. The Iraqi army is preparing an offensive against ISIS, according to Sky News.

As Sky News reports:

John Allen, the US co-ordinator for the anti-IS coalition of Western and Arab countries, said on Sunday Iraqi troops would begin a major offensive ‘in the weeks ahead’.

‘When the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that,’ he told Jordan’s official Petra news agency.

Iraqi forces have already carried out operations near Baghdad and in Diyala and Salaheddin provinces north of the capital.

With the combination of the Iraqi army, the Jordanian army posted at the border, and the air coalition led by the US, has it finally come time for ISIS to face the music? Feel free to share your thoughts.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom