Netanyahu’s ‘Fateful Crossroads’ Speech Destroys Obama’s ‘Very Bad Deal’ With Iran

Bibi

For close to forty minutes in an electrifying appearance before Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eloquently and expertly laid waste to the Obama administration’s developing nuclear agreement with Iran.

Forcefully declaring that the agreement President Obama is pursuing with Iran’s “dark and brutal dictatorship of religious zealots” is not just a bad deal, but “a very bad deal,” Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Opening his controversial address with a few minutes of thanks to President Obama for his past help for and support of Israel, Netanyahu then proceeded to eviscerate the administration’s deal with Iran. He methodically made his case that Obama is making a dangerous deal with a regime that “will always be the enemy of America” as well as of Israel.

Piling point upon point and example upon example, the Israeli leader argued that the deal now in the works will have the opposite effect of what President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry claim:

“The deal will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee it gets nuclear weapons — lots of them.”

Obama’s proposed arrangement with an Iranian regime that “poses a grave threat to the peace of the entire world,” said Netanyahu, relies on the integrity of a nation that cannot be trusted. Already, he observed, nuclear inspectors have been thwarted and deceived by Iranian officials.

It’s a faulty deal, said the prime minister, that would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure available for a quick breakout to build numerous weapons capable of plunging the planet into a prolonged “nuclear nightmare.”

Dozens of times during Netanyahu’s third address to Congress, lawmakers interrupted the speech with applause — occasionally thunderous, sustained applause. Even Democrats — those who had not boycotted the appearance — often showed their approval of what the Israeli leader had to say.

Democrats applauded, for instance, when Netanyahu told the gathering there are three specific actions that Iran must take if it wants “to be treated like a normal country” in the community of nations:

– stop their aggression in the Middle East,
– stop their support of terrorism, and
– stop threatening to annihilate Israel.

However, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their Democrat colleagues were not so enthusiastic when Netanyahu proclaimed that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to “a bad deal, a very deal deal…we’re better off without it.”

The prime minister warned the lawmakers and others attending the speech under the Capitol dome that allowing Iran a path to the bomb would “spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet” as other countries in the Middle East would surely launch their own weapons development programs.

In a firm and formidable tone, Netanyahu assured the gathering Israel would not let that happen. “The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies — those days are over.”

As he wrapped up the address which he noted came at a time when “history has placed us at a fateful crossroads,” Netanyahu acknowledged that the process of achieving a better deal with Iran would be difficult but must be undertaken. He urged world leaders not to repeat mistakes of the past that have led to such atrocities as the Holocaust.

After concluding his historic speech, which no high-ranking member of the Obama administration attended, Benjamin Netanyahu left the House chamber the same way he had entered — to several minutes of loud and appreciative applause.

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

WATCH: White House Just Hinted Obama’s Next Executive Action Could Be A Huge Money Grab

Image Credit: The Blaze

In another shot at the Constitution, congressional authority and the rule of law, President Obama is reportedly considering using executive action to unilaterally raise taxes.

Considering the words of White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama intends to try to implement his agenda, not by working with Congress, but by wielding his pen — to execute vetoes as well as implement executive orders.

According to an article in Forbes, the president may try to trespass on ground that, up until now, has been held by a co-equal branch of the federal government, the Congress — making and/or changing tax law, specifically, corporate taxes.

The Forbes article notes that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — an Independent with strong Socialist leanings who generally caucuses with the Democrats — wrote a letter to the Obama administration suggesting the president could close corporate tax loopholes on his own, without getting congressional permission.

Sen. Sanders appears to have opened a veritable barn door for the President to act more broadly than is customary.

Although the actions recommended by Sen. Sanders target corporations, it is worth noting that the tax hikes included in the President’s budget are numerous.

As The Blaze notes in its coverage of the possible Obama executive action on taxes: “Obama wants Congress to pass corporate tax reform, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said the proposal would not go anywhere.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the White House spokesman tell reporters that Obama is “very interested” in exploring the extraordinary tax change as well as all sorts of other executive actions. And as you watch, you might see that Josh Earnest’s facial expression seems to reveal a certain glee at the prospect of his boss continuing to act with what one might call unfettered, unilateral abandon.

h/t: Forbes

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

WATCH Megyn Kelly Confront Jewish Dem Lawmaker About Netanyahu And Nuclear War

Bibi Megyn Kelly

Some are calling it reminiscent of the history-changing speech Winston Churchill made on Capitol Hill before World War II.

However, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress this morning, more than 50 Democrat lawmakers will not be present, according to the latest report in The Hill.

“At least 55 Democrats — eight senators and 47 House members — are vowing to skip the speech, in which Netanyahu is expected to deliver a stinging rebuke of President Obama’s Iran strategy even as the administration is attempting to wrap up delicate talks with Iranian leaders over the future of their nuclear program.”

Many of those Democrats intending to boycott Netanyahu’s controversial speech say they are concerned about what they see as the disrespect that the prime minister and House Speaker John Boehner showed the president by not consulting with the White House before scheduling the address.

It will be interesting to see if the chair next to Boehner behind the speaker’s podium will be empty — the chair where the vice president traditionally sits during such an event. Joe Biden is out of the country.

On her Fox News show Monday night, Megyn Kelly had a contentious interview with Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, known to be a far-left firebrand on a number of issues.

Though he is himself a Jew who claims to “love Israel,” Cohen says he will join dozens of his fellow Democrats in boycotting Netanyahu’s appearance, claiming he doesn’t want to be “part of the spectacle.”

Kelly confronted Cohen about his reasoning, and before long the conversation turned to the prospects of nuclear war with Iran.

You can watch the segment from The Kelly File by clicking on the video above.

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

How Many More Wars Must The U.S. Government Start?

Photo credit: DVIDSHUB (Flickr)

Last week, President Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against ISIS “and associated persons and forces” anywhere in the world for the next three years. This is a blank check for the president to start as many new wars as he wishes, and it appears Congress will go along with this dangerous and costly scheme.

Already, the military budget for next year is equal to all but the very peak spending levels during the Vietnam war and the Reagan military build-up, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives. Does anyone want to guess how much will be added to military spending as a result of this new war authorization?

The US has already spent nearly two billion dollars fighting ISIS since this summer, and there hasn’t been much to show for it. A new worldwide war on ISIS will likely just serve as a recruiting tool for jihadists. We learned last week that our bombing has led to 20,000 new foreign fighters signing up to join ISIS. How many more will decide to join each time a new US bomb falls on a village or a wedding party?

The media makes a big deal about the so-called limitations on the president’s ability to use combat troops in this legislation; but in reality, there is nothing that would add specific limits. The prohibition on troops for “enduring” or “offensive” ground combat operations is vague enough to be meaningless. Who gets to determine what “enduring” means? And how difficult is it to claim that any ground operation is “defensive” by saying it is meant to “defend” the US? Even the three year limit is just propaganda: who believes a renewal would not be all but automatic if the president comes back to Congress with the US embroiled in numerous new wars?

If this new request is not bad enough, the president has announced that he would be sending 600 troops into Ukraine next month, supposedly to help train that country’s military. Just as the Europeans seem to have been able to negotiate a ceasefire between the opposing sides in that civil war, President Obama plans to pour gasoline on the fire by sending in the US military. The ceasefire agreement signed last week includes a demand that all foreign military forces leave Ukraine. I think that is a good idea and will go a long way to reduce the tensions. But why does Obama think that restriction does not apply to us?

Last week also saw the Senate confirm Ashton Carter as the new Secretary of Defense by an overwhelming majority. Carter comes to the Pentagon straight from the military industrial complex, and he has already announced his support for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. Sen. John McCain’s strong praise for Carter is not a good sign that the new secretary will advise caution before undertaking new US interventions.

As we continue to teeter on the verge of economic catastrophe, Washington’s interventionists in both parties show no signs of slowing. The additional tens of billions or more that these new wars will cost will not only further undermine our economy, but will actually make us less safe. Can anyone point to a single success that the interventionists have had over the last 25 years?

As I have said, this militarism will end one way or the other. Either enough Americans will wake up and demand an end to Washington’s foreign adventurism, or we will go broke and be unable to spend another fiat dollar on maintaining the global US empire.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

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

Boehner Calls Out Senate Democrats For Their Refusal To Act

Flickr/Talk Radio News Service

In a recent reaction to the House of Representative’s move to fund the Department of Homeland Security while halting Barack Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration, House Speaker John Boehner was quick to tout the effort. He also noted, however, that the House cannot pass the funding bill on its own.

“We won the fight to fund the DHS and stop the president’s unconstitutional actions,” he said. “Now it’s time for the Senate to do their work.”

Boehner specifically called out Senate Democrats who have repeatedly worked to prevent the legislation’s passage.

“In the gift shop out here,” he said, “they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Why don’t you go as the Senate Democrats when they’re going to get off their a—and do something other than vote no?”

The Senate’s top Democrat, Harry Reid, responded to Boehner’s accusation through a spokesperson, criticizing the use of profanity in his statement.

“We know Speaker Boehner is frustrated,” Adam Jentleson said, “but cursing is not going to resolve the squabbling among Republicans that led to this impasse.”

Though many Americans responded positively to Boehner’s direct admonition, others described the statement as the rhetorical flourishes of an ineffective speaker.

“A do-nothing obstructionist Republican telling someone else to ‘get off their a$s?’” one reader wrote in response to a Washington Times report. “That’s an absolute riot! Proving once again that rank hypocrisy is no deterrent to those lacking a moral compass.”

Some critics also shared the opinion that Boehner should not celebrate funding the DHS at all.

Twitter

Twitter

h/t: Washington Times

Do you think Boehner’s admonition was warranted? Sound off in the comments section below!

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