They would sell them the uranium used to blow their cities to pieces

I’ve already discussed PDT’s approach to dealing with Obama’s Iranian sellout and now’s the time to look at Germany’s: Germany: Merkel Gov, Media Slam Trump on Iran Nuke Deal. If it’s anyone who understands the meaning of Munich, they are the ones. And in this are they looking for some means to defuse a dangerous international situation in which nuclear weapons end up in the hands of madmen? Don’t be silly.

Not just former US President Obama, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, too, regards the nuclear deal with Iran as her greatest diplomatic accomplishment. The prominent German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung summed up the central role played by the Merkel government, writing, “Among all the parties working to bring about a negotiated deal, Germans enjoyed [Iranian regime’s] special trust.”

Corporate Germany loved the deal too. The Bavaria Chamber of Commerce, the leading trade body in the country, told its clients ahead of the deal that the “German media landscape across the board agrees that lucrative deals worth billions are waiting to be made in Iran. As soon as the sanction are lifted, the run on the markets begins.”

The hopes were well-founded. German exports to Iran soared, raking in billions of euros in revenue for the fat cats supporting major political parties.

Watching President Trump chip away that political legacy and threaten those corporate profits by decertifying the Iran Nuclear Deal in his Friday speech provoked angry reactions from the German government and corporate media.

We have reached a new level of short-term idiocy with this one – better even than being the last capitalist who sells the rope used to hang him.

Go on, what’s the plan to deal with Iran and North Korea?

I won’t say they won’t get him in the end, but he’s been everything I had hoped for, and for good measure he’s doing a damn site better than Malcolm and Theresa. Yet here we have a typical MSM bit of insanity: ‘The incredible shrinking President’: Republicans look forward to life without Trump. Here’s the key para:

“I’m not willing to say it would have been preferable to have had a President Hillary Clinton, but it would have been better for the GOP if any of the other 16 Republican primary candidates had won. The Republican party is completely at sea. With Trump, we can’t get anything done. There is no trust; no strategy. In terms of our foreign policy, America is at its lowest ebb. Allies can’t rely on us; no one knows where we stand. We’re in a dark cellar. It’s hard to think of a more dangerous moment.”

As if any of the other 16 could have won, never mind how wet and useless each and every one would have been. Well let us compare the above sentiment with this: Trump’s Iran Fury.

President Trump’s refusal to certify that Iran is complying with its nuclear deal came after he “threw a fit,” according to a source of the Washington Post. The president was, the Post reported, “incensed by the arguments of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and others that the landmark 2015 deal, while flawed, offered stability and other benefits.” That left Mr. Trump, the Post’s source said, “furious. Really furious.”

Well, why shouldn’t Mr. Trump have been furious? The Post seems to suggest that he is somehow unstable, a line that’s being hawked by the New York Times. By our lights he was right to blow his celebrated stack. He had run for president, after all, on a bright line promise to exit the Iran deal. The deal itself was entered into by President Obama and Secretary Kerry with the full knowledge that both houses of Congress were against it.

Not only that, they plunged ahead in the face of warnings by, in Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. Nor was it just Israel’s right-of-center government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was also the left-of-center opposition, the Zionist Union, which warned against the appeasement. Yet someone in the Obama administration — our own theory is that it was the president, though Secretary Kerry denied that — set down Israel’s leader as “chickenshit.”

Plus, too, Messrs. Obama and Kerry took the aforementioned articles of appeasement and brought them to New York City, where they asked the United Nations Security Council to approve the deal. They voted in the Security Council against what they knew to be the wishes of our own United States Congress. So where did Secretaries Tillerson and Mattis come off trying to maneuver Mr. Trump into certifying a deal he’d specifically opposed in his campaign?

And lest we forget, there is this:

NKorea calls Trump ‘strangler of peace’…
UPDATE: ‘Readies missile launch’ ahead of US-South naval drill….

Well, go on you big mouths – give me the plan to deal with Iran and North Korea. Make a suggestion, formulate a plan, sketch out the end point of a proper crafted policy program. It’s all these moronic Monday morning quarterbacks who will tell you how the Nazis should have been stopped in 1936 etc but have not a single idea about what to do about the problems we actually have right this minute, today, in this world, the one we are living in at the present moment in the actual here and now.

Trump gets HW out of the headlines (except for here)

TRUMP MOVES HARD TO UNDO OBAMA:
IRAN HEALTHCARE CHRISTMAS

All that at Drudge. BTW who’s that Obama chap? And then there’s this too:

GREAT AGAIN: CONSUMER SENTIMENT HITS 13-YEAR HIGH…
STOCKS SET NEW RECORDS…

Meanwhile, the Weinstein saga continues to flatten the moral high ground that these scum have been pretending to hold.

‘Despicable’ Harvey Weinstein blasted during Hollywood ‘Power of Women’ lunch…
30: All the accusers…
Company to Shut Down?
OLIVER STONE: Man Shouldn’t Be Condemned By Vigilante System…
BUSHNELL: SOME FOUND HIM SEXY…
FONDA: HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL!
Lisa Bloom Fought To Keep AMAZON Expose Hidden…

And eventually we will start looking again at what really happened Las Vegas, as in: Las Vegas police shift timeline again in concert massacre and Heros and Zeros: Vegas.

And for a bit more of the same on Vegas, Ann Coulter can entertain you with Las Vegas Massacre—The Story Is Coming Apart. That’s what makes the world so fantastic, everything is possible, even the impossible.

Trump opposes the deal with Iran

cruz-trump1-1024x536

Well, here’s some news: Trump Storms Washington to Stop Iran Nuke Deal.

Donald Trump is coming to Washington with a message for Congress and the American people: Stop the nuclear deal with Iran.

And he will be joined by a star-studded galaxy of conservative leaders.

Appearing with the leading Republican presidential contender will be fellow candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, political commentator Glenn Beck, radio talk-show host Mark Levin and many others in what promises to be a huge rally to try stop the Iran deal at the Capitol on Wednesday.

“This deal makes war a certainty,” Cruz has charged.

And, as he told WND, “If this deal is consummated, it will make the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism.”

And with the photo above, you might well be looking at the Repubican nominees for President and Vice President next November. As for Trump himself, the headline on the personal statement by Donald Trump reads: Donald Trump: Amateur hour with the Iran nuclear deal. It’s not long so you can read it all. This is how it starts:

It is hard to believe a president of the United States would actually put his name on an agreement with the terrorist state Iran that is so bad, so poorly constructed and so terribly negotiated that it increases uncertainty and reduces security for America and our allies, including Israel.

It was amateur hour for those charged with striking this deal with Iran, demonstrating to the world, yet again, the total incompetence of our president and politicians. It appears we wanted a deal at any cost rather than following the advice of Ronald Reagan and walking away because “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

The US now has a Leader of the Opposition, and what a difference it makes.

What forces has Obama let loose?

Found at Instapundit: Ruth Wisse in the Wall Street Journal on “Obama’s Racial Blind Spot”. She’s only, of course, being polite in calling it a blind spot.

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency represented to many Americans this country’s final triumph over racism. Reversing the record of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, his victory was hailed as a redemptive moment for America and potentially for humankind. How grotesque that the president should now douse that hope by fueling racism on a global scale.

Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. . . . Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias. . . .

Perhaps Mr. Obama is oblivious to what the scholar Robert Wistrich (who died in May) called “the longest hatred” because it has been so much a part of his world as he moved through life. Muslim Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10, trails only Pakistan and Iran in its hostility to Jews. An animus against Jews and Israel was a hallmark of the Rev.Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago that Mr. Obama attended for two decades. And before he ran for office, Mr. Obama carried the standard of the international left that invented the stigma of Zionism-as-imperialism. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama felt obliged to repudiate his pastor (who had famously cursed America from the pulpit), and muted his far-left credentials. Mr. Obama was voted into office by an electorate enamored of the idea that he would oppose all forms of racism. He has not met that expectation.

Some Jewish critics of Mr. Obama may be tempted to put his derelictions in a line of neglect by other presidents, but there is a difference. Thus one may argue that President Roosevelt should have bombed the approach routes to Auschwitz or allowed the Jewish-refugee ship St. Louis to dock in the U.S. during World War II, but those were at worst sins of omission. In sharpest contrast, President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is an act of commission. This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.

To which Elizabeth Price Foley has added:

Exactly. Why most American Jews are standing silently by, like sheeple, in the face of these facts is a utter mystery to me. Why did American Jews not demand, at a minimum, Iran’s repudiation of its genocidal aims against Israel? Admittedly, such a repudiation would not have changed the hearts and minds of the Iranians, but it would have at least forced the Administration to publicly recognize and discuss Iran’s genocidal intentions.

As it stands, however, the genocidal aims of Iran toward Israel have been swept under the rug, not even worthy of discussion, which is exactly what the Obama Administration wanted. The Administration’s failure to even discuss the inhumanity of Iran’s racist/ethnic hatred is both shameful and telling, particularly given that Obama is our first black president whose entire presidency has focused incessantly on issues of race and ethnicity. The Obama Administration’s indifference to Iran’s hatred of Jews will further fan the flames such hatred across the globe.

The only explanation I can fathom for American Jews’ acquiescence to the Iran deal is that most are liberals/progressives first, Jews second. How tragic that this attitude has emerged only one generation removed from the Holocaust.

And if you are looking for a bit more along these same lines, there is Sultan Knish discussing The Useless Jewish Organization. This is from somewhere near the end, but you should read it from the beginning.

If Obama’s nuclear deal is to be defeated, it won’t be done by the establishment insiders. The establishment is invested in its own credibility and its politics. It will make a show of fighting the Iran deal before fundraising off its miserable failure. And the money will go to fund its progressive causes.

The establishment will not stand up to Obama, just like it didn’t stand up to FDR. The real action will come from ad-hoc coalitions, like the one behind the Stop Iran Rally, that throw things together. And it will come from a handful of kids somewhat that do what the adults aren’t doing.

It’s not an answer for me that Israel could damage Iran if it started up. The aim of policy ought to have been never to give Iran even the opportunity, but perhaps that was too hard. It is certainly too hard now that they have stopped trying, for no discernible reason. We are all living on the edge of a volcano. When it will erupt, it seems to me, is now only a matter of time, not whether. On the other hand, in spite of its rhetoric, why should the Iranians risk having their country turned into a nuclear wasteland. Tragically, that kind of calculation is all that stands between Israel and a nuclear war.

The self-preservation of the West versus a nuclear Iran

From Sultan Knish, The Myth of Iran’s Peaceful Nuclear Program. But a myth is something that people at least half believe, if not actually a literal truth, then at least as a framework in which to understand what cannot otherwise be explained. We know what Obama is up to, and probably even why. The question is why so many others are going along. Everyone, including Obama and John Kerry, understands all of this completely:

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil. Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program.

The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Obama’s motives are clear enough and the dangers to every Western country, and not just Israel, are equally clear. The question is why nothing has been done by others to stop this process in its tracks. The instinct for self-preservation often seems to fall dead at the feet of ideology. But the will to power never falls dead. There are evil days ahead.

We will lie to the public any time, anywhere

The post-Obama era is going to be something quite different from the one he inherited, as dangerous as it already was. This is the article in full: Obama’s dishonesty on Iran.

Under the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, that nation’s theocratic regime receives relief from economic and arms sanctions in exchange for curtailment of its nuclear program. But there’s a catch — when inspectors seek to verify Iran’s compliance, the Iranians can delay the inspection of any site for at least 24 days.

But before the deal was struck, the Obama administration had promised much more — “anytime, anywhere” inspections, on demand. When asked about this on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry displayed symptoms of amnesia.

“This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating,” Kerry said. “It was not on the table. There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere.”

Barring a genuine brain malady, there is no gentle way of skirting around the fact that this is a lie. The White House specifically promised this in public. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser and spokesman, in making the case for the Iran deal in April, told CNN, “Under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.”

Beyond this, Kerry appears to have specifically discussed it as a negotiating point with senior lawmakers. After speaking with Kerry, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., mentioned “anytime, anywhere” in a speech this spring to Jewish groups uneasy about the deal. And Kerry seems to have told the same thing to the Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, according to their recollection.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s difficulty in telling the truth extends well beyond the issue of inspections. For example, consider the far more dangerous and controversial provision in the deal that lifts the existing sanctions against Iran’s acquisition of conventional arms and ballistic missiles. Kerry said in the same Sunday interview that the deal extended those sanctions by five and eight years, respectively. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the same thing explicitly — that the sanctions would have ended if not for the deal.

In fact, the U.N. sanctions needed no extension — they would have remained in place without further action until Iran stopped enrichment of uranium altogether. The deal that Kerry negotiated is what actually lifts the sanctions. And this concession is troubling by itself — after all, even if Iran can argue that its nuclear program has peaceful applications, it cannot say this of its ambition to develop its ballistic missile technology.

But it is even more troubling that Kerry and the Obama administration cannot just admit they traded this concession to get a deal. Instead, they are pretending that their dodgy concession is some kind of diplomatic victory for the United States.

In his weekly radio address, President Obama warned Americans, concerning the debate over the Iran deal, “you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead.” He was right. Only the dishonest arguments are coming from his own administration, which is desperately trying to defend dangerous concessions that will pave the way for a radical regime to finance terrorism and build a nuclear arsenal.

I just wish the Obama media would be more explicit about what the world has achieved with this deal. What do they see as the great positives for the future in a nuclear Iran? Lying in politics is not news. What ought to be news isn’t just the lying, but how dangerous for the future of world peace this deal is.