Obama is No Fool

On some level, it is not surprising that Barack Obama, son of an anti-American, anti-Western Muslim, and John Kerry, grandson of an apostate Jew, would empower the radical Islamic State of Iran with a nuclear weapons agreement that weakens the United States and the free world and endangers the very existence of the State of Israel. It was equally obvious that an agreement empowering Iran and guaranteeing its production of nuclear weapons and continued propagation of terror would be signed eventually. The only uncertainty was when, precisely, Iran would determine that it had extracted enough concessions from its interlocutors so as to declare victory.

Obama is no fool, although he does take his audience and his supporters for fools. It is hard to determine whether he believes his own rhetoric. Few – especially Iran – believe that the agreement will “prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” as Obama opined. Even fewer should believe that “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.” Only the willfully delusional will argue that Obama’s folly has “stopped the spread of nuclear weapons” in the Middle East. (On the contrary, it will jumpstart Saudi Arabia’s drive for a nuclear capability and perhaps even Kuwait’s and the Emirates – as none of those countries will wish to rely, and sensibly so, on America’s promises.)

Perhaps, most egregiously, is this whopper: “the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.” These deceptive words mask the sad reality that the agreement actually requires 24 day notice before any inspection takes place, and even then Iran has the right to refuse the inspection and refer disputes to a committee for endless discussion of the matter. Imagine, for a moment, if the police had to obtain a search warrant from a judge and then had to give 24 days’ notice to the suspects! That is ludicrous when applied to the search for contraband like illegal guns or narcotics; it is positively obscene when proposed for the search for nuclear weapons.

Add to that the sanctions relief – sanctions that will never be snapped back – and that will furnish Iran with billions of dollars and bolster the Iranian terror regime that will foment worldwide terror and murder an untold number of Jews, Americans, Westerners, Christians, non-Muslims – and many Muslims as well; the arms embargo that will be lifted sooner rather than later; and the absurd reality that Iran has violated each agreement it has signed in the past and effectively employs the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya that permits it to lie and dissemble in order to spread the jihad against all infidels – and this agreement is an epic catastrophe in the making.
So how did it happen? If Obama is not a fool, what is he? Venal? Not necessarily. Only dupes will believe that the United States negotiated from a “position of strength.” Hah – only Iran ever walked away from the negotiations, and several times, and Iran easily played an American negotiating team desperate for a deal at any price. Following the pattern of Obama’s dealings with Syria, all of his red lines vanished during the negotiations with Iran (and Syria is widely believed to still possess chemical weapons, despite its assurances). So what is it?

Oddly, Obama has never been coy about his real goals. His supporters, though, especially Jewish liberals but others as well, have intentionally blinded themselves to those goals and satisfied themselves with empty rhetoric, toothy smiles, and invitations to lame Chanuka parties and Pesach seders (some even held not on Chanuka or Pesach).

It is this: in 2008, Obama was criticized when he commented that President Reagan was a “transformational President,” violating the liberal code to which he otherwise adheres that one should never praise a Republican for anything. His critics were mistaken; Obama wasn’t praising Reagan, he was just making an observation. Reagan was a transformational President in ways that Obama disapproved but Obama saw himself in that same mode – as a president who would fundamentally transform the United States.

At the risk of subjecting myself to the same criticism, I will state the obvious: Obama has succeeded in that objective and has become a transformational President, but in so doing has grievously harmed the United States internally and externally. He has transformed the domestic scene by creating entire new classes of dependents, expanding enormously the welfare state, forcing millions (and in coming years, millions more) on to government funded health care, and subsidizing a considerable underclass of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Globally, Obama has transformed America into an unreliable ally, an adversary to longstanding friends and a follower in a world without a powerful leader. The international field has been left open for bad actors to exploit – and they have, gleefully. His projection of American power is minimalistic and antiseptic, designed to inflict enough damage to quiet those Americans who believe in the goodness and morality of the USA and are therefore supporters of a robust use of force but never enough power to actually win a war, accomplish any strategic goal or intimidate America’s traditional enemies.

Worse, while America’s friends – Israel, Britain, France and others have been disrespected and trampled upon, and America’s allies – like Saudi Arabia – disregarded and slighted, America’s enemies for generations – Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and others – have been revived, resuscitated and emboldened. Obama must believe that those countries were antagonistic to the US because of some personal pique on the part of all his predecessors, the much despised Yankee imperialism, or some other American failing. Apparently, it has not dawned on Obama that those countries were enemies of the United States because of their corrupt ideologies, depraved and repressive regimes, and the absence of any shared values or interests. All his predecessors were therefore wrong, misguided and short-sighted; hence, the unctuous absurdity that he uttered: that the Iran pact “has achieved something that decades of animosity has not,” as if the “animosity” was just imprudent and the quest to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons repugnant and jingoistic.

It is clear that the status quo was working, that sanctions were taking a toll, and that Iran was suffering. It was also clear that Obama always opposed the sanctions (he resigned himself to claiming credit for them only when Congress passed the legislation overwhelmingly) and that military action by the US against Iran was never  seriously contemplated by Obama. Indeed, a variety of Israelis have noted that Obama has been more worried about an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program than about Iran’s nuclear program. Thus did Obama forfeit all American leverage, if he ever intended to use it.

It is crunch time for American Jews, especially liberal Democrats in Congress and their Jewish supporters. The Iran deal must be stopped, and all means of pressure from Jewish organizations, donors, individuals must be brought to bear. I don’t want to hear how Charles Schumer is Israel’s “guardian” if he votes to give a nuclear bomb to Iran, nor am I interested in Torah musings from Cory Booker. Kirsten Gillibrand must be told that this will make or break her relationship with her Jewish constituents. G-d bless NJ’s Bob Menendez who has endured great hardship and been persecuted by the Obama administration in an effort to silence him – and has remained steadfast in his opposition to this sellout. AIPAC must use all its influence and not worry about future access; future access will not matter once Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, and perhaps not even if they are given billions of dollars to foment more terror.

We should also crack down on politicians who claim to have “Israel’s back.” People are stabbed in the back by those who betray them, and everyone walks in back of a coffin. Forget the back, the clichés and the empty promises. I pray that liberal Jews will not seek face-saving measures to avoid confronting the harsh reality that is before us – the betrayal of Israel through the reversal of three decades of US policy.

But none of this is only about Israel. It has been US policy for decades to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by rogue states; for the first time, under Obama’s failed leadership, the United States is birthing and subsidizing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a rogue regime, and the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. It is time to ask the question: are Jews committed more to the Democratic Party or to their identity as Jews? It should be an easy question to answer – but I recognize that for so many, it is not.

Much has been made of the failure of the US negotiators to secure the release of four American citizens currently being held prisoner in Iran on trumped-up charges. Frankly, I’ll be surprised if they are not released within a few months – and not surprised at all if they will be used as a bargaining chip by Iran, with or without administration connivance. As in: Iran declaring next month that the four will be freed if Congress approves the agreement, thereby cynically placing the onus of their continued captivity on Congress rather than on Iran. It is an unsubtle form of blackmail.

It sounds trite to argue, as many have, that Obama is doing this for his “legacy.” Jimmy Carter also had a legacy, as did Neville Chamberlain. Indeed, we should recall now Churchill’s stirring rebuke to Chamberlain when he returned with “Herr Hitler’s” signature on that infamous piece of paper: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” Recall as well Chamberlain’s pathetic excuse uttered on his deathbed: “Everything would have been all right if Hitler hadn’t lied to me.”

More than seventy-five years later, the naïve Chamberlain again walks among us. The Churchill’s of our age are being marginalized and lambasted, just like the original was. We are left with the inevitable results of a failed presidency that has remade America in a way that threatens the American dream and the stability of the world. Obama’s peculiar blend of arrogance, messianism, naiveté, and disdain for traditional American leadership has brought Iran to its feet and America to its knees.

It was all, so sadly, predictable. Can it be reversed and stopped in time? Once again, the Jewish people are alone, with the world community acquiescing in arming our most bitter enemies with genocidal weapons. If that does not serve to concentrate our minds during these Three Weeks as we commemorate the destruction of the Bet HaMikdash and other calamities in Jewish history, and doesn’t induce us to examine our behavior and repent, then what will? If we do not realize now that we are living in historic times and on the verge of great transformations, then when will we?

P.S. For a sobering view of the hubris and foibles of politicians and their grand pronouncements, see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

The common denominator? Wendy Sherman, lead US negotiator with Iran, also led the negotiations with North Korea.

Advertisements

43 responses to “Obama is No Fool

  1. “The agreement actually requires 24 day notice before any inspection takes place, and even then Iran has the right to refuse the inspection and refer disputes to a committee for endless discussion of the matter.”

    That’s not quite right. Under the terms of the agreement, inspectors have complete, unfettered, and anytime ability to inspect all known nuclear related sites. That should be good enough to ensure that Iran’s entire existing nuclear program won’t come to fruition. They also get access to certain sites that they currently suspect of nuclear activity. In the third category, however, are conventional military sites that Iran could one day convert into nuclear facilities. Those are sites that will require notice.

    I would suggest you change the words “any inspection” to “some inspections” to make your sentence more accurate.

    • What you write is simply not so. The U.S. withdrew its insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections.
      – RSP

      • I beg to differ. Here’s the section of the deal that talks about 24 day notices. Let’s read it together.

        “If the absence of UNDECLARED nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of UNDECLARED nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.” (uppercase emphasis mine)

        It’s obvious that this 14+7+3 day delay only refers to the suspicion of undeclared nuclear materials. The Obama administration pressed for anytime, anywhere monitoring of declared nuclear materials and they got it!!! They call it “continuous monitoring.” Do a word search through the text and you’ll see that the known nuclear reactors are under continuous monitoring by the IAEA.

        Here’s a hard-hitting article at National Review that talks about the issue, but actually get’s the details right.
        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421166/iran-nuclear-deal-resist-inspection

        “According to the president, ‘this deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.’ That means access to the facilities Iran has officially declared, a point Obama did not clarify. There is no 24/7 access for undeclared sites, nor anything close to it.”

        David Adesnik at National Review got that correct. We have 24/7 access to declared facilities. We have managed access to undeclared facilities. Please edit your blog post to reflect this reality.

        RSP – again, not true. There is no access to – for example – military locations or any locations to which Iran objects. Ben Rhodes conceded today that there is no guarantee of “anytime, anywhere” inspections, and then tried to claim that such was never an issue.
        And, ask yourself, what would even be the benefit of free inspections at known facilities and only scheduled ones at undeclared? New facilities keep popping up in Iran, which boasts that that will control access to all their facilities.
        We should probably believe them.

    • As reported on CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/), among other places:
      “That means a total of 24 days could elapse between the time inspectors first request access to a suspicious site and the time they are allowed entry.”

      • Here is the key passage from this CBS article:

        “Inspectors will have continuous monitoring capabilities at known nuclear facilities like Fordow fuel enrichment plant and the Natanz enrichment facility. For other areas in the country, including military sites where there is suspected nuclear activity, IAEA inspectors will have to request access.”

        See how the author clearly distinguishes between known nuclear facilities of which we have continuous monitoring capabilities and other sites where we merely suspect nuclear activity. That is the critical distinction that virtually every source on this subject confirms. I can’t find a single reputable source that doesn’t draw that distinction…

        Except for one. Rabbi Pruzansky’s blog.

        Reading the Rabbi’s post above, you are led to believe that we will need to wait 24 days every time we want to inspect Fordow or the Natanz facility. That’s simply wrong and I’m grateful that you just referred us to an article that demonstrates it.

        Which leads me to a simple question for Rabbi Pruzansky. Why not just correct the record? Are you afraid that somebody is going to mistake you for a hippy supporter of nuclear disarmament? Just add a qualifier to your sentence to draw the appropriate distinction. It won’t hurt.

        RSP – again, you are incorrect, to the point of willful blindness. There is no unfettered access to Bushehr, none to Parchin, none to any other military sites. In other words, Iran has granted unlimited access to sites to which it has determined it need not worry about discovery of its capabilities. That is the point. Wherever it matters, there is no free inspections. And even in the areas where Iran commits to allow inspections, it can summarily refuse and thereby delay the inspections, as the matter is referred to a committee to resolve it. That is, among other things, exactly what North Korea did. What don’t you understand about this?
        You remind me of the story of the man from Chelm who went looking for his lost wallet one night on Main Street. Asked by his friend, “why are you looking on Main Street? I thought you lost it on Park Street.” The first answered: “Yes, but the light is better on Main Street.”
        For years, US and world policy was that Iran had to dismantle its weapons program. Sanctions would be lifted only in exchange for dismantlement. That policy has been overturned by Obama! And you are content that Iran will allow (if it does) inspections to places to which it agrees but not to places to which it doesn’t agree.
        And Obama himself at first insisted that Fordow be closed. He caved on that as well.
        With that logic, I understand why Obama won two elections.
        RSP

  2. Let’s say Congress votes against the deal, Obama decides not to use his veto power, and US (and maybe EU) sanctions remain in place. What’s to stop India, Russia and China from ignoring the sanctions and resuming (continuing?) trade with Iran? What’s to stop Iran from developing weapons then?

  3. What’s to stop them now? There are already violations of sanctions. But the U.S. can close its banking system to violators, which remains a huge disincentive to do business with Iran. Currently, that’s what inhibits even more blatant violations.
    And each of those countries has reasons not to go solo with Iran? Do you think Russia really wants a nuclear Iran on its border? Russia only wants the U.S. out of the Middle East to give it a freer hand. That too is working.
    – RSP

  4. Reha & Al Sokolow

    Well said. Direct and to the point.

  5. Rabbi, Knowing what is in this “treaty”, and its ramifications for Israeli Jews, do you think American Jews would have voted differently in 2008 and 2012 if they knew then, what they know now? And more importantly, will they vote for Hillary in 2016, since so many blindly vote Democratic regardless of the consequences? And make no mistake, the consequences will be dire for Israel.

    F. Smith

  6. I suspect that USA President Barack Hussein Obama wants Israel wiped-off-the-map.

    BUT, he also wants to maintain plausible deniability, so the American Democratic Party can continue to extract large donations from Liberal American Jews, even after Israel is wiped-off-the-map [G_d forbid].

    Therefore, he helps Israel’s enemies every way he can, in ways too numerous to list here. That way, he works towards the Final Solution to the Israeli problem, while maintaining plausible deniability for the benefit of future Democratic Party fundraising.

  7. A friend just emailed me yet another article from Reuters that talks about the 24 day issue and, just like Chaim’s article above, it makes the appropriate distinction between declared and undeclared facilities.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites-analysis-idUSKCN0PP2TG20150715

    “In hailing the agreement on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said it meant that “inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities.” Obama, who on Wednesday said the deal represented the “most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated,” was referring only to Iran’s declared nuclear sites. Sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including any that may be within Iran’s many military complexes, fall under the SEPARATE PROCEDURE with its 24-day time limit.” (capital emphasis mine)

    By my count, that’s three articles that all corroborate that what you wrote isn’t entirely accurate. If you want to argue that the inspections in the deal aren’t good enough and that there shouldn’t be a 24 day limit on any site, then that’s a-ok by me. But that’s not the place you started from.

  8. And do you trust the Times of Israel?

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/steinitz-iran-deal-wouldve-been-better-without-inspections-regime/

    “Israel is generally satisfied with the surveillance to be put in place at Iran’s main uranium enrichment facilities, Fordo and Natanz. However, Steinitz, a member of Israel’s security cabinet, said the complicated mechanism created by the agreement to regulate the inspection of HITHERO UNDISCLOSED MILITARY SITES gives Iran about a month to hide any wrongdoing.” (capital emphasis mine)

    That’s 4 articles that all make the distinction that you could add to your blog post at any moment. What’s stopping you?

  9. See above. But it’s not only me:
    Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer charged Tuesday on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” that the United States “gave in” to Iran, as he criticized President Obama’s deal with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program. “We gave in on the idea of them having to dismantle their enrichment,” Krauthammer told viewers.
    “But even worse is the final capitulation, which was a giving in to a lifting of the embargo on ballistic missiles and conventional arms.
    I think even skeptics of the deal have been shocked by the degree of the capitulation,” Krauthammer said.
    He also took aim at the IAEA inspection policy calling it a “farce,” because if there is a report of a violation it could take up to 24 days before an inspection could happen.

    And reads William Tobey’s Op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, entitled “The Iranian Nuclear Inspection Charade.” Same point – even Obama abandoned “anytime, anywhere” for “where necessary, when necessary.” But you are entitled to your opinion and your advocacy. Obama is counting on it – and so is Iran.

    Chelm.
    – RSP

    • I’ve said my piece, but I didn’t see this op-ed until just now. Here’s a quote from the William Tobey article you want me to read:

      “Under the deal’s terms, when the IAEA demands access to a SUSPECT site, Iran will have 14 days to fulfill the request or propose other means to satisfy it. If the matter remains unresolved, a joint commission with representatives from each of the eight parties to the agreement would have a further week to act, and Iran would then be given three days to comply. Thus, 24 days might elapse between a request for access by the IAEA and a requirement upon Iran to provide it—ample time for Iran to hide or destroy evidence.” (capital emphasis mine)

      That’s now 5 sources, including the one you are citing, that explain how the 24 day rule applies to suspect sites only, as opposed to declared facilities.

  10. “ IRAN HAS GRANTED UNLIMITED ACCESS to sites to which it has determined it need not worry about discovery of its capabilities. That is the point. Wherever it matters, there is no free inspections.” (capital emphasis mine)

    Finally! Although you are being awfully coy about it, it seems you are finally giving in and admitting that there are some sites that we have unlimited access. I suppose in order to save face, you are burying this concession under a mountain of derision.

    So allow me to paraphrase your new and improved argument… “Oh sure, we do get unlimited access to some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Who ever said otherwise? Certainly not I.) But that’s a meaningless victory because those are all sites that Iran has determined it need not worry about. We don’t get unlimited access to the sites that really matter.”

    And so here is my response to that argument… “Ok, that sounds reasonable. I have many of the same concerns.”

    Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? Next time, just concede your error on the first go around and we won’t have to run through this kabuki theatre.

    • You gotta take a deep breath, Alan.

    • Once again, Alan, Iran itself has committed to what IT calls “managed access” to declared facilities, not unfettered anytime anywhere access. To undeclared facilities (meaning secret, unknown ones), if they are discovered, Iran commits to the 24 day period. And this even assumes they will adhere to either commitment. They haven’t allowed the unrestricted access that a variety of UN resolutions has imposed on them.
      Hey, listen to Iran. They’re the ones in control. They’re the ones with the upper hand. They’re the ones who will be developing the nuclear capability. And they will interpret these agreements exactly as did North Korea because if the agreement goes into effect, nothing will stop them short of military action and soon.
      I can’t tell if you’re nitpicking or sincerely believe that allowing the world’s most aggressive regime the right to build nuclear weapons in the future is a good idea, on the theory that becoming more powerful will refine and moderate their behavior. Perhaps address that, if you wish.
      -RSP

      • Myself: With all due respect, what is going on here?

        Alan: Rabbi Pruzansky and I are arguing about whether or not there is a 24 day inspection rule in the Iran deal that applies to declared facilities.

        Myself: Are you sure? That doesn’t sound like what Rabbi Pruzansky is arguing.

        Alan: To be honest, I’m not always sure what he’s arguing about. Let’s start from the beginning. Iran has spent many years building a nuclear infrastructure in facilities like Arak and Fordow and Natanz. Those aren’t secret facilities. They are declared facilities, so much so that they are a point of national pride for Iran. Within those facilities, they have uranium storage and centrifuges, etc. A core objective of the deal from our perspective was to get Iran to dismantle as much of that infrastructure as possible. In the end, they are dismantling most, but not all (!!!) of their centrifuges and similar technology.

        Myself: Let’s suppose that Iran does the reductions agreed upon in the deal. Since they retain some of that infrastructure, should I stay up at night worrying about them just cranking everything back up again under the cover of night?

        Alan: This is where the inspections come into play. In Arak, we can conduct total, complete, absolute, 24/7 inspections. Anytime and anywhere. Same for Fordow and Natanz. Our inspectors can practically live in those facilities.

        Myself: Ok, that sounds like a big deal. But what if Iran decides to start up some centrifuges in a new facility somewhere? What if they try to convert a conventional military facility into a nuclear facility?

        Alan: Now you should get worried. We don’t get “anytime, anywhere” inspections of undeclared facilities. We can register a complaint and then it goes through some legal hoops and Iran can delay up to 24 days.

        Myself: Got it. So the deal grants us awesome ability to control Iran’s declared facilities and gives us poor ability to control their undeclared facilities. There’s some good and bad in the deal.

        Alan: That’s correct. If you read sources on this subject, you’ll find that when they talk about the 24 day rule, they always make sure to not confuse the reader by clearly applying the rule to undeclared (or suspected) facilities. That includes all of the sources that Rabbi Pruzansky has been posting himself and it includes Charles Krauthammer this morning in the Washington Post.

        Myself: So what’s this argument with Rabbi Pruzansky about?

        Alan: He didn’t do that in his blog post. He wrote that we will need 24 days to inspect “any” facility in Iran. The problem is that somebody is going to worry about whether or not we can control the centrifuges in Fordow and then they’ll read his blog post and think, “Oh no. We need 24 days to inspect Fordow.” That’s misinformation and it would be very easy to correct by slipping one word into the sentence (just like his own sources do!).

        Myself: When I look at everything he’s written in this back-and-forth argument, he keeps bringing up undeclared facilities and saying things like, “Ha, I proved you wrong because we don’t get 24/7 access to Parchin or Bushehr.” He seems to not realize that those undeclared sites being subject to managed access is totally consistent with what you’re saying.

        Alan: Yeah, I notice that too. It’s really weird.

        Myself: And then he keeps assigning beliefs to you. He says things like you must believe “that allowing the world’s most aggressive regime the right to build nuclear weapons in the future is a good idea, on the theory that becoming more powerful will refine and moderate their behavior.” And he wants you to respond to that. You’ve never written anything even remotely similar to that. What’s that about?

        Alan: Beats me. The only thing I want him to do is follow the lead of his own sources and slip the word “undeclared” into his original sentence. If it makes him feel better, he could always do it in the middle of night when the inspectors aren’t looking.

        Myself: (chuckle)

        RSP- from David Weinberg
        Fifth is the complete collapse of the Americans in insisting on a truly verifiable deal. Anywhere-anytime access was the minimum prerequisite for a verifiable deal. Obama has abandoned this. The P5+1 agreement with the Ayatollahs allows Iran to keep its nuclear facilities without truly intrusive international supervision of what goes on deep inside them.

        Prime Minister Netanyahu put it this way: “Iran can easily cheat on the deal because inspections are not instantaneous, anywhere, anytime. In fact, you don’t have inspections within 24 hours; you have 24 days before you can inspect any site that you find suspicious in Iran. Twenty-four days. Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you check the premises? That’s a lot of time to flush a lot of meth down the toilet.”

  11. The Mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochee-ach is not to be taken lightly. I urge, no, I plead with all Torah Jews who vote Democrat to re-examine how this Party has set our once great nation on a path to all that is anti-Torah, even if some of it is inadvertent.

    The fallout damage to Israel, resulting in a real threat to the safety of our fellow Jews who live there is also considerable. Fellow Jews, please reconsider your support of the Democrat Party. Especially now. Well meaning as you make think their policies are, they are poison for our Torah values and ideals.

    One more thing: it is not coincidence that the vindictive President of this country made this deal with Iran a higher priority subsequent to Netanyahu addressing Congress and warning of its probable consequences. Yes, that just gave Obama more motivation to stick it to Bibi.

    • Before you demonize the president, Mr. Hes, doesn’t the Torah require us to redistribute some of our wealth to the poor? Maaser ani? Leket? Shikchah? Peah? Or is that just a liberal understanding of halacha?

      I also do not think that Obama had “vindictive” motivations with regard to talking with Iran following Netanyahu’s visit; the talks were already in the works. Seems like you’re being a bit motzi shem ra, not exactly a Torah value. (Pardon my choshed b’ksheirim if I’m wrong). And many feel that Bibi’s actions and words were not the most respectful.

      Obama also believes that given that practically every U.S. military venture has failed since WWII (shooting of Iran Air 655 was no winner either), there needs to be another way to move forward. Given Russia’s and China’s values, the status quo of sanctions was not going to hold for much longer. Thus, the agreement is probably the best way forward.

      Call me Pollyanna, but I’d rather see different parties in this world take steps towards peace (shalom, as I like to call it) rather than towards conflict and war. I’m not a big fan of promoting hate and divisiveness (though of course I do support hating sin). As such, given that no one knows for certain what the best route to take is, I’m okay with Obama’s decision and with the knowledge that Avinu Shebashamayim will take care of things.

      Finally, I believe that Obama’s presidency has encouraged a lot more people to pray 😉

      • Dear Aryeh,

        {1} In one infamous meeting, USA President Barack Hussein Obama was photographed pointing the bottoms of his feet directly towards Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the Middle East, the is the biggest insult possible. Soon after that meeting ended, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became the first-and-only head-of-state to be humiliated by being forced to exit the White House through a servant’s door, instead of the usual procedure of leaving through the front door.

        Several months later, President Obama was photographed literally bowing down the King of Saudi Arabia.

        {2} Still in President Obama’s first term in office, President Obama ordered NASA to give Muslim countries highly advanced NASA technology, FOR FREE! Soon after, the IRS started a new policy of targeting pro-Israel non-profit-organizations for audits.

        Pro-Israel politicians were also targeted by the IRS. Notice that non-Muslim countries NEVER received FREE gifts of NASA technology, only Muslims qualify for that benefit. And anti-Israel non-profit-organizations were never targeted with audits by the IRS, only pro-Israel people qualified for that persecution.

        {3} For 8 ½ years, Israel practiced unprecedented restraint by not striking back as terrorists from Gaza pounded Israel with more than 8,000 rockets and missiles. When Israel finally struck back at the terrorists, President Obama immediately punished Israel for defending itself by cutting-off all weapons shipments to Israel and ruining the Israeli tourist industry by officially declaring Israel to be an unsafe place to visit, even though far-less-safe locations were not declared unsafe-to-visit by President Obama’s administration.

        {4} The government of Iran has publicly and repeatedly and consistently declared its intention of wiping ALL (100%) of Israel off-the-map, to be followed by killing ALL (100%) JEWS all over the world, even those Jews who live in Australia and never visited Israel. President Obama responded by lifting all anti-Iran sanctions, and guaranteeing that Iran will have nuclear weapons in less than 15 years.

        Sincerely,
        Mr. Cohen

      • Aryeh, taking your points one by one –
        1) The Torah does require us to give tzedaka & other resources to the poor. Most decent people already know it should be done but when you have that power vested in government, it takes away incentive from both the successful and those who should try to fend for themselves and not rely on government handouts. It is unfortunate, but the private sector is always more efficient than government in getting things accomplished. Were government more efficient, I would agree with you. Mandated government redistribution of wealth puts too much power in the hands of the few. Creating opportunities for wealth is better for all and the Democrat Party resents that because it limits government’s power and therefore it prevents them from buying your vote.
        2) Obama obviously hates American exceptionalism and sees the US as just another country to follow the directives of the unsuccessful 3rd world/European majority. He is so consumed by his own ego, that he thinks his very magnetism can convert those who shout Death to America into our friends. The truth is every opening you give an enemy, he will just use it to try to further his goal of destroying you. This is what Obama is doing because he is obsessed with the idea that we can all get along if we just give and give some more. History has shown the opposite to be true.
        3) Yes, ultimately Hakol Bidei Shamayim, but G-d helps those who help themselves. I don’t think the Ribono Shel Olam is happy with Obama allowing Iran to build their nuclear machine with virtually no over site. If you can be doche Shabbos for Pikachu Nefesh for 1 person, G-d cannot be pleased with the prospect of mass destruction of the Jewish homeland becoming more real, Chas VeShalom, by making it easier for Sonei Israel to do their thing.

      • Anna Nommin

        Oh, brother. You think you are fulfilling Biblical commandments, living in the USA, by supporting the liberal policies of tax-and-spend, redistribute wealth? By even making this ludicrous argument, you are demonstrating you need to “get thee to a nunnary” and learn something about the mitzvos you are quoting.

  12. OK, I think Alan and RSP are talking past each other. Alan doesnt appreciate the fact that the sites that you need the ability to do surprise checks on ARE the undeclared ones. If the Iranians are planning something nefarious, they will obviously choose a site where they have the ability to delay inspections on. And if you don’t have the ability to make a surprise inspection, functionally, its simply not an inspection.

  13. ” Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA. In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfilment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran’s other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations.”

    Requests for access??
    Certainly doesn’t sound like “anytime, anywhere.”

    • Are you resting your case on the fact that the agreement says “request for access” instead of… what? Kick the doors down? Smash the windows with a hammer? Yes, when inspectors show up (even unannounced) at a site, they request access. And if the terms of the deal are strong enough, they are allowed in. That’s how reality works. You should also note that the paragraph before this one refers to “daily access”. That sure ain’t a 24 day rule.

      Look, if this is your argument then you have really exhausted every avenue. I can’t do this forever. I’m sorry. I just can’t. I comment on a lot of blogs, but I have never run into this level of obfuscation. Most other bloggers just correct themselves when cornered. It’s like you’d rather die fighting a single battle than find a way to win the war. I’m not responding to any other comments on this subject.

  14. Iran has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is capable of developing nukes and the means to deliver them, even with sanctions in place. If their intent is to actually nuke Israel, then sanctions are IRRELEVANT! Nuking Israel is likely to result in a massive retaliatory response or even WW3,

    They want to end sanctions because the sanctions hurt. They actually hurt the 70+ million Iranians far, far more than the government.

    This alarmist tripe as bad as Netanyahu’s now-famous statement about Saddam Hussein and Iraq:

    “If you take out Saddam’s Regime, I guarantee you, that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

    • Good Point.

    • You simplify a most complicated area. Obviously, Iran cannot develop nukes as easily as you make it seem. And Iran is an apocalyptic actor, not a rational enemy like the old Soviet Union was. Proof: there never was a Soviet suicide bomber. Iran is a nation that is a suicide bomb.
      But, more importantly, imagine this scenario. Hezbollah launches 100 rockets against Israel, for sport. A nuclear Iran announces that if Israel retaliates, they will launch a nuclear weapon. Against Israel. Or Europe. Or the United States. Or, Iran furtively launches an EMP strikes against Israel.
      Good luck with that. Maybe it’s better that you don’t think about it. Fortunately for you, your Prime Minister is.
      – RSP

  15. I would like to add for the record that I live in Israel and have for over 20 years. I’m not worried about Iran. This kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth, practically across the Jewish spectrum is far more dangerous than speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

  16. Genealogical research confirms that Malcolm X was Obama’s biological father, and that Stanley Ann Dunham is a composite of three different people. Not a real person and not his biological mother. The real mother is a Valerie Sarruf, daughter of Fouad Sarruf.

    The people here who know the true story about Obama are Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, and Ali Albumah {head of the the Electronic Intifada}. You probably could add Hillary Clinton to the list, given her own ties to the Brotherhood via Huma Abedin.

    Link to video:

    Uploaded on Aug 7, 2011

    QUOTE
    Meet The Parents….of alias Barack Obama: a Black Orthodox Sunni Muslim father and a White Lebanese Christian mother.

    One, a famous Civil Rights Activist and former Leader of the Nation of Islam who left the NOI to start his own, true Muslim Organization known as the Muslim Mosque, Inc. and a Pan-African group called the Organization of Afro-American Unity in the furtherance of African Nationalism and for the betterment of African-Americans whom he planned to have convert to Islam.

    Malcolm X changed his name to El Hajj Malik el-Shabazz and became a member of the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood while attending the American University of Beirut and Al-Ahzar University to study the mystical (and more fundamental) aspects of Sunni Islam including the sects of Salafism and Wahabbism.

    Malcolm/Malik was a close, personal friend of King Faisal but who was more like a son to the Ruler of Saudi Arabia. Malcolm first met Faisal in 1959 when he was still a Prince and heir to the throne of King Saud.

    Varelie Sarruf – best known for her role in the film, “Firelight” and also her one-time role in the British TV spy series, “The Avengers” that became a major hit in America thanks to its quirky male lead, Patrick MacNee, as the bowler-hatted John Steed, and his beautiful, long-haired brunette assistant, Diana Rigg, as Emma Peel – forever etched in the memories of males everywhere for the slinky, skin-tight black leotard she always wore and which became her trademark.

    Long before Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton became the first in a series of strong female actresses, Diana Rigg was the original, beautiful, ass-kicking heroine who became the prototype for every actress who ever played the role of a sexy, secret agent who could beat the crap out of any man she wanted.

    Quite different from the roles that Valerie played. Val was the only child of an even more famous father by the name of Fouad Sarruf.* Valerie went onto becoming a well-known actress of stage, screen, TV, and radio as a mainstay of the BBC network.

    Valerie’s relative, Alexander Sarruf, became the famous, dashing Egyptian actor known as Alexander D’Arcy.

    The relationship between Malcolm and Valerie and the “love child” they produced was kept a secret from everyone who knew them – except for King Faisal who arranged for Malcolm’s only son and heir to be educated in the ways of Islam and to carry on Malcolm’s work after his father was assassinated in Harlem on February 1965.- a legacy that included Malcolm’s deepest desire to see America become an Islamic nation beginning with the 22 million African-Americans he sought to organize.

    A surrogate family to provide for his son’s care was also arranged by Faisal and friends.

    Malcolm’s last words to King Faisal and to the members of his Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Sunni cleric who helped him convert to Orthodox Islam, was

    “What I have put into motion can never be stopped.”

    What he meant by that statement has never been interpreted for public consumption. Certainly not for White Christian Americans to know. But he did say it, nonetheless. The support for it can be found on the Internet as long as it stays open and free.

    The evidence corroborating these events came from sources in Egypt that are no longer accessible following the upheaval that took place during the Arab Spring and the ouster of Mubarak and the (rigged) election of the Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Morsi, as the new Egyptian President who promised the people democratic reforms, but the day after his election, he tore up the new constitution and instituted Sharia Law. Millions of Egyptian citizens rose up against him and deposed Morsi with the help of the military (who always had a role in ruling Egypt).

    The new President and Supreme Leader of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, was, himself, a noted military leader who graduated from the Egyptian Military Academy.and the US Army War College.

    Unlike Obama, he knows who and what ISIS is and the threat they now pose to his country. After Morsi’s ouster, Sisi declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization and outlawed them, just as Mubarak and Abdul Nasser had done before him.

    If you want to find out who Obama really is and who he represents, I have no doubt that Sisi would tell you if he could. But since Egypt depends on military aid from America, he is not going to get on Obama’s bad side – even though Obama has called for his removal and the reinstatement of Morsi.

    He may be saving it as his ace in the hole. Meanwhile, I think that most of us know for who and for what Obama stands. The “political winds” right now could not be any uglier.

    Pray for America. Pray for Peace. Pray for Deliverance.

    * http://www.unalebanon.org/unalebanon/aboutus.html

    QUOTE
    …Lebanon, since antiquity, has been known as a nation of freedom encompassing different religion and political beliefs. Despite its small size, it held international positions due to the following personalities:
    Mr. Karim ASKUL, Mr. Georges HAKIM, Mr. Nadim DEMACHKIEH, Mr. Khalil MEKAWI, Mr. Ghassan TUEINI, Professor Fouad SARRUF, Mr. Edward SAWMA and Dr. Assaad KATTIT.

  17. The attachment of so many Jews to the likes of Obama proves again how great is the human power of rationalization. Mussar is available to neutralize it if we take advantage of it.

  18. “Many Israeli ex-generals and former security chiefs have signed a petition urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran.”
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4687145,00.html