Israel warned on Friday that a framework deal with the West over Iran's controversial nuclear program was "very dangerous," saying that Tehran is seeking an atomic weapon and is now one step closer to achieving that goal.
"This framework (agreement) is a step in a very, very dangerous direction," government spokesman Mark Regev told journalists, adding that Iran's "single goal" behind the accord was to build a nuclear bomb, reports AFP.
"Not only does it leave Iran with an expensive nuclear infrastructure but it fails to shut down even a single Iranian nuclear installation. It leaves Iran with thousands of centrifuges to continue to enrich uranium," Regev said.
"It allows Iran to conduct research and development to build new and better centrifuges," he added.
Iran and Western powers struck an outline agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland on Thursday, paving the way for Tehran to have sanctions removed on it while imposing temporary limitations on its nuclear program.
The removing of sanctions is also to be phased in as Iran keeps its promises, but Iranian Foreign Minister and negotiator Javad Zarif said Thursday night that the US was lying about the deal, and that the sanctions were to be lifted immediately and completely.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is holding a security consultation on Friday regarding the new deal, after warning on Thursday night that the agreement threatens Israel's existence, giving legitimacy to Iran's nuclear program while restoring its economy and allowing it to continue enriching uranium.
Israel has noted that there are 17 states which have peaceful nuclear programs, and none of them enrich uranium as Iran will be allowed to continue doing.
In addition to openly calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran has continued to exhibit its overt hostility towards America as well.
Israel should "seriously consider" a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the "framework deal" announced between Tehran and western powers Thursday, a leader defense and security expert said.
Speaking to Arutz Sheva Friday, Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said the deal had realized Israel's worst fears by leaving Iran's nuclear program essentially intact.
No one ought to be more embarrassed by this latest development than the Obama administration, whose ongoing determination to label Yemen a counter-terrorist success story, now borders on Orwellian. The descent into ideologically-induced denial began last August when all non-essential U.S. personnel were ordered by the State Department to leave the country, and all other Americans were urged to leave because of “the continued potential for terrorist attacks.” One month later, President Obama insisted the “strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, March became the cruelest month. On March 17, the Washington Post revealed the Pentagon could not account for more than $500 million in military aid given to Yemen, “amid fears that the weaponry, aircraft and equipment is at risk of being seized by Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.” Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, revealed the political machinations behind the administration’s belief it could quell terrorist insurgencies absent American intervention. “
On Saturday March 21 the narrative took another beating when U.S. troops evacuated a Yemeni air base following al Qaeda’s seizure of a nearby town. On March 23, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted it was of little consequence. “Although we have temporarily relocated our remaining U.S. government personnel from Yemen, we continue to actively monitor threats and have resources prepared in the region to address them,” she told reporters.
There are dire regional implications should the Houthis gain complete control of Aden and the critical naval chokepoint of Bab el-Mandeb, or Mandab Strait. This “Gateway of Tears” connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, and is the access point to the Red Sea and a key route for Israeli and European trade. A Houthi takeover would give Iran a critically strategic port for its warships. Last December, Iran conducted a major naval maneuver on the other side of the Persian Gulf from Yemen, one Israeli news site Arutz Sheva characterized as “an expression of commitment by Iran to aid the Houthis, and demarcate its strategic aspirations in the region.” Aspirations that “could directly threaten the southern naval exit from Israel from the port of Eilat.”
As the events unfolding in Yemen reveal, Obama’s judgment is infused with a level of denialism so profound, reality itself becomes irrelevant. It is astounding to note that in the space of the last few months, the administration has gone from backing Hadi, to making overtures to the Iranian backed-rebels, to subsequently backing a Saudi collation to topple the rebels when they rejected those overtures. All the while they bend over backwards to accommodate Iran and its regional ambitions—all of which are utterly inimical to the Saudi coalition. While such inane capriciousness might look good in the faculty lounges of elite Ivy League schools, it has engendered chaos, disaster and death in the Middle East and beyond. And it is chaos, disaster and death that will remain ongoing for as long as this administration remains in charge, chasing its self-aggrandizing “historic” legacy.
Muslim wholesale slaughter of Christians struck again on April 2 in Kenya. Gunmen from the Somali Islamic group, Al Shabaab—“the youth”—stormed Garissa University, singled out Christian students, and murdered them, some beheaded. A total of 147 people were killed in the attack—making this jihad more spectacular than the 2013 Al Shabaab attack on a Nairobi mall, which left 67 people dead (then, Islamic gunmen also singled out Christians for slaughter).
According to eyewitnesses present at Garissa University, the Islamic gunmen were careful to separate Christians from Muslims before they began the carnage of the former. After all, although Kenya is 83% Christian, it is approximately 11% Muslim. Joel Ayora, who survived the attack, said gunmen burst into a Christian service, seized worshippers, and then “proceeded to the hostels, shooting anybody they came across except their fellows, the Muslims.”
Collins Wetangula, vice chairman of the student union, said he could hear from inside his room where he was hiding the gunmen opening doors and inquiring if the people inside were Muslims or Christians: “If you were a Christian you were shot on the spot. With each blast of the gun I thought I was going to die.”
The fact that Christians were singled out and slaughtered has received little attention in the mainstream media: most mention it, but only towards the very bottom as an incidental, peripheral matter of little significance (see for example the BBC’s minimal treatment near the bottom of its report); others portray it as a new tactic or phenomenon.
The only time in Kenya that Muslim jihadis do not inquire about the religious identity of their potential victims is when they attack churches—such as when they set fire to Covenant Church and roasted Christians alive (they destroyed a Catholic church on the same night); or when two heavily armed jihadis entered the Joy in Jesus Church in Monbasa during Sunday service and “sprayed the congregation with bullets, killing at least seven Christians”; or when “youths,” in the words of Reuters, “threw petrol bombs at two Kenyan churches on Christmas day.”
The logic is that whoever is inside a church—visiting Muslim or practicing Christian, man, woman, or child—deserves death without question.
In recent weeks, there has been a lot of concern that an upcoming eight week military exercise on U.S. soil known as “Jade Helm” is actually a dress rehearsal for the imposition of martial law in this country. One of the reasons for the high level of concern is that we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of “urban warfare exercises” conducted by the U.S. military in major U.S. cities over the past decade – including exercises where “dissidents” are hunted down, arrested and hauled away. As our world becomes increasingly unstable, and as our society rapidly decays from within, many believe that it is only a matter of time before the executive branch will have sufficient excuse to use the extensive martial law powers that it has been accumulating since 9/11. When that day arrives, what will our nation look like? What would actually happen if martial law was declared in America?
Well, the first thing that you need to know is that the U.S. Constitution would be “suspended”.
In other words, you would suddenly have no rights at all.
There would be no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly and you could be arrested at any time for any reason whatsoever.
For the duration of the “emergency”, the military would be in control. There would be troops in the streets, a curfew would almost certainly be imposed, and armed checkpoints would be set up.
If the “emergency” lasted long enough, we would probably see authorities go house to house confiscating firearms, ammunition and food supplies.
And perhaps most troubling of all, “dissidents” and “subversives” would likely be rounded up and imprisoned.
Perhaps you don’t think that this could ever happen in the United States in 2015.
Well, we do know that this is precisely what the FBI had a plan to do in the 1950s. The following is an excerpt from a recent RT article…
Documents show the FBI created a “Plan C” during the Cold War, which could have been triggered in the event the US underwent a nuclear attack. It included putting the nation under martial law, rounding up “subversives,” and interning enemy diplomats.
The documents, acquired by transparency journalism organization MuckRock, detail the FBI plan created in 1956, which was shared with several top officials from every governmental department. The FBI also distributed papers regarding the plan to its field offices. The plan would have gone into effect “after a war has begun in which the US is involved or may become involved and prior to an actual attack on the US itself,” according to the documents.
And we do know that the federal government had a list of at least 8 million names of people that were considered to be “threats to national security” back in the 1980s. This list was known as Main Core, and it is not known whether this list still exists today.
I have a feeling that it does, and that it is probably much larger than it was back then.
We also know that government documents produced during the Obama administration openly discuss rounding up “dissidents” and taking them to internment camps. Just consider the following example from Infowars…
A leaked 2012 US Army Military Police training manual, entitled “Civil Disturbance Operations,” described how soldiers would be ordered to confiscate firearms and kill American “dissidents.” The manual also revealed that prisoners would be detained in temporary internment camps and “re-educated” to gain a new appreciation of “U.S. policies,” in accordance with U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations.
So who would those “dissidents” be exactly?
In “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“, I detailed how official U.S. government documents specifically identify those that believe in “conspiracy theories” as possible threats. Others that the government is concerned about include those opposed to abortion, globalism, communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations and “the New World Order”.
I wish that none of this was true. Go check out the article for yourself.
Another very disturbing government document talks about the need for the U.S. Army to prepare to battle political dissidents in “megacities” and to neutralize groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state”.
The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times.
The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents.
The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.
Very alarming stuff.
And if we did see martial law declared nationwide, it is likely that all elections would be suspended indefinitely.
That could also potentially include the 2016 presidential election.
Is it possible that Barack Obama could use his emergency powers to stay in the White House beyond his second term? There are some out there that believe that this could actually happen under the right circumstances. For example, check out what Dr. Ben Carson said during an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show…
COLMES: What do you mean though when you say there may not be an election in 2016?
DR. BEN CARSON: There may be so much anarchy going on.
COLMES: Anarchy? So you really think we risk risking an anarchic America to the point where elections might be put on hold, or some kind of emergency is declared with such anarchy that there wouldn’t be a Presidential election in a couple of years?
DR. BEN CARSON: I don’t want to find out. I really don’t want to find out, I don’t want to continue down this pathway that we’re going down.
And the groundwork has certainly been laid for such a scenario.
During his time in the White House, Barack Obama has signed a series of executive orders that give him and his minions an extraordinary amount of power in the event of a major national emergency.
For example, read the following excerpt from an executive order that Obama signed in March 2012…
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
That sounds like it covers just about everything.
Basically, during a time of martial law all of the things that you take for granted today would be out the window.
You would have no rights, and the federal government would be able to do just about anything that it wanted to do.
If that sounds really bad to you, then maybe now you are starting to understand why so many people get upset when they see preparations being made for the eventual imposition of martial law in this country.
Statistics show that 1.6 percent of the population identifies itself as gay or lesbian. But judging from the hysteria over Indiana’s religious freedom law, it seems that many of them are in positions of power in the media. These power brokers are not only openly gay, but also anti-Christian. Even Holy Week hasn’t kept them from demonstrating their anti-Christian animus.
Indiana’s Republican Governor Mike Pence spoke on Tuesday about the media misinformation over his state’s religious freedom bill. The “perception problem” he referred to is of the liberal media’s making. In fact, one can argue that the misperception was deliberately created by the media.
“I have to tell you,” he said to the press and the public, “that the gross mischaracterizations about this bill early on and some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what this bill was all about was deeply disappointing to me and to millions of Hoosiers.” He called the coverage a “smear.”
Pence was reluctant to identify the source of the bias—homosexual influence in the major media. But until conservative politicians step forward to identity the real source of the problem, the homosexuals will continue to win the public relations battle and hide behind the façade of “objective” coverage when none exists. The fact is that the liberal media and the gay lobby are essentially one and the same.
It’s this kind of media bias that should not have come as a surprise to Pence, a former member of Congress and a strong conservative.
Liberal media bias is an old problem. The new wrinkle over the last several years has been the relentless promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
The media know they’re biased, of course. They are careful to conceal the depth and extent of the bias, in the sense that few members of the public are being told that most of the major news organizations are financial backers of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). Literally all of the major media, ranging from MSNBC on the left to Fox News on the right, are in bed with the NLGJA.
The Indiana case should serve as a lesson in how the media distort the news. The clear homosexual/media strategy, in this case, has been to redefine discrimination as the failure to do what homosexuals have demanded that you do, without explaining to the public how the meaning of the term has been changed to meet the demands of the powerful gay lobby.
Since our major media organs are openly pro-homosexual, we have to conclude that the bias in the Indiana case is deliberately designed to fool the American people into thinking that homosexuals are the victims when they are, in fact, the victimizers.
In practical terms, this bias is reflected in the typical ongoing failure of the media to quote pro-family and Christian voices, such as American Family Association of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark, who has called the claim that the law bestows a “license to discriminate” as “perhaps the biggest lie about this law.” Pence said much the same thing at this press conference.
If our media had simply bothered to cover the other side of the story, rather than rely on pro-homosexual interest groups, we might have gotten some truth and facts in the national debate.
The victims of this bias, unfortunately, include top CEOs and businesspeople, such as Marriott International CEO Arne Sorensen, who called Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “madness.”
Upon reflection, Sorensen must himself be mad or completely misinformed. Or, perhaps, he’s just pandering to homosexuals for their business. Marriott was named Corporation of the Year by the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in 2014. It received a 100 percent score on the Human Rights Campaign’s “Corporate Equality Index.”
The Human Rights Campaign is the group whose co-founder, Terry Bean, has been arrested on child sex-abuse charges.
The case of the florist in Richland, Washington, Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, illustrates the stakes. She is being sued by the Attorney General because she declined to decorate for a same-sex ceremony and may be forced into financial bankruptcy.
Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington state has commented about the case: “…there’s a problem with the argument that she discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. She has consistently and happily done business with people who identify as gay for years, including the individuals involved in this case. She considered them friends.” What she objected to was being part of a same-sex marriage ceremony.
In this case, as noted by her attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a state judge ruled that the government can force her to do custom design work and provide wedding support services “even if she has a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
As such, this is a violation of the basic God-given right to freedom of religion that the founders of the United States gave to the American people. It is as sacred as freedom of the press.
This is the issue: In the name of “non-discrimination,” homosexuals want to force Christians and other religious believers to violate the principles of their faith. But this is precisely the point that has been deliberately obscured by a media that functions as the propaganda arm of the militant gay lobby.
ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner noted, “The couple had no problem getting the flowers they needed. In fact, they received several offers for free flowers. So, where’s the tolerance for Barronelle Stutzman? It’s hard to believe that Barronelle should prepare to have everything she has earned and built seized by the state just because of her beliefs about marriage.”
Apple CEO Tim Cook, an open homosexual, attacked Indiana’s religious freedom law, saying, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.” What is dangerous is how a small minority is trying to dictate the acceptance of their lifestyle by the majority. They have gotten this far because the same small minority also seems to control major centers of media and corporate power in the United States.
That should read "iran" not israel in the title
"Netanyahu: ‘The Survival of Israel Is Non-Negotiable"
Post a Comment