dApril 3, 2015

The Washington Examiner

By Philip Klein

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Obama has become such a complete fool that he has his own theme song.(Click Here)

Remember, it took fools in the electorate to vote for the delusional ideas he put forth during the debates.

Those who voted for him believed they would get numerous items and programs for free.   Little did they know he was offering to destroy the U.S. economy, and our position as a super power on the world stage.

Nothing less that impeachment is due for Obama because of his repetitive successful attempts to circumvent the Constitution with his illegal unconstitutional executive orders.


In the wake of the 1979 Iranian revolution in which Islamic radicals seized power — and American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days — President Carter cut off ties with the nation. During his own administration, President Obama has upended decades of U.S. policy, elevating the status of Iran on the world stage, even as the nation’s autocratic leader still calls for “Death to America.”

In current nuclear negotiations with Iran, the Obama administration has been moving closer and closer to the position of the Islamic regime. But the process of capitulation to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism has been years in the making, dating back to Obama’s first presidential campaign. Here is a brief history of Obama’s process of capitulation to Iran, which will be updated.

July 2007: No preconditions

An idiotic question posed during the debates was answered by a bigger buffoon below.


During a July 23, 2007, debate for the Democratic presidential nomination in which Americans were able to submit questions via YouTube clips, one participant asked the candidates if they would be willing to meet, without precondition, within the first year of their administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. “I would,” Obama said, touting the importance of negotiating even with governments who are dangerous and untrustworthy. He went on to say, “I think it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them” vowing that with regards to Iraq, “One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, is to send a signal that we’re going to talk to Iran and Syria.”

His opponent, Hillary Clinton, declined to make such a promise, saying that while she supported diplomacy, she wouldn’t want to commit in advance to such a high-level meeting, noting “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.” Following the debate, the Clinton campaign seized on Obama’s vow as evidence of his inexperience.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” she said. Ultimately, though, Clinton’s attacks backfired, providing another opportunity for Obama to portray himself as the true change candidate before Democratic voters who were eager to move on from President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

January 2009: Extending the hand

Obama used the occasion of his first Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 2009, to extend an olive branch to Iran — an adapted formulation of his vow during the 2007 debate. “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” Obama said.

A week later, Obama made it clear that the statement included Iran. In hisfirst formal sit down interview as president – with Arab television network Al Arabiya – Obama was asked how far he’d be willing to go to prevent a nuclear Iran.

For his first formal interview as president, he responded that, “I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.” He acknowledged Iran had a record of threatening Israel, sponsoring terrorism, and pursuing nuclear weapons.

“But,” he added, “I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will, over the next several months, be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

March 2009: “The Islamic Republic of Iran”

In the first of his annual messages on Nowruz, the Persian New Year, Obama addressed the Iranian people as well as the “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” By referring to the “Islamic Republic” he immediately added legitimacy to the anti-American regime. Though Obama noted Iran’s use of terrorism and quest for nuclear weapons, he said, “We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect” and “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.”

June 2009: The Green Revolution

On June 12, Iran held its tightly controlled elections, and after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, massive democratic protests broke out against the regime. Rather than support the dissidents in the face of a brutal crackdown by the Islamic nation, Obama was initially silent before offering a tepid response days later.

On the one hand, he said he was “troubled by the violence” and thought that free speech should be respected – and he put the regime on notice that “the world is watching.” But he watered down his statement by saying, “we respect Iranian sovereignty” and “we will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.”

Though he eventually ramped up his criticism as the crisis went on, as theWashington Post reported, “At the same time, the president and his aides made it clear that the extraordinary events in Iran have not caused the administration to rethink its desire to engage with the Iranian government in order to achieve a deal that would resolve international concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

2009 — Present: Letters to the Ayatollah

During his presidency, Obama has become pen pals with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This despite the fact that Khamenei continues to back terrorism, has called for “Death to America” and declared that Israel is a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut” within the context of seeking nuclear weapons.

In November 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama sent his fourth letter to Khamenei since 2009 and the latest one referenced their supposedly mutual interests in combatting the Islamic State and reaching a nuclear compromise.

In response to the letter, Suzanne Maloney, Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, wrote that “the move betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Iranian leadership, and is likely to hinder rather than help achieve a durable resolution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions as well as other U.S. objectives on Iran.”

The letters to Khamenei are just one part of Obama’s outreach effort. In September 2013, Obama spoke on the phone with new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani – representing the highest-level contact between the U.S. and Iran since the Carter administration cut off ties with the regime in 1980.

2009 — 2011: Resisting tougher sanctions

At many points when it has suited his political interests, Obama has boasted of having ratcheted up sanctions against Iran in his first term. Though it’s accurate that more sanctions were imposed, the important context is that Obama continually fought back Congress in an attempt to weaken sanctions.

In December 2009, for instance, the State Department sent a letter to then Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, expressing concerns against legislation tightening sanctions, writing “that this legislation, in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts.” As legislation progressed, the Obama administration continued to fight to soften it.

In June 2010, sanctions against Iran’s energy and banking industries passed 408 to 8 in the House of Representatives and 99 to 0 in the Senate, at a time when Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both chambers — and Obama had no choice but to sign the legislation.

In 2011, Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., crafted a bipartisan measure imposing sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. On Dec. 1, 2011, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned, “I am writing to express the administration’s strong opposition to this amendment because, in its current form, it threatens to undermine the effective, carefully phased, and sustainable approach we have taken to build strong international pressure against Iran.” The Democratic Senate voted later that day to pass the sanctions bill 100-0, again forcing Obama into signing it.

2013 — Present: Nuclear concessions mount

More at Washington Examiner

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.



March 6, 2015

We The People:

crew-2231By Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Many may not remember that before the Iranian Revolution, the United States and Iran were major allies.

Iran was once a powerful ally of the United States. During the Cold War, the United States supported, in some cases “propped up,” friendly governments as bulwarks against the Soviet Union. And in some of those cases the United States found itself supporting very unpopular, repressive regimes. The Shah of Iran falls into this category.

His government was toppled in 1979 and was eventually replaced by another repressive regime… but this time the leadership was deeply anti-American. The Ayatollah Khomeini became the ruler of Iran. And he gave many Americans their first glimpse of radical Islam.

This for the most part is tongue in cheek.  Why?

One thing is certain, nothing will happen with a “Closet Muslim,” still remaining in the Oval Office.

It may well be that the U.S. and Iran become allies once again because of the threat the Islamic State poses to the region.

Written by Jim Campbell