Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part III)

In Part I of this series I mentioned that Netanyahu made two comments at the end of his campaign for reelection that upset Obama and the left. The first was about the creation of a Palestinian state. The second was his urging Likud party voters to get out and vote because Arabs were "streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations." So let's be honest - honesty being something with which Obama and the mainstream media do not concern themselves. Arab voters tend to be left wing; Netanyahu's party is right wing. Obama and other foreigners were likely assisting in busing Arabs to the polls in order to defeat Netanyahu. (The US Senate is currently investigating whether Obama, through the State Department, improperly funneled money to groups in Israel seeking to defeat Netanyahu.)

The result of Netanyahu's statement was an assault from the Obama Administration and the mainstream media accusing Netanyahu of racism. Let us not forget that Netanyahu is a politician. The polls in Israel had predicted had a very tight race, with early polls suggesting Netanyahu would lose. So it was no surprise that he tried to use any means to get his party loyalists to vote.

Here is Harry Reid in 2011, as Senate Majority leader: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Leader of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, made a similar comment by claiming that there was "nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So there you have Reid and Wasserman-Schultz playing the race/ethnic card.

But let us not leave Obama out of this mix. During his first campaign in 2008 he said this: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." So just who does everyone think Obama had in mind when he talked about those small townspeople. Whites, that's who. It was whites who Obama accused of having antipathy to those not like them and to immigrants. He did not have to say the word "white," it was clear about whom he was speaking.

But let's get back to those Arab voters in Israel. Here is what one Israeli Arab Member of the Knesset has said: "If, as citizens, we boycott the parliament, this would mean that we also boycott the struggle because when we entered the Knesset we do not enter to promote relations with Israel, but instead to struggle against Israel." And: "...we are against the very definition of the state." Most of the Arabs in the Knesset would be very happy to speed the end of Israel's existence as the sole Jewish state in the world, and to effectuate the creation of yet another Muslim run state.

The 3/21/15 New York Times ran a front page article entitled "Israeli Leader Further Divides American Jews." The reality is that liberal American Jews are split with regards to their affinity for Israel. Most conservative Jews are highly supportive of Israel. But the liberal Jews are just as likely to be anti-Likud (Netanyahu's party) as they are to be anti-Republican. So no great surprise.

Of greater interest, perhaps, was another front page story in yesterday's Times, entitled: "At White House, A Sharper Tone With Netanyahu." After all, Obama is already plenty annoyed at Netanyahu for daring to challenge his appeasement of, er-negotiations with, Iran. Imagine the nerve of Netanyahu, the only world leader to suggest that allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability is a bad idea, especially so for the existence of Israel.

But Israel can rely upon the security guarantees of the US, right? Just like Ukraine could? Or would that be like the "red line" Obama drew with respect to Syria's use of chemical weapons? The truth is that the entire world knows that since Obama came into office nobody can rely upon the US. Notwithstanding the effort by Netanyahu to step back from his comments, the White House is not willing to meet him halfway. Rather, the Times article says that "the White House is stoking the acrimony."

I guess there is one thing the world can rely upon with the Obama Administration - if you were an enemy before you will now be treated as an ally; and if you were an ally before, you are on your own now.

Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part II)

It is not that Obama and the left do not understand the mortal danger to Israel if they were to evacuate the West Bank. No, they just do not care. The liberal LA Times said this: "Israeli leaders of all parties are understandably unwilling to negotiate an agreement with a movement like Hamas that is bent on their country's destruction." (3/18/15 Editorial) The liberal USA Today said: "With Hamas in charge in Gaza and committed to Israel's destruction, it's hard to imagine an accommodation that would leave Israel secure." (3/19/15 Editorial) But Hamas is part of the Palestinian government. It does not matter. These papers still say it is Netanyahu's fault. For Obama and the left their agenda has always mattered far more than the truth. As I have said before, truth is not a value for these people.

So now, Obama is threatening to allow the passage of a UN resolution, by withholding a US veto, that would create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. Those borders are indefensible militarily. Israel would be less than 9 miles wide at one point. The Security Council has enforcement mechanisms, including economic sanctions and even the use of military force. If Israel vacated the West Bank how long would it take for Hamas to take over, and have another area from which to launch their attacks against Israel? They would be within easy striking distance of the Knesset and other government facilities, as well as Tel Aviv and most population centers.

The 1967 borders would even give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, including the Old City. When the Arabs controlled the Old City from 1949 until the 1967 war, others were denied access. Holy sites were destroyed. Under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites. What does Obama think would happen under Hamas (or even Abbas) rule? Answer: He does not care.

Worse even than Hamas taking over the West Bank, would be the likelihood of other Islamic terrorist groups also entering the West Bank - groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Look at all the instability and unrest throughout the Middle East: A Syrian civil war that has gone on for years and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, with over a million refugees; the overthrow of the US-allied Yemeni government by an Iranian proxy government; Egypt has gone from Mubarek to the Muslim Botherhood to military rule under al-Sisi in a few short years; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is a failed state; and Iran is about to have nukes.

It is against this background that Obama says Israel must shrink their territory to the point of committing suicide. It is against this background that the US has now removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups/states. It was against this background that 58 Democratic members of Congress chose to boycott the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, while Democrats who did attend were highly critical of Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the Europeans are hell bent on imposing their own sanctions on Israel. And the International Criminal Court has agreed to investigate, at the request of the Palestinians, whether or not Israel committed war crimes in last year's war between Israel and Hamas. And the IBD reports that Obama has not renewed the US agreement to guarantee an oil supply to Israel during a time of war. Obama already let the agreement expire in November. (3/20/15 IBD Editorial) During last summer's war with Hamas, Obama slowed the provision of war materiel to Israel.

Obama has been looking for an opening to go after Israel since coming into office. From day one he took on all the Palestinian terms and positions. He used terms such as "occupied territory" and "illegitimate/illegal settlements." Obama has not only sided with the Muslims in every instance; he has often sided with the most radical Muslims. Just as he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. Just as he did in referring to Erdogan (the Islamist leader of Turkey) by saying he was one of Obama's closest allies. And just as he is doing now in allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability.

While Netanyahu may have difficulty in getting access to the White House, the most radical of Muslim groups do not. The Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial regarding the illegal financing of the terror group Hamas) has had access. The Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) has had access. Both are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas. No problem.

Early on Obama expressed his concern about the closeness of the US with Israel. As noted by Max Boot (in a 3/20/15 op-ed in the LA Times) Obama told American Jewish leaders in 2009: "Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."

How conveniently Obama forgets - or should I say lies? As noted in Part I, during Bush's presidency (the eight years to which Obama was referring) Israel offered a state to Abbas. The offer was rejected as there was only silence from Abbas. But in Obama's mind, it is only Israel that sits on the sidelines. It was the Palestinians who, more recently, walked away from the discussions with Kerry and Israel. That does not matter either.

I have never discussed in this blog whether Obama might be a Muslim. I have said just look at with whom he aligns himself. In every instance it is the Muslims. It is where his gut takes him. I would also point out that he has no particular affinity for Christians either, as they continue to get slaughtered and displaced from the Arab Muslim world. But he will fight for a Palestinian state at all costs.

Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part I)

This past week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have won reelection. I say "appears" because he still has the task of forming enough alliances under Israel's parliamentary system to form a new government, which requires having 61 of the Knesset's 120 seats. Netanyahu's party, the conservative Likud, got 30 seats. The Zionist Union (liberal, former Labor party) got 24 seats, and the Joint Arab List (made up of four smaller Arab parties) got 13 seats. Seven other parties got the remaining seats.

Towards the end of the election campaign Netanyahu made two comments that supposedly has the Obama Administration and other leftists in a tizzy. First, Netanyahu said that he would not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state during his term in office. "I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islamists against the State of Israel...Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand. The left does this time and time again."

The spokesliars at the White House and State Department both said that Netanyahu's comments called into question his commitment to peace and the two-state solution. As this writer has noted previously, there is absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - that would ever call into question the Palestinians (more accurately, the Arabs of Palestine) commitment to peace. Mahmoud Abbas is in office as President of the PA for 10 years, but was only elected to a 4 or 5 year term. He refuses to hold new elections, fearing Hamas would win. So Abbas has no electoral legitimacy. No problem.

Abbas formed a unity government with Hamas, the terrorist group which rules Gaza. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas just recently again honored one of the biggest murderers of Jews, having led a 1978 hijacking of a bus that resulted in 38 dead (including 13 children) and over 70 wounded. Abbas just named a public square for that female terrorist. The Palestinian schools teach that this murderer of innocents (for the Palestinians no Jew is an "innocent") was a freedom fighter and a martyr. No problem.

Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israel last summer - aiming at Israeli civilians and cities. Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in a new Palestinian state. No problem.

The Arabs initial rejection of a state and peace came in 1947 when the UN voted partition of the area known as the British Mandate, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. But the Arabs had said before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So in 1948 the Arabs attacked Israel, their first attempt to wipe Israel off the map. No problem.

The Palestinians began their first intifada in 1987, lasting until 1993. In 2000, under the auspices of Bill Clinton, Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak offered a state to Yasser Arafat. He rejected the offer by walking out on Clinton and Barak. He returned to the West Bank and started the second intifada. Arab suicide/homicide bombers then blew up Jews in cafes, in malls, on buses and even at a Passover Seder. No problem.

In 2008, during the George Bush Administration, then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert offered a state to current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas ignored the offer, much like Arafat did in 2000. No problem.

Then what is the problem? The fact that Netanyahu told the truth. The truth is that Israel gave up the Sinai to Egypt, after conquering that land in the 1967 war, and then losing some of it in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The peace agreement with Egypt, while shaky, has held for four decades. But when Israel left Gaza in 2005, forcibly evicting their own citizens from the area, they did not get peace. Rather, they ended up with the election of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has built Gaza into a weapons factory, launching thousands of rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Hamas has built tunnels into Israel for the sole purpose of capturing and killing Israelis. The foreign aid that flowed into Gaza has been used for one purpose: the destruction of Israel. As the Hamas charter says: "Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it."

It is with this background that Obama believes Israel should now also give up Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

Obamacare at the Supreme Court - Again

(For new readers of this blog I previously put up a post entitled "Obamacare at the Supreme Court" on 4/15/12. The issue was whether or not the the requirement to purchase health insurance under the ACA could be upheld under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I incorrectly predicted that SCOTUS would strike down the ACA. However, C.J. John Roberts surprised many commentators by holding, with the four liberal Justices, that the failure to purchase insurance would not result in a penalty/fine being assessed (as Congress wrote); rather, he rewrote the law and called the penalty a "tax." My discussion of the Court's holding can be found in the 7/1/12 post entitled "Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous Theory.")

Now, Obamacare was again before the Supreme Court in the case of King vs. Burwell. The issue is whether or not the subsidies provided under the ACA can be given to people who reside in states that have not set up a health insurance exchange. A total of 34 states did not in fact set up exchanges. The people in those states are eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The issue is whether or not those people qualify for a subsidy.

The wording of the statute provides that the subsidies are available to enrollees in exchanges "established by the State." As 34 states did not establish an exchange, the argument is that the residents of those states are not entitled to the subsidy. The failure to be eligible for the subsidy, the argument goes, would result in millions being unable to afford insurance, in turn requiring insurers to charge even more for those with insurance. Ultimately, the entire system could come crashing down.

In fact, Justice Kennedy expressed such a concern during oral arguments. He questioned whether or not the statute would then be coercing the states to set up an exchange or force their state "insurance market into a death spiral." The analysis is flawed as it leaves out another option - "clean-up legislation." It happens all the time. A law is passed and the legislature realizes certain words were left out or phrased poorly. So they fix it. What Kennedy is really saying is that the Republican Congress could not be trusted to do so. Maybe not; but it's not his job to rewrite legislation in anticipation of the Congress (the body tasked with writing legislation) failing to do so.

The New York Times lead editorial of 3/1/15 discussed this issue. They called it "The Phony Legal Attack on Health Care." As usual, the Times puts their agenda ahead of the truth, starting their editorial with demagoguery and name calling. It is such a "phony" issue that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. Said the Times: "So it is no surprise that no one involved in passing or interpreting the law...thought that the subsidies would not be available on federal exchanges."

Really? Some of you may recall the name Jonathan Gruber. Gruber, an MIT professor, was one of the main architects of the bill. Videos surfaced a few months back in which Gruber was quoted as saying that the bill was purposely written in a "tortured way" in order to fool the American people about the fact that "healthy people pay in and sick people get money." A typical leftist elitist who feels he knows what is best for everyone else.

Directly relevant and on point to the issue in King vs. Burwell was this comment by Gruber: "...if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits" (or subsidies). Gruber continued: "...if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens." The thinking was that the financial benefits of the subsidies would overcome any political objections to the feds taking over healthcare. 34 states were not persuaded.

Now, and especially for those of you who mock Fox News, do you think that the NY Times editorial staff had the intellectual honesty to mention Mr. Gruber in their 3/1/15 editorial? No they did not. They dismissed the idea of Congress encouraging states to set up an exchange in order to qualify their residents for the subsidy. Why? Because if Congress intended that result they "would have shouted it from the mountaintops." I guess the plain writing of the statute is not sufficient for the Times.

I will not make the same mistake twice. Having incorrectly predicted that SCOTUS would declare the ACA unconstitutional in 2012, I will not do so again. No, I learned my lesson. If the Court was willing to rewrite the law to define a "penalty" as a "tax," I am sure they will feel comfortable rewriting it again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal." Furthermore, we are now several years into the enactment of the ACA, and at least Justice Kennedy was concerned about the impact on states and the effectiveness of the law if it is interpreted the way it is written - which means only state exchange enrollees get the subsidy.

It would be nice, however, if the President ("I have a pen")and the Supreme Court let the legislative branch of government do the writing of statutes, as the Constitution provides.

Two Brief Lessons in Contrasts

It was reported by Fox News that the Clinton Foundation has received substantial sums from Middle Eastern Arab countries. Their source for the data was the Clinton Foundation itself. A few examples. Contributions from Saudi Arabia totaled between 10 million and 25 million dollars. Kuwait contributed between 5 and 10 million dollars, with the U.A.E. trailing at 1 to 5 million dollars.

Saudi Arabia, as an example, has a less than stellar human rights record when it comes to women and freedom of religion and speech. Women may not travel on their own or get certain medical procedures without their male "guardian" giving approval. Women are barred from certain professions and may not intermingle with male coworkers. Women have very strict clothing requirements; and as of 2015 will be allowed to vote in local elections only.

One should definitely not attempt to bring either the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) or Christian Bible (New Testament) into the country. Christian churches are forbidden, and you can forget about Jewish synagogues. Just today, Fox reported that a Saudi man was sentenced to death for renouncing his Islamic faith, and other alleged acts of blasphemy. In justifying the Foundation accepting money from such sources, Bill Clinton had this to say: "...you gotta decide when you do this work whether it'll do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country..." This is the kind of "the ends justify the means" approach that we are so used to from the left.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA, a Saudi prince offered Mayor Rudy Giuliani 10 million dollars to help rebuild New York City. But the prince said that the U.S. needed to address issues that led to the attack. Among other things, the U.S. "should reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause." The prince also said that "...our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."

In rejecting the offer of 10 million dollars, the Mayor said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for their (terrorist) act. There is no justification for it." The Mayor accused those engaging in such moral equivalency of "not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism...so I think not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

There is no doubt that the City of New York could have used that 10 million dollars after 9/11. But Rudy Giuliani chose principle over expediency. Just remember that before casting your vote for Hillary Clinton.

President Obama participated in the commemoration of the march in Selma that occurred 50 years ago. It was certainly appropriate for him to do so. The attack on peaceful protesters 50 years ago was not one of our finer moments. Notwithstanding the claims by a few that nothing has changed in the past 50 years, most agree that there has been substantial change in protecting black and minority rights. Today, racism is roundly condemned; and you could not find a single mainstream politician or commentator to speak out on behalf of racist acts or comments. Those who engage in racism are ostracized.

So, while racism has been on the decline (yes, I know there are still incidents such as the one at the University of Oklahoma fraternity), anti-Semitism has been on the rise. It is widely believed by Jews of all political beliefs that we are living through the worst period of anti-Semitism since the Holocaust. The worst anti-Semitism in the USA seems to be on college campuses, where Jews are called abusive names, intimidated with threats and even assaulted. Thankfully, we have not seen the extent of anti-Semitism that has occurred in Europe and throughout the rest of the world.

So, while President Obama's security detail was somehow able to deal with the mass of people marching in Selma, it was claimed they could not do so in Paris, when world leaders marched in unity to support the right of free speech after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the murders at the kosher market. But those killed in the market were Jews, as were some of the Charlie Hebdo employees. And Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, as they did with other religions. Given all the world leaders marching in Paris, security was extremely tight. Curious that Obama could not attend that march.

Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his speech to a joint session of Congress today. Netanyahu outlined the extent of Iran's support for terror around the world. And, perhaps with some intent to clarify to liberal Jews just how grave the threat of Iranian nukes can be, he said: "...listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. (Quoting Nasrallah): If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world."

Netanyahu told us what the Supreme Leader of Iran has said about their nuclear program: "Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount - 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal ...in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."

After the speech, Obama claimed that Netanyahu offered no new suggestions. Obama's plan is to allow Iran nuclear capability and to ultimately provide for the lifting of economic sanctions. And the entire deal sunsets after ten years, after which time there will be no restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities.

Netanyahu suggested that there should be no easing of restrictions until Iran "stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East." And that Iran "stop supporting terrorism around the world." And that Iran "stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."

Netanyahu also noted that the deal has no requirement that Iran abandon its intercontinental ballistic missile system. Exactly what, if anything, does this "deal" require of Iran? And a huge question remains - just why does Iran need to keep and maintain any of its uranium enriching centrifuges? Iran claims that they only seek peaceful, civilian uses of their uranium. Honestly, I cannot believe that anybody buys that. They have had hidden and underground nuclear facilities. They are developing an ICBM, which has only one purpose - the delivery of a nuclear warhead.

There are quite a few countries in the world which are not nuclear powers, but which do have nuclear reactors for civilian use. And they do not enrich their own uranium - they import it. They import low grade - not weapons grade - uranium, and have no capabilities of enriching the uranium up to weapons grade. They do not have centrifuges.

So for the Democrats who were incensed by Netanyahu's speech, I would ask why are you not incensed by a deal that appears to ask next to nothing of the Iranians. No giving up their centrifuges. No giving up their ICBM program. No commitment to stop supporting terror. No requirement to stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, along with a commitment not to do so.

Or, are you so tied to party loyalty over the safety and security of the United States and our allies, that you will rejoice when Obama announces that the deal has achieved "peace in our time."

The Democrats Take on Netanyahu's Speech

It appears that a total of 58 Representatives and Senators boycotted the speech given today to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What a nice way to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against the State of Israel. It is also further proof of the difficulty many on the left have of even hearing what may be a different point of view.

Prior to the speech Rep. Charles Rangel said: "I'm offended as an American." Well, Mr. Rangel, I'm offended that you and 57 of your Democrat colleagues did not think it important enough to listen to our closest ally in the Middle East, an ally threatened with annihilation on a near daily basis.

Sen. Patrick Leahy before the speech called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt." Do you know, Senator, that the deal on the table with Iran does nothing - nothing - to limit or put an end to their Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. Why do they need such long range delivery systems, when the only purpose for an ICBM is the delivery of a nuclear warhead? Will you call it a "stunt" if a nuclear bomb explodes over the U.S.? Iran does not need an ICBM to reach Israel.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the speech that the Constitution "vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president." Obama reiterated that sentiment after the speech: "It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels." So much for Obama being the constitutional scholar.

Yes, the president is the Commander in Chief. Yes, policy is set through the president. But we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. There are limits even on a president's foreign policy initiatives. Only the Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise funds to pay for war. Congress was given the power to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." It is Congress that was given the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." I trust that the House and Senate do not have standing committees on foreign affairs just for the fun of it.

And to insure that the president does not enter into any deals that might be considered bad for the United States, the Constitution also provides that the president '...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur..." By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Except Obama does not believe he needs their approval. You just have to trust him.

What Obama said was this: "And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." He will be able to prove it. Except that the head of the IAEA just announced that "The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." So the monitoring Agency for any deal is not confident about Iranian actions and intentions, but we should trust Obama. Would that be like trusting him when he drew the red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria?

After Netanyahu's speech, we also heard from Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth accused Netanyahu of "fear mongering." The Ayatollahs threaten to wipe Israel off the map on virtually a daily basis. A nuclear weapon will give Iran that capability. I have no doubt that if Yarmuth lived at the time, he would have been one of the Jews (yes, he's Jewish) telling people not to worry about Hitler - don't fear monger. What a disappointment he is.

Of course, some of the best nonsense always comes from Nancy Pelosi. While she attended the speech, she was so upset at times that she was "near tears." She was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States..." Do countries have their own intelligence? At least the woman who told us about the ACA that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" did not tell us it was an insult to her intelligence, of which there is none.