Will Obama’s Legacy Be World War III?

PushTheButtonby Leigh Bravo8/6/15
Obama made, yet, another speech yesterday. but what made this one different from the rest? This one will go down in history as the United States’ surrender to terrorism. If we have not been destroyed by nuclear bombs, there is no doubt future generations will be studying this speech and drawing parallels to the Munich Agreement, which is regarded as a failed act of appeasement by Britain and France to Germany and Adolph Hitler, a mistake that which led to the beginning of World War II.

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who surrendered the agreement with Hitler claimed,

“My objective is peace in Europe,  this trip is the way to that peace.”

At this meeting, Adolph Hitler deceived, lied and manipulated the British leader into believing that bending to his will would spare Britain and France from a war that were not prepared to fight. During these negotiations, Hitler promised Chamberlain that he would refrain from military action, yet secretly he continued to plan his attack militarily. The sacrifice in this agreement? Czechoslovakia, an ally of Britain and France, abandoned by them to appease Hitler. As Chamberlain proclaimed he had secured “peace in our time,” World War II began.

Is this story beginning to sound familiar? Let’s look at the players in this charade.

Adolph Hitler played by Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of Iran

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain played by Barack Obama

Czechoslovakia played by Israel.

In his speech yesterday, Obama did make one statement of truth,

“Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.”

What about this statement?

“Iran will not enrich uranium…..for at least 15 years.”

There is that 15 year limit again. What happens after 15 years?

“Before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists…”

This a statement from the community organizer who graduated from Harvard with a degree in Constitutional law but has absolutely no understanding of the Constitution he has continually disregarded. But, he and John Kerry are indeed nuclear scientists.

President Obama further stated that if Republicans were to “repeat these arguments long enough, they would get some traction.”

This is obviously a theory he understands and uses daily…..say it enough and it will become truth. (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor).

“If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors can get access with as little as 24 hours”

Now wait for it……wait…..then he says,

“And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days…we will be watching….”

So there goes the 24 hour claim.

“It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years, but that’s how arms control agreements work….”

“It is true that IF Iran lives up to its commitments, it WILL gain access to roughly $56 BILLION of its own money….”

“Our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.”

And I have some swamp land in Florida for sale.

“Now this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.”

“…Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.” 

and while Obama strongly pushes this deal he says,

“The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran my claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.”

If Iran has always found a way to fund its terrorist efforts, why would anyone believe they will agree to stop their pursuit of Nuclear weapons?

“And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.”

Really? I am confused as to what this has to do with our non strategy on ISIL.

And then the real kicker…

“It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”

Did he really just compare Republicans to the Iranians chanting “Death to America?” Is this really the decorum of a sitting President of the Free World? Although we have all become accustomed to his nonstop demonization of one American group or another in every one of his speeches, this takes the cake.

Then the best lie yet….

“….and a more understandable motivation behind the opposition of this deal….a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that , as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.”

What?  From the man who has racked up a large list of offensive comments and behaviors towards Benjamin Netanyahu, here are just a few.

  • Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family.
  • He has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.
  • President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
  • In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Obama stated, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza.
  • In an interview, a White House official calls Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”

I would not call this a stalwart friendship with Israel. It has become painfully obvious to most Americans that President Obama no longer supports Israel, our one democratic ally in the middle east, yet has chosen to cuddle up with and appease our enemies.

Can we talk about what Obama did not say in his speech? How about the fact that the United States, with taxpayer dollars, will be offering Iran a $150 BILLION signing bonus? Exactly where is that money coming from? Yes…the U.S. taxpayer.

Back in April of this year, President Obama finally relented, after intense pressure by both Republicans and Democrats alike, to give Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. The bill, passed in the Senate, requires the President to give Congress 60 days to review the deal and take a vote.

However, Secretary of State John Kerry claims the deal with Iran is NOT a treaty because he feels  getting consent from the U.S. Senate would “become physically impossible.”

When asked by Democrat Brad Sherman (CA), if the White House would comply with the law if the Senate were to override a veto on the deal with Iran, John Kerry replied,

“I will need to consult with President Obama before answering such a question.”

As we have all seen during Obama’s tenure as President, he has refused to follow the rule of law and decided which laws to enforce based on his personal feelings and how it supports his agenda to fundamentally change the United States.

In a step that has become typically Obama style, the president immediately went to the United Nations for a vote on the Iran deal realizing he did not have support from either Democrats or Republicans.  Again, a President who refuses to listen to the will of the people or their representatives in making major decisions that will affect the United States and generations to come. The standard reply? Yes I will follow the rule of law and listen to the representatives of the people as our Constitution demands, unless of course they don’t vote my way.

President Obama has become so determined to define his legacy that he is willing to sacrifice the American people, their children and their grandchildren, regardless of the outcome.

Like Prime Minister Chamberlain in his so-called deal with Hitler, the world suffered the consequences and no doubt, if this deal is forced through by the Obama regime, his legacy will not doubt, be World War III.


Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (911 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Will Obama’s Legacy Be World War III?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Chamberlain acted out of a fear that Britain wasn’t ready for war — which in fact was true, though neither was Germany. Obama acted to preen himself as a peacemaker for his pacifist base, and also out of (at best) a lack of concern about the fates of Israel and the United States.

  2. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Good summary, Leigh. What I think is most disturbing is that Obama apparently believes some of his own B.S. – not all of it, of course – but that he’s so magnificent he can turn Iran into a peace-loving member of the world community. Nothing is so dangerous as to fail to understand one’s enemies, and Obama (and Kerry) apparently do not understand that Iran fully intends to destroy us if they can.

    They also apparently do not understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran, which is a separate although related issue. Nuclear blackmail, a regional nuclear war in the Middle East, followed perhaps by World War III as Leigh suggests once America and other Western nations are drawn into what might begin as a regional war. Syria and Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon would obviously support Iran, and should Russia join them there’s no telling what would happen next.

    And of course there’s always the possibility of a nuclear Pearl Harbor once Iran has the bomb. Amazingly, Obama and Kerry are not alone – most Progressives and Libertarians also cannot see the obvious danger right in front of our faces.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A lot of people fail to understand the implications of a nuclear Iran, including conservative isolationists such as Pat Buchanan. They tend to argue that we can deal with them the way we did the Soviet Union, ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union wasn’t run by people who believed that martyring themselves to destroy the Enemy would allow them an eternal paradise. And Obama has shown a strong affinity to militant Islam, be it the Muslim Brotherhood or the Iranian mullahs. This no doubt reflects his Indonesian upbringing — and Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian birth and upbringing (her parents had chosen to expatriate themselves to the Shah’s realm).

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        True – Obama’s Muslim sympathies may be a factor here, along with Jerrett’s Iranian background.

        As for Buchanan, I agree about him but refuse to call him any kind of Conservative. I think the term “Paleoconservative” has been used but I don’t like it – he doesn’t fit any of the criteria for Conservatism I posted a while back except he’s still anti-abortion. Another day we should think about what to call people like Buchanan – they don’t believe in freedom or free markets, but don’t fit the standard Progressive mold either.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          he doesn’t fit any of the criteria for Conservatism I posted a while back except he’s still anti-abortion

          I believe Buchanan is akin to continental European Christian conservatives. These people do no have the same definition of conservative that Americans or even Brits have. They are conservatives in the sense of their belief in the Church and traditional ways. Free market economics are not a major tenet of their belief system. They are more concerned about “stake-holders” in a company than simply the shareholders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *