A Tale Of Two Patriots

[PoliticalChic]

1. As is so important in all discussions, a definition is the first thing to declare.

The usual definition of 'patriot'.....
pa·tri·ot
ˈpātrēət/
noun

1. a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Google

But for this essay I like this better:
"Ultimately derived from Greek patrios, meaning "of one’s father," patriot entered English via French patriote—meaning "fellow countryman" or "compatriot"—during a time of political unrest in western Europe that was characterized by infighting among fellow countrymen—especially among those of the Protestant and Catholic faiths."
Definition of PATRIOT

....a religious and familial reference as well.

So.....the term patriot may refer to more than merely a geographical definition.





2. It would be hard for the haters to argue that President Trump hasn't worked tirelessly for America, and Americans....

.....but the same is hardly true of his predecessor.

To what or who did Hussein Obama tie his allegiance?





3. Speaking of 'working tirelessly,' Obama made every effort to guarantee that Iran becomes a nuclear power.
One could certainly proclaim Obama as a patriot of the ummah

um·ma
ˈo͝omə/
noun
noun: ummah

• the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion. Google.

Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.

Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.

The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.



4. Most telling is that none of Obama's clueless supporters can provide an answer to this:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?




5. While the world's Leftists are doing everything they can to damage Western Civilization.....Trump has tightened sanctions to end the threat of a nuclear Iran.

"Pompeo: ‘United States is Terminating 1955 Treaty of Amity With Iran’
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that America will terminate the 1955 treaty of amity with Iran after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) used the treaty to force the US to ease some sanctions against Iran.

This treaty “regulates and promotes economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries.” You can read the full text of it here."
Pompeo: 'United States is Terminating 1955 Treaty of Amity With Iran'

 

[kyzr]

What is Trump's end game with Iran? Regime change? Keep tightening sanctions until that happens? Can Iran make outside deals to defeat the sanctions? Is Iran developing bombs and missiles as we post? Who is playing whom?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is Trump's end game with Iran? Regime change? Keep tightening sanctions until that happens? Can Iran make outside deals to defeat the sanctions? Is Iran developing bombs and missiles as we post? Who is playing whom?

The aim is to make certain that Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

BTW......

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to Hussein's first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

 

[kyzr]

Yet Obama gave Iran billions in cash and the Iran Deal ended after 10 years, so Iran was free to develop nukes after a waiting period?! Why is Kerry so fond of that bad deal? Can Trump indict Kerry for the same ancient law the dems wanted to arrest Flynn for?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is Trump's end game with Iran? Regime change? Keep tightening sanctions until that happens? Can Iran make outside deals to defeat the sanctions? Is Iran developing bombs and missiles as we post? Who is playing whom?

Great questions!!


"Is Iran developing bombs and missiles as we post?"


Being the valiant patriot of the ummah, Hussein knew about this:

"Iran and North Korea have engaged in nuclear-related trade or .... North Korea may receive from Iran upwards of $2 to $3 billion.
The Iran-North Korea Strategic Relationship is an issue that has drawn minimum public attention in Washington since at least 2007 when I wrote extensively about it in a report I authored at the Congressional Research Service and updated for the next three years: North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy (section on Nuclear Collaboration with Iran and Syria). This, despite the extensive coverage of the major advances in the nuclear weapons and missile programs of North Korea and Iran since that time.

On nuclear collaboration, there has been a virtual blackout of public information.

The Washington Post reported on November 7, 2011, that “secret intelligence” provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that Iran had received “crucial technology” from North Korea for the development of nuclear warheads.

....North Korea earned about $1.5 billion annually from its missile collaboration with Iran alone. It seems to me that North Korea may receive from Iran upwards of $2 to $3 billion annually from Iran for the various forms of collaboration between them."
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150728/103824/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-NikschL-20150728.pdf



Hussein knew that Iran paid 20-30% of North Korea's GDP to serve as their nuclear weapons laboratory, why didn't he make ending that a part of the Iran Nuclear Scam....or...why didn't he stop them?

Because he was a valiant patriot of the ummah.



Can you fathom the imbeciles who were tricked into voting for him??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Fox News:

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled earlier Wednesday that the U.S. must lift sanctions that affect the import of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation. Iran had alleged that the sanctions breach the 1955 bilateral agreement known as the Treaty of Amity, from when the two countries had good relations, that regulates and promotes economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries.

The ICJ, ruling from the Hague, said in a preliminary decision that the U.S. must “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” sanctions that affect exports to Iran of medicine, medical devices, food, agricultural commodities and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation. The U.S. had argued that the sanctions cannot be challenged at the ICJ because it is a matter of national security. The court’s president, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, said that the case will continue and the U.S. could challenge the court’s jurisdiction."



Trump's response was the same one that Andrew Jackson gave when the Supreme Court came out with a decision with which he disagreed:

"In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. ... And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees. Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jacksonreportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
Speeches - sp_05-19-03 - Supreme Court of the United States




Of course, you know what Hussein Obama would have said......

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled earlier Wednesday that the U.S. must lift sanctions....."


Here's why Trump was elected:

Pompeo: “I promise you that doing business with Iran in defiance of our sanctions will ultimately be a much more painful business decision.”

President Donald Trump’s administration has officially restored sanctions on Iran that went away with the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal.

At the same time, SWIFT, a financial messaging service based in Belgium, announced it will suspend “some unspecified Iranian banks’ access to its messaging system in the interest of the stability and integrity of the global financial system,” but did not mention the US sanctions.


From The Financial Times:

The Belgian-based company said Monday it would suspend “certain Iranian banks’” access to its cross border-payment network — a signal that it will fall into line with a US list of targeted financial institutions due to be published imminently.

Swift’s decision further undermines EU efforts to maintain trade with Iran and save a landmark international deal with Tehran, after President Donald Trump pulled out in May. Swift now faces the threat of punitive action under new EU rules that forbid companies from complying with the US Iran sanctions.

Swift said: “In keeping with our mission of supporting the resilience and integrity of the global financial system as a global and neutral service provider, Swift is suspending certain Iranian banks’ access to the messaging system. This step, while regrettable, has been taken in the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial system.”
SWIFT Suspends Some of Iran's Access as Trump Admin Restores Sanctions