Powered By Blogger
Showing posts with label iran debbie wasserman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran debbie wasserman. Show all posts

Monday, September 7, 2015

WHY DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ IS CRYING

Democratic National Committee chair 
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
4%
 cried over the Iran deal on CNN’s State of the Union this weekend when she was asked by host Jake Tapper what she would say to fellow Jews who would say to her that she had “sold out Israel” by casting a vote in favor of the agreement.

Wasserman Schultz briefly lost her composure as she argued that she believed she had strengthened Israeli and American security by supporting it.
You know, I’m the first Jewish woman to represent Florida in Congress. I’m a Jewish mother. And I wrote an op-ed today that is in The Miami Herald, my home–one of my hometown papers that talked about my Jewish heart [chokes up] and how important this was to me that, as a Jewish mother, that we have a concept of l’dor v’dor, from generation to generation.
There’s nothing more important to me, as a Jew, to ensure that Israel’s existence is there throughout our generations. And I’m confident that the process I have gone through to reach this decision is one that will ensure that Israel will be there forever. It’s the homeland of my people. I’m an American citizen, and I believe fervently in protecting America’s national security interests. And there’s no way that we would be able to ensure that better than approving this deal and ensuring that Iran is not ever able to get access to nuclear weapons, and that we can shift our focus with the rest of the world on going after their terrorist ambitions.
And, most importantly, I had the privilege of talking with President Obama last night, who assured me that, as we move forward and discuss with Israel enhanced–the enhanced security package that will absolutely be essential for us to provide to Israel, as well as ensure that we tighten the ability–our ability to enforce this deal, that I will be part of a group of members of Congress that will be working with him and his administration on that. That’s critical for me.
Wasserman Schultz’s defense can be summarized as follows:
 1. She cares deeply about Israel’s existence, which ought to mean she has made the right decision. 

2. The Iran deal protects Israel because it prevents Iran from “ever” gaining access to nuclear weapons. 

3. The Iran deal allows the world to shift focus to the regime’s terrorism. 

4. The president will offer Israel an “enhanced security package” that will be “essential” in the aftermath of the Iran deal.

None of these arguments is convincing. Let us take each in turn.

1. Wasserman Schultz may care about Israel, but that is not reflected in her political leadership. During her time as chair, the Democrats have moved away from pro-Israel positions–most visibly in the floor fight at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. People can care about an issue and still be wrong. And, quite possibly, she cries because she really does care–and knows she is wrong.

2. Wasserman Schultz is wrong that the deal prevents Iran from “ever” attaining nuclear weapons. It is, at best, a temporary deal. The so-called “permanent” provisions citied by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are non-binding and voluntary. Even the deal’s defenders–such as, lately, Colin Powell–acknowledge that the deal merely kicks the can down the road. If Wasserman Schultz thinks otherwise, she is deeply confused.

3. The Iran deal does not shift the world’s focus to terrorism. Clearly, it does the opposite by providing the regime with hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief that even the Obama administration admits will be used, at least partly, to fund terror. Confronting Iran’s terror in the region would also require a dramatic escalation in the U.S. military presence in the region. The Obama administration is plainly moving in the opposite direction.

4. Unlike the Saudis, who have traded away their public opposition to the Iran deal in exchange for sophisticated weaponry, the Israeli government has resisted the Obama administration’s offers of military aid in exchange for supporting the Iran deal. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees this as an existential and moral issue, and has refused to be bought. And if the Iran deal makes Israel safer, why does it need new weapons in the aftermath?
So none of Wasserman Schultz’s arguments to Jake Tapper suffice. In her article in the Miami Herald, she offered a more detailed explanation of her position. It is one of the more heartfelt defenses of the Iran deal yet, but still fails. She accepts, for example, the president’s claim that “Iran cannot self-inspect.” She does so on the basis of classified information about Iran’s side deals with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We still do not know, however, if she has actually read the documents–nor do we know why they have not been presented to Congress, as required by law. To believe her, we simply have to trust President Obama, who has misled Americans throughout this process.
Wasserman Schultz’s tears are real–this has probably been her toughest ordeal. But she knows she has chosen party over principle. At some level, even in the most political of souls, that decision has to hurt. As well it should.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Debbie Wasserman Schultz the Satmar Chassidisteh Supports Iran Nuclear Deal


Politics make strange bedfellows! 
Who would think that Debbie "the blabbermouth" Wasserman Schultz  would read Der Goy and Der Blutteh? 
It seems she got her advice from the Romanian gypsy rabbis from Sakmar! 
She decided to throw her fellow Jews under the bus even though her entire Florida constituency are  Jews! And most of those Jews are either Holocaust survivors themselves or children of survivors!

 The only reason a Jew would even think of supporting handing over a license  to a country that vows to annihilate all Jews living in Israel, to allow them to build nuclear weapons, must either be they are  self hating Jews or they  so enamored by the  Jew hater in the white house that they are happily willing to stab their very own family in the back just to appease him! 

The Sakmar gypsies, like Blabbermouth Shultz are only concerned about the here and now, thinking they are safe in their respective environs, but if they would have only read our bloody history they would have noticed that time proves otherwise, that appeasement just brings more and more war, because you can never appease a hungry lion, except for feeding it more and more meat!

The world now has a huge Arab refugee problem, and the Satmar meshiginer Herzog, the leftist MK in the Knesset, wants to bring them to Israel? 
How insane and demented is this? 

Is there ONE Arab country that will take them in?
if there is, I haven't read about it...

But Karma is a "bitch," 6 million Arab refugees  are now heading to Germany to replace the 6 million Jews they brutally murdered, I would like to see how that works out!
Remember when the English expelled the Jews in the 1200's? Well now they have Arabs swamping their shores in ..... 2015!

America better watch out now.... with the mindset of  meshagaim like Schultz representing us in Congress .... and the mindset of Sakmar cultists supporting Iranians.... the arabs will soon be the majority in the US, too!

I really believe that if all Jews were united against the deal, then politicians like Nadler, Schultz, and Corry would never have supported the President, but when you read Frum Newspapers like this weeks Der Goy and Der Bluteh that attack the Agudah for advocating against the deal, what chance do we have?

Hey guys, when was the last time you took a trip to Flatbush? 
Take a drive down Coney Island Avenue between Cortelyou Road and Avenue H ....
Flatbush is surrounded by thousands of Arabs..... and it was from a mosque on Avenue H that they plotted the destruction of the World Trade Center, it was the Imam from the mosque on Avenue H that plotted and succeeded to murder the late Rabbi Meir Kahana z"l ..

 It's only be' Chasdei Hashem, that they are so far, quiet!

Satmar thinks that Jews living in Israel are in jeopardy, how wrong they are....
It is far more dangerous to  live in New York, 
This year so far there were over 328 murders in New York, Israel with the same population had fewer than 15!
15 is a lot, I agree, but when in the history of the Jewish people pre-Zionist State were there so few Jewish deaths?
Every Jew killed is of course too much.... but let's look at the entire picture!

 And the authorities will do absolutely nothing when the Arabs  begin rioting. murdering and raping..

You think I'm exaggerating?
Ask the Lubavs when the shvartzas rioted for 3 consecutive days, with the police allowing them to vent.
Ask them....

Ask the Fergeson residents whose business were destroyed with police looking on....'
Ask them!
Ask the Baltimore Jews who lived barely a mile away from the riots..
Ask them!
At least in the Zionists State, they have half a chance!

The following are statistics done in 2011.... remember its 4 years later now! 
I'm not trying to scare you but its time to tell the Satmars and the Wassermans to shut the hell up already!

Question: Ponder this for a moment ..... you see any arabs escaping Israel "occupied" Judaia & Shomron?
I wonder why they run, from Iraq, Syria etc???? Hmmm?

A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.[24]