The More We Find Out About #IranDeal, The Worse It Gets

Neville Chamberlain called, Mr. Obama, he wants his foreign policy back

(Breitbart) Indeed, the deal is weaker than the provisional arrangement the White House announcedthis past April.

Under the agreement, which is 159 pages long, the Iranian regime agrees to limit its nuclear enrichment activities for eight years (instead of ten years, as agreed in Lausanne). It will limit its stockpile of enriched uranium to 300 kg, and will limit its research and development, and will be assisted by the international community in some nuclear research, including at the underground facility at Fordow, which it had operated illegally.

In return, the international community will drop major financial and economic sanctions against the Iranian regime. The agreement indicates that new sanctions cannot be applied by the EU or the U.S. before a special dispute resolution process is conducted.

Iran will only grant very limited access to international inspectors to visit nuclear sites. They will be allowed one visit to the military site at Parchin, and visits to other sites will be tightly controlled, with a 24-day advance warning, according to reports. If Iran refuses access, the issue will be arbitrated by a Joint Commission, on which Iran will also be represented. Sanctions can only be re-imposed for “significant non-performance.”

As many, including myself, are asking on Twitter, exactly what does the United States get out of this deal, other than Obama and Kerry being praised by the Left Wing Media? A bad deal is worse than no deal.

Iran’s president is directly contradicting Obama on sanctions

John McCain may be super squishy on many, many things, but, he’s no fool on international relations and Iran

“While I will thoroughly review all of the details of this agreement, all signs point to this being a bad deal. The most concerning concessions – on sanctions, sunset, inspections and verification, research and development, and Iran’s enrichment capability, among others – were made long ago. To those concessions, it now appears that the Administration has made still more, especially the repeal of the international arms embargo on Iran. The result, I fear, is that this agreement will strengthen Iran’s ability to acquire conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, while retaining an industrial scale nuclear program, without any basic change to its malign activities in the Middle East.

“Ultimately, the problem with this agreement is that it is built far too much on hope – on the belief that somehow the Iranian government will fundamentally change in the next several years, such that it can be trusted with a growing arsenal, a huge influx of cash, and the infrastructure of a nuclear program. This is delusional and dangerous, especially as we see Iran on the offensive in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region. Instead, I fear this agreement could undermine the very goals we have maintained for 35 years – weakening the Islamic Republic, constraining its threatening influence, strengthening Israel and our Arab partners, lessening regional tensions, and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

This was a deal made on U.S. weakness, thanks to Obama and Hillary Clinton, with some help from John Kerry. This gives Iran most of everything they want, kicks the can down the road on a nuclear armed Iran, and will ultimately make the Middle East less stable. Good job, O!

And, let’s face it, as more details come out, it will get worse. There is literally nothing of benefit to the United States.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

40 Responses to “The More We Find Out About #IranDeal, The Worse It Gets”

  1. Michael says:

    Let’s get this straight…. Obama and Hillary love war!

    Don’t let their words get you confused. Just like bill Clinton loved nation building and bush promised to end that practice.

    Let’s remember that all these neocons, both republican and democrat love to tell the public that they are for peace when they are running for office, but as soon as they are in control its back to business as usual.

    They’re mantra is the means justify the ends and so they have no moral issues with lieing, cheating and stealing to make sure that the military industrial complex remains strong and powerful.

    Let me remind you that it is both the bushes and the clintons that are part of this club. Sadly, so was Obama which blindsided the progressives. And their Bernie Sanders stands no chance in hell against the war machine of Hillary Clinton.

    Same goes for the republican side. The neocons got their bushes and friends of bushes in the game. No libertarian or tea party candidate stands a chance against them. I’ve been knee deep in these conventions as a delegate for many years and seen how things are really done on the inside… It’s sick and sad.

    Sadly, I believe the neocon establishment has already decided that Hillary has been a good little soldier and paid her dues and therefore all efforts will go to make her the next king…. Er, I mean president.

    Two years ago I predicted Hillary would be our next president… Let’s see how accurate I am based on my own personal experience as and insider of the system.

  2. Dana says:

    It would be in Israel’s better interests if this deal actually inhibited Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So, if it does that, then Israel ought to support it, right? But, as The Washington Post reported:

    Israeli leaders across the political spectrum condemned in stark apocalyptic language the Iranian nuclear pact announced by the United States and world powers Tuesday, calling it a historic mistake that frees Iran to sponsor global terror while assembling the information and materials to build a nuclear weapon.

    It’s not just Prime Minister Netanyahu, who neither likes nor trusts President Obama, but the Israeli left as well.

    The Israelis remember when Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor. Looks like they need to do it again.

  3. john says:

    Most military experts that at most a bombing campaign would delay Iran’s ability to make a bomb by 3 years. It would NOT prevent only delay
    And definitely it WOULD strengthen the hardliners position that a bomb should be built.
    Only idiots and people who believe in what fiction books they read would believe that a bombing campaign would stop an Iran that believed its only course for self defense would be a nuclear bomb
    The very same people who are now advocating for bombing Iran instead of a treaty are the ones who told us all those lies about Iraq: WMD, a Cakewalk, we will be greeted as liberators, those insurgent attacks just show how desperate they are, don’t cut and run we are almost at the tipping point, et.al.
    Why should we ever listen to those foreign policy/military experts ever again?
    And Teach AFTER the bombing what then? More boots on the ground (but not yours)?
    I will believe that Iran needs to be attacked when the people who advocate that are willing to put THEIR lives on the line. Any plans of doing that Teach?

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    I believe it is “peace for our time.” Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

    Neville Chamberlain-1938

  5. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    Most military experts that at most a bombing campaign would delay Iran’s ability to make a bomb by 3 years. It would NOT prevent only delay

    And definitely it WOULD strengthen the hardliners position that a bomb should be built.

    Hey, that’s three more years that they don’t have the bomb! And when that three years is up, hit’em again.

    As for the hardliners, you’re making the same mistake President Reagan did, assuming that there are “moderate” Iranian leaders. They’re all hardliners, or they get booted out.

  6. Jeffery says:

    and will ultimately make the Middle East less stable.

    The past century of Western meddling in the Middle East has made a hash of things, hasn’t it? Should it be the Meddle East?

    So much was done in the Middle East because, as Stephen Colbert says, “Jesus put our oil under their sand!” Colonialism, paternalism, exploitation of resources.

    1911: WWI: Russia and Britain occupy Iran. Britain stays 10 years.

    1916: Britain and France develop the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret Plan to divide the entire middle east outside of the Arabian peninsula.

    1920: Britain receives Palestine, Jordan, and what is now Iraq, and installs Sunni elites into power. France occupies what is today Syria and Lebanon. France transfers some Lebanese territory to Syria, and continues occupation of both until 1946.

    1921: Britain withdraws from Iran, and Reza Khan becomes Shah of Iran.

    1941: WWII begins. Iraqis overthrow puppet British government in Iraq. Britain and Russia occupy Iran and Iraq to guarantee oil supplies for the Allied effort. Shah Reza Khan is deposed by the superpowers; his son Reza Pahlavi is installed as new Shah of Iran in return for western access to oil. Britain stays in Iraq until 1948.

    1943: Lebanon gains independence from France; Britain occupies both Lebanon and Syria to avoid alliances with Germany.

    1948: State of Israel established. Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria declare war on Israel. Syria undergoes years of internal revolts following their defeat, many based on ethnic and religious rivalries.

    1951: Iranians elect Mosaddegh as Prime Minister.

    1953: Mosaddegh nationalizes oil fields, and is subsequently overthrown in US-UK led coup d’etat. The Shah assumes complete control and crushes opposition with torture and secret police with US-UK support.

    1958: Iraqis revolt against British-installed Monarchy and Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist party assumes control.

    1966: Ba’athist Party also takes control in Syria, but the group is divided between pro and anti Iraq factions.

    1970: The Anti-Iraq wing of the Ba’athist Party, supported by the military, overthrows the Syrian government and installs anti-Iraq Ba’athist Hafez el-Assad as leader.

    1975: Civil War breaks out in Lebanon.

    1976: Syria begins a 30 year occupation and effective control of Lebanon.

    1978: Iranians revolt against the US’s installed Shah; The Iranian Revolution installs Ayatollah Khomeini in a theocratic state.

    1979: US refuses to return the Shah to Iran to face trial; students take Americans Embassy hostage for 444 days.

    1980: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invades Iran, receiving financial, military, and chemical weapons from the US.

    1988: Hussein’s Iraq launches chemical genocide against Kurdish minority in northern Iraq.

    1990: Iraq annexes Kuwait. US, France, UK, and Syria enter the Gulf War against Hussein; Kurds rebel in the north.

    1998: US President Clinton signs Iraq Liberation Act, calling for “regime change” in Iraq.

    2000: Syria’s Hafez el-Assad dies; his son Bashar al-Azzad takes control.

    2001: Al Qaeda attacks the United States. US State Department meets with Iran secretly in Switzerland to obtain cooperation on the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and al qaeda throughout the region.

    2002: President Bush refers to Iran as being part of the “Axis of Evil” and US-Iran relations deteriorate quickly.

    2003: US-led coalition enters Iraq and overthrows Hussein. Shi’ite led coalition government installed, with a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north.

    2005: A series of assassinations of Lebanese officials is blamed on Syria’s Assad; protests and pressure from the west result in Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon.

    2008: Lebanon’s new Cabinet establishes Hezbollah, a Shi’ite paramilitary organization, with legal status. Hezbollah is committed to driving the Americans, French, and British out of the Levant, is funded by Iran, and allied with Syria’s Assad in the Syrian Civil War.

    2011: US Troops leave Iraq, and Sunni-Shi’ite struggles accelerate. The “Arab Spring” spreads to Syria and full-scale civil war ensues, resulting in over 100,000 deaths and 2 million refugees. Anti-Assad forces include Kurds and ISIS (“Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”) allies in the northeast of Syria.

    2014: The Sunni-dominated ISIS military assume effective control over eastern Syria, and begin successful invasion of Western Iraq.

    Not to mention Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Saudis, Northern Africa …

    So slowing Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions doesn’t seem like such a bad thing in context. Israel prefers to keep Iran under their thumb. Duh. They can still bomb if they desire.

  7. Dana says:

    The agreement states that the United States will cease to apply certain sanctions, and will seek their statutory repeal. In effect, the Obama Administration has committed to non-enforcement of sanctions imposed under the law, even if they can’t get the Congress to repeal them. See section B 4. on page 61.

  8. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    So slowing Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions doesn’t seem like such a bad thing in context. Israel prefers to keep Iran under their thumb. Duh. They can still bomb if they desire.

    Yet, as cited above, the Israelis don’t believe that this agreement would slow down Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It’s not just Benjamin Netanyahu; from left to right, virtually all of the Israeli leaders believe that this is a bad deal.

  9. Dana says:

    Jeffrey noted:

    1979: US refuses to return the Shah to Iran to face trial; students take Americans Embassy hostage for 444 days.

    This is because Jimmy Carter had no balls. He should have told the Iranians that they had 72 hours to return our people to us, unharmed, or that they would be honored as the unfortunate American casualties in the attacks which reduced Tehran and Qom to radioactive black holes in the ground, and meant it!

    Instead, he dithered and dallied, and got the Iranians to release our people just before Ronald Reagan took office. Perhaps the Ayatollah thought that President Reagan would have destroyed the Islamic republic.

  10. Jl says:

    John-“the ones who told us all those lies about Iraq-WMDs….” Check out the NYT from Oct.14, 2014, where they admit WMDs were found. John, timie to drop all the old liberal talking points about the Iraq war and come up with something new, and factual. “I believe Iran needs to attacked when the people who advocate that are willing to put their lives on the line.” My God, John, you do realize that we have an all volunteer military, don’t you, so such lame lines like yours aren’t even relevant. Anyway, you think they’d allow 40, 50, or even 60 year olds in combat? Hello, John…anybody home?

  11. Liam Thomas says:

    Im serious. Obama just fixed global warming.

  12. john says:

    Germany France Great Britain Russia China all think this is a good deal.
    People who have always hated Obama do not like the deal.
    Saudi Arabia who gave us 95% of the 9/11 hijackers and whose Wahabism spawned Al Qaeda and bin Laden doesn’t like it
    Some in Israel do not like it.
    But since 25% of the population in Israel is Arab, one might assume that they would be afraid of getting nuked by Iran, but shockingly they exhibit no concern

  13. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    Germany France Great Britain Russia China all think this is a good deal.

    Russia and China are always happy to see things that weaken the United States and threaten Israel; Germany, France and the UK just see increased trade opportunities and lower oil prices.

    January 21, 2017 cannot come fast enough.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    January 21, 2017 cannot come fast enough.

    I partially share your optimism. The problem is we will just trade one communist for another…Hillary Clintons first job was working for a communist law firm.

    She is NOT Bill Clinton and there is nothing the GOP has that can get them elected. The tea party has done to the GOP what the black caucus did to the Democrats for two decades…..

    They made Democrats nationally unelectable as people like Jesse Jackson and his rainbow coalition would run for the Democratic party painting Democrats as Black Panther wannabes.

    Now we have the tea party painting the GOP as X and Y and Z. Mainly Anti everything and pro lets kill us some muslims.

    No matter what message we push….the press and the left will paint the gop as anti everything and lets kill us some muslims.

    And when were done killing some muslims lets kill some more muslims….and blacks and hispanics and gays and women….and when there is nothing left but old white men….lets kill us some more muslims and women and gays and hispanics cause its FUNNNNNN…………WEEEEEEEEE!!!!

    Get my point….Im even embarrassed at times to being a member of the GOP because while the above is not basically true….the way the right comes off talking about it….its so easy to paint them anti-everything.

    Hence Hillary knows all she has to do is show up and shes the next president…only thing stopping her is that she doesnt drop dead cause shes old.

    8 more years of communist progressive rule ought to just about do the trick here in America.

  15. Liam Thomas says:

    By the way Jeffery nice list…..Its always refreshing to see someone take the time to work up facts to make a point.

    Your list is relevant. But it has not just been the USA meddling in the Middle east. The biggest reason the USA meddled in Iran was so that they could spy on russia who for decades seemed intent on destroying the United States. We had listening posts in Iran that would monitor their nukalar testing and their weapons programs….this was in an era in which sattelites could not do the job and u-2’s were subject to being shot down.

    Never the less…..The main reason for all the meddling was a Western Europe and the USA was doing everything conceivable to stop the USSR influence in the middle east….

    Any lack of meddling would have given the worlds oil to the soviets…..and as Ive said before OIL is every nations national security. Every nation is willing to fight for it until there is something better.

    This will not change, now or in the future as long as we depend entirely upon OIL/GAS for our mutal defense and welfare.

    Nice list though and pretty accurate.

  16. Deserttrek says:

    a deal made and supported by liars thieves and child abusers

  17. Michael says:

    Let’s address two subjects…

    Where does the United States get its oil from
    And
    How can a democrat be a neocon?

    America is one of the world’s largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria. Apr 12, 2012 NPR

    If you go to the department of energy you will find that technically almost all of our oil comes from USA, Canada, and Mexico.

    Invading countries with oil for National security is just another neocon excuse to control the world because I guess controlling their neighbor’s lives in America is just not enough.

    My guess is that the influential neocons are also oil tycoons and are trying to manipulate the world market place for their own benefit and they don’t have any moral issue with killing a few million innocents while they are at it. You know, all the “useless eaters”.

    And as Hillary says, killing hundreds of thousands of women and children overseas as collateral damage is worth it…. The means justify the ends.

    So let’s talk about the neocon democrats.

    I think it was the other post that Liam was offended by being associated to Obama as a neocon himself.

    Let’s listen to Obama regarding fighting extremism and promoting democracy through forced nation building which the clintons and bushes all share in as fellow neocons.

    “Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.”

    “the essential ingredient to real and lasting stability and progress is not less democracy. It’s more democracy. It’s institutions that uphold the rule of law and apply justice equally.”

    If it looks like a neocon and talks like a neocon, then it must be a neocon.

    If you want more examples look up Obama the neocon… Pages and pages available to read.

  18. Let me ask John and Jeff: if this deal was done by George W Bush, or, heck, any Republican president, would you be so quick to support it? Or, would you say “hey, hold on a minute, let’s think about this?” Of course, we know you’d oppose it simply because Bush!!!!! (or Romney, McCain, whoever).

    If any Republican president trotted this terrible deal out, I’d be dead set against it. Because it is bad. The most you two can say is that it will slow Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions (and deflect. Can’t forget that). The idea was to stop it. Mission failure.

  19. Michael says:

    I had to add this as well because it’s just too good to not include…

    Of course, to Kristol, calling someone a neocon is a compliment. Indeed, Kristol praised Obama’s speech on the Weekly Standard blog, saying the President “had rejoined — or joined — the historical American foreign policy mainstream.” The speech was “reassuring,” Kristol explained, saying, “The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests.” In other words, it was a neocon speech, cloaking the use of violence in the language of liberty and treating the U.S. military as the President’s personal mercenaries to reshape the globe rather than as defenders of the territorial United States.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1400-the-bush-obama-neocon-doctrine

    And Hillary is uniquely qualified to be the next president of the American Empire because she is a neocon and neocons have been running the show for some time in the USA.

    I am however optimistic that the neocon hold will come to an end in the next 20 years.

    There is only so much empire and paper money one can have until the reality of unintended consequences come rolling in and make the party come to an end.

    And then the adults(the American people) will have to come in and clean up the mess, apologize to the neighbors for all the noise, damage and recklessness cause by the spoiled rich kids(neocon government).

  20. Jeffery says:

    I didn’t object to Reagan’s START arms deal, even though I thought Reagan’s presidency was bad for the US. I oppose Obama’s TPP trade pact.

    Does the US-Iran deal assure the destruction of Israel and guarantee that Iran will be MORE likely to construct nuclear weapons as Republicans claim? Of course not. The right hates it because the right hates Obama and Democrats in general. Conservatives rely on might making right and consider negotiation to be a sign of weakness, and had already dismissed this deal before it was made.

  21. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Does the US-Iran deal assure the destruction of Israel and guarantee that Iran will be MORE likely to construct nuclear weapons as Republicans claim?

    Actually, what the deal does is give Iran more resources to construct nuclear weapons. The ending of sanctions means that Iran will have more available resources period, which means that funds and materials diverted to the nuclear program will have less of an impact on other areas of the Iranian economy. The Iranian people will have more, meaning that the government is more secure, meaning that there is less restraint on the mad mullahs as far as building bombs is concerned.

  22. Liam Thomas says:

    Neocons believe in Democracy everywhere. Its the lynch pin of their beliefs. I sense in you another Ron/Rand Paul supporter.

    And naturally a libertarian believes that the USA should be isolationist. I don’t know but no matter the case you make there is NO democracy in Obama and not an ounce of NEOCON in him.

    @Jeffery

    Throughout the Middle East, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran compete for influence and supremacy via proxy wars in Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

    Now that the Shiite Iran is getting the bomb then all those Sunni’s feel the need to get the bomb.

    Remember the problem Iraq faced….Sunni’s and Shiites in the same country….once one faction was put in charge they immediately set to work crushing the other group which caused the civil war in Iraq.

    Democracy can never exist in the Middle East because we have such deep seated passionate hatreds between two sects of the same religion/people.

    Its not iran getting the bomb that scares me….its Egypt and Saudia Arabia and UAE and Kuwait and Yemen and Syria and Lebanon.

    How do you say these people would end up with a bomb…..Because the proxy battles taking place will see Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan and Iran shipping nukes to their puppet regimes all over the middle east.

    Iran is the boulder dropped on the delicatley balanced scale that is the middle east……The USA gets most of their oil from elsewhere but all of Europe and Austrailia and New Zealand do not….

    Full scale war there will end badly for all of us as the world falls into massive Depression that makes the 1929 episode look like a mild recession.

    thats the real problem. I have travelled the middle east a lot…not recently but over the past 40 years and I can tell you that these people hate each other….I can’t even begin to tell you how much they hate each other. Its impossible to put in words.

    Think of the KKK and Black people in its hey day and then quadruple that and you are getting near how much shia’s hate sunnis in this region. They will do anything to kill each other and have…..for centuries.

    So ANYONE who thinks the middle east will not become a nukalar armed armageddon is just simply pulling a neville chamberlain in their own minds.

  23. Michael says:

    Liam,

    I think you believe that the opposite of interventialism is isolationism. And you would be dead wrong.

    Just because we don’t have a paranoia mental disorder that everyone is out to get us and kill us so we need to bomb and invade a new country every year or two doesn’t mean we are not interested in diplomatic relationships and trade with other nations.

    I can talk and trade with people in my neighborhood just fine without thinking that they are going to secretly kill me in my sleep.

    And that is all the neocon’s “War on Terror” is all about. A never ending war on the boogeyman. One in which we will never win or end until neocons are no longer running the show.

    Many republicans and democrats at the top are all neocons who continuously make sure we are reminded that we are fighting a never ending war on terror. A great neocon invention to ensure that they will be unquestioned in their pursuits to kill the boogeyman of their paranoia.

    And another note… We used to spread Christianity around the world like we spread democracy around the world…. It was called the crusades.

    It’s not a good foreign policy.

  24. Liam Thomas says:

    So Michael I would surmise that you think ISIS is a not threat……Iran and a Nuclear armed middle East is a non threat….The resurgence of Russia is a non threat….Communism is a non threat…..The vast resurgence of China to the point of eventually dwarfing the world is a non threat.

    All Im hearing form you is what Ron Paul continually used to say over and over.

    It is commonplace for the would-be tyrants to create fear on purpose so that people will actually rush to the government saviors, demanding safety with a willingness to sacrifice liberty. Fear is constantly being manufactured by our leaders, Republicans Democrats, by invoking a current “Hitler” about to attack us: Saddam, Ahmadinejad, the Taliban, the communists, al Qaeda, or whomever. This fear is required to get the people’s support for fighting unnecessary wars and supporting the military industrial complex. The fear is concocted. The war is very clearly not necessary…..Ron Paul

    Libertarians claim they are engaged in foreign policy but being engaged is more then issuing a statement thru an embassy expressing your dismay. While I agree that we are far more engaged then we should be there is a balance that should be reached. Today we have gone overboard in one direction and the Ron Paulies of the world are willing to pull out of every country and leave them to their own devices.

    I totally and abjectly reject Ron Paul/Rand Paul foreign policy. While our current foreign policy is in disarray……Rand Paul foreign policy will not exist other then an occassional objection at the UN.

    Neocons is a nice label to label ANYONE who is not a full blown libertarian. As I have said. The libertarian movements sole goal is to take over the GOP. They tried doing things within the libertarian party and got no traction…..so now theirs is a campaign to redefine conservativism so as to exclude 70 percent of the Current GOP.

    This is why I say repeatedly the GOP has no chance at winning a national election….Ever….again.

  25. Michael says:

    Liam,

    At least you completely understand my position in regards to foreign policy. You just don’t understand how and why it would work.

    Public educators employed by the government teaches us that because we decided after World War One that we would not have an interventialism foreign policy, that is why Hitler rose to power. That is what is taught now for generations… I know because I was a first honor role student in the dumbed down public system.

    We have generations upon generations of Americans that believe that if we, the super mans and batmans of the world don’t pre-emptively act on the side of our “perceived good” then evil men will rise to the top and take over the world. It is the American mindset because that has been how we have been taught for generations. We are the good guys and everyone else is evil.

    Even the UN was established to thwart another hitler and you scoff at the UN like I scoff at your interventialism. The UN and USA interventialism doesn’t work.

    ISIS is a product of interventialism and ISIS would fall apart if there was no USA to fight locally. They would implode in their own internal struggles. The notion that these guys are coming here to chop off our heads in America is silly and laughable.

    Yes, I think the fear is an illusion created by paranoid neocons and they use the media to infect the general public with their paranoia.

    I will put money down that I am more likely to be shot and killed by a police office than I am to have my head chopped off by ISIS.

    So you keep peddling the fear… I will live my life fearless and happy. I will not need drugs to keep me calm and sleep at night because I am not a paranoid fool.

  26. Liam Thomas says:

    I will put money down that I am more likely to be shot and killed by a police office than I am to have my head chopped off by ISIS.

    I would agree. However move to Syria and make that claim.

    The only fear I peddle is the fear of global cooling…in other posts in indicated I was opposed to the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq and I fought with the 196th light infantry in Vietnam.

    Yes libertarianism has some appeal….

    Yes I understand you and on another planet I would be one of “YOURS”….just not on this planet.

  27. Michael says:

    Liam,

    Move to Syria??? Hahaha

    Let’s remember the federal government’s obligated to protect Americans in America from attack, not Syria.

    Let’s stick to the defence of America. I live in America… Honestly I give a rats ass what happens in Syria so long as I’m not footing the bill. My government is the USA, not Syria.

    If you are concerned about the welfare of Syria why don’t you move there and be a part of their society.

    You are not superman nor is anyone sent down from heaven above to control the world wisely and correctly.

    You are human and subject to your own perceptions and biases and I would hate to think you will decide the direction of billions of people in this world.

    Our national security is determined by our ability to defend ourselves from attack, not measured by how entangled we are with every conflict in the world.

    So I guess the Syrians need your help… You better go buy a plane ticket.

  28. Liam Thomas says:

    Okay John.

    I get cha. You have two accounts you post here with…..the John Account and the Michael account.

    Your in la la land if you think this new world is not interconnected. Isolationism will only lead to a world in chaos without someone to help keep it relatively sane.

    You continue to forget about the resurgence of russia and the powerhouse of China that will soon replace the USA as the worlds only superpower.

    I hope you have brushed up on your Chinese when they see you sitting over here with your shot gun and your ford f-150 ready to take on 150 division of fully armed Chicom’s.

    Why? Why would they invade the USA…..because the USA is one of the richest countries on the planet and they can…..no one will stop them.

    What the Canadians? The Germans? The French? Israel.

    Dream on liberty boy…..liberty is something fought for….not held onto by hiding in a hole and hoping the world passes you bye.

    You are the perfect example of why radical libertarians are every bit as dangerous to the GOP as progressive were and are to the Democratic party………your own brand of moonbattery.

  29. Michael says:

    Two accounts?? hahahaha

    I only have this account which links to my YouTube show called #LibertyCommand. You are free to visit my website at http://www.LibertyCommand.org

    I don’t know John, but if he shares my ideology then I’m sure we can be good friends.

    New world?? Do you think the world started when you were born?? You do realize that we have had a world economy and exchange as far back as the bible records history right??

    You know the saying, “there is nothing new under the Sun”?? World trade, which is what I am assuming you are speaking of has been around forever, and nations interacting with each other around the globe has been going on for much longer than the USA has even existed…

    What arrogance to think that the beginning of all things civil only started with the birth of either you or the USA. Sorry to burst that self centered bubble, but the world has turned before you and will keep turning long after you and I have been forgotten.

    Resurgence of Russia?? Unless it can convince all the eastern block states and Ukraine to fall back under their command, there is no resurgence… that’s a joke.

    China?? China is so screwed right now holding most of our debt and depending on most of its export trade to American consumers that there ain’t shit China can do to us without destroying it’s own economy.

    What good is all that hardware if you don’t even have gas to fill the tanks when it’s time to “roll out”

    It’s sounds like you have a real severe case of paranoia! You might want to sue the neocons for your medical treatment you will need.

  30. Liam Thomas says:

    Now folks I want you to listen of Michael here.

    This is Rand Paul and Ron Paul and Ted Cruz.

    This is what real libertarians think. This is why I am so anti-libertarian. They are flat out whackos…..Even Michael here is blaming me personally for the crusades right up to ISIS.

    This right here is why the GOP has not a snowballs chance in hell of winning any national election….ever again.

  31. Michael says:

    Wackos?? haha ok

    I follow John Locke who happen to be the father of the age of enlightenment and the forefather of the American Revolution as Jefferson was greatly inspired by him and influenced the wording and ideology written in the Declaration of Independence.

    So Locke, Jefferson and many others must all be wackos as well…..

    I will simply share some of their writings regarding Interventionism and war.

    “…therefore, many have mistaken the force of arms for the consent of the people, and reckon conquest as one of the originals of government. But conquest is as far from setting up any government as demolishing a house is from building a new one in the place.”

    John Locke
    Two Treatises on Government: Of Conquest
    1680-1690

    “We should thus avoid wars, and all our citizens would be husbandmen. Whenever indeed our numbers should so increase as that our produce would overstock the markets of those nations who should come to seek it, the farmers must either employ the surplus of their time in manufactures, or the surplus of our hands must be employed in manufactures, or in navigation. But that day would, I think be distant….”

    Thomas Jefferson
    Thomas Jefferson to G.K. van Hogendorp: British Hostility, American Commerce
    Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library
    October 13, 1785

    “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

    James Madison
    Political Observations
    April 20, 1795

    “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? …

    In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. …

    So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. …

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.”

    George Washington
    Washington’s Farewell Address
    1796

    “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

    Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

    It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

    Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

    George Washington
    Washington’s Farewell Address
    1796

    “About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none….”

    President Thomas Jefferson
    Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
    The American Presidency Project
    March 4, 1801

  32. Liam Thomas says:

    You wasted your time. I read the first sentence.

    Libertarians have nothing I want to hear. They have destroyed any chance for a republican to get elected nationally by pretending they are part of the GOP. You could not make it as your own party so now your trying to take over the GOP. And honestly the GOP doesnt want you…..go back to the libertarian party please.

    I used to hang out at the Gun Toting Liberal website and the guy there was a liberal libertarian…

    He used to say that if he wanted to drive a 100 mph thru a school zone chugging whiskey and firing an assault rifle out the window it should be his right as long as no one got hurt.

    His libertarian buddies agreed. Im pretty sure thats the philosophy of the GOP.

  33. Michael says:

    He used to say that if he wanted to drive a 100 mph thru a school zone chugging whiskey and firing an assault rifle out the window it should be his right as long as no one got hurt.

    This is a terrible example of what a libertarian believes. All rights come with responsibility and liability. You cannot have one without the other.

    No one has a right to endanger others. Just because you have the right to travel while operating a motor vehicle on a public road or highway does not mean that you can’t be required to drive only on roads rather than sidewalks, nor does it mean that you cannot have speed zones. It just means the government can not license a right and convert it into a mere privilege.

    The same goes for the right to keep and bear a firearm. You have a natural responsibility when using it along with a definite liability. This right cannot be licensed or permitted by a government, but you cannot be considered a responsible user if you are randomly shooting off rounds in the air or in any direction because you are negligent of where your rounds are landing.

    The attitude of as long as no one got hurt without any real consideration of other’s safety is not a reasonable statement by any real libertarian, nor would that person actually agree with someone doing the same thing around their family and they would probably have a claim of reckless endangerment against the lunatic.

    Now on to your other claim or complaint.

    Libertarians have nothing I want to hear. They have destroyed any chance for a republican to get elected nationally by pretending they are part of the GOP. You could not make it as your own party so now your trying to take over the GOP. And honestly the GOP doesnt want you…..go back to the libertarian party please.

    As I recall the national election process was not affected by libertarians. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan got the nomination at the national level as the Republican wanted. The reason they didn’t win the presidency is because they are neocons or liberal interventionalists who want more war and Americans have grown weary of never ending war.

    Libertarians have nothing to do with the fact that the republicans voting base didn’t even bother to show up in the range of about 8million voters against the easiest incumbent who also lost 5 million voters in 2012.

    I know it’s convienient to blame libertarians or anyone else for your loss, but in the end you only have yourselves to blame. You got the nomination, you got all the financial backing from the banks and other mega corps to market the crap out of the voters… But you failed.

    You failed to connect with the voters and what they really want. And so you lost. Technically Obama lost as well, but someone had to be president.

    13 million Anerican voters decided that both candidates were neocons and they stayed home.

    The era of war is slowly grinding to a halt as the financial price and the human body count grows with no real explanation of when we will WIN the “war on terror”.

    And you know why? Because there is no end to a war on terror. Terror or what I like to call crime will always exist in the world and there is only so long you can drum on a war drum until the people want to see a victory and an end.

    2012 was a unique presidential election because it was the first time in recent presidential history that neither candidate was the peace candidate. In the past every president that proclaimed ending the war, withdrawing troops, ending nation building, whether they were republican or democrat, was the winner.

    So blame libertarians all day… Won’t bother us any. We know what’s going on and why.

    I just feel bad for those who are so blind to the real world and what’s going on.

    Must be really frustrating… I bet you take a lot of pills to sleep at night.

  34. Liam Thomas says:

    One thing about it…..everyone not a libertarian is a neocon to you. At least I only point out progressives as communist….you see Neocons everywhere.

    Sounds like your the one obsessing over Neocon boggie men…..I bet you bang down that jack Daniels everynight to get your sleep…..

    You really should get out more….that bunker you live in with those 50 assault rifles must get a bit stiffling.

  35. Michael says:

    I see many different types, but the neocons and the liberal interventionalists are the ones on both sides who have been in control for a long time now and are the very reason we have all the problems we have today.

    The libertarians and the progressives are slowly growing in numbers because more and more Americans are getting tired of reckless spending and endless wars….

    Not really that hard to explain.

    I’m not concerned about all the other groups outside of the struggle between the neocon/liberal interventionists and the libertarian/progressive groups.

    My hope is that the libertarians and progressives will find a clever way to unite under the cause against corporatism and war.

    Bring back free markets, small business entrepreneurship, humble foreign policy, no nation building and a focus on real national defense, not escapades around the world.

    It’s either going to happen by popular demand or by bankruptcy. It’s our choice which one we choose. It’s the same end though.

  36. Liam Thomas says:

    Bring back free markets, small business entrepreneurship, humble foreign policy, no nation building and a focus on real national defense, not escapades around the world.

    It all sounds so wonderful. You remind me of Barak Obama in 2007 who said he would bring back trust and transparency in government…..but when the kindling starts flying when we start chopping the same swamp water oozes all over everyone.

    Libertarians and progressives have nothing in common.

    you want little regulations they want more.
    you want little government they want bigger.
    you want free markets….they despise them.

    Yes you both might have the same aim but you walk a much different road to get there. Libertarians and progressives would both bankrupt the nation….you just both do it in different ways.

    The problem with both libertarians and progressives is that the underlying appeal of both groups were/are appealing to the general liberal and conservative…..but thats where it ends.

    Once you start disecting both movements thats when people realize they are not progressives or libertarians. At first I too was enamoured with the tea party movement because it was anti-Obama basically but in the end I shook the tea party tree and too many whacko libertarians fell out of it.

    Im sorry Im not attacking you…Im attacking far right libertarianism….based in a legitimate way to govern does not always promise to be the BEST WAY to govern and while I agree with many stand alone ideals of libertarians….as a form of government….AINT NEVER GONNA WORK.

  37. Michael says:

    It all sounds so wonderful. You remind me of Barak Obama in 2007 who said he would bring back trust and transparency in government

    Hahaha as I stated before it sounds like every president, republican or democrat, that ends up getting elected their first term. Not exclusive to Obama in 2007.

    Libertarians and progressives have nothing in common.

    Two words that should be avoided is never and always since there seems to be exceptions to every rule and circumstance. In your case the statement of having NOTHING in common is not true.

    While yes, there are some stark differences when it comes to government involvement levels, there are commonalities when it comes to ending the wars and ending corporatism, or what can be called crony capitalism.

    Libertarians and progressives would both bankrupt the nation….you just both do it in different ways.

    You are aware of our financial situation right?!?

    No progressive or libertarian has had a finger in sending America down the financial shitter as the neocons and liberal interventialists have.

    The last president closest to libertarian leanings was Reagan and I would say he did a pretty good job. I would be happy with another Reagan.

    I also loved how every Republican running for president in the past claimed to be like Reagan but despised Ron Paul who happen to be one of four republicans to support him from the very beginning because he represented the libertarian side.

    Somehow being libertarian like our founders or Reagan is a bad thing in the Republican Party. As you have even stated, you wished they would leave the party and only work in the libertarian party so that you can do what?? Lose and have no one to blame? But you will still blame libertarians for your loses because they ran a candidate outside of the party.

    It’s funny, I have been approached by republican leadership in the past to not run 3rd party candidates against them and told we should run them in the Republican Party, and then when we did, we were told we should leave the party and we don’t belong here.

    It’s laughable really. Ultimately, you just want us to take your marching orders and sit down and shut up. You don’t want us to participate because you think we are the reason you are losing. And until you start taking some personal responsibility over why you are losing, you will never succeed as a party.

  38. Liam Thomas says:

    Its pretty much not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who has defined the debate.

    You establish that all politicians are neocons and therefore I have to spend hours debating this untruth before getting to more substantive subjects.

    Therefore Im going to cut off this discussion because you have premised it on a false premise and its impossible to debate logically when the topic is based upon an open fallacy.

    G’day.

  39. Michael says:

    I guess you are the keeper of all that is true… Hahaha

    Let me tell you a story about internal republican politics from Iowa, the first caucus state. As far back as 2007-2008.

    Although there were many different candidates running for office there were three factions within the Republican Party.

    The Christian Right(formerly the Pat Robertson movement) had Mike Huckabee, whom I also liked. Might be because I’m also a Christian.

    The Libertarians had Ron Paul, who I was a delegate for. I was also the precinct chairman and caucus chairman at the time.

    And the establishment(whoever they are??) had McCain. I call them all Neocons, but you can call them something else… I don’t care really.

    Out of the three main candidates, both Huckabee and Paul had a strong dedicated following. McCain had one guy running from precinct to precinct to speak on his behalf… It was pretty embarrassing really. I allowed him to speak because I wanted everyone to have a chance to be represented, even if they weren’t from our precinct.

    Throughout the race, the huckabees and Paul crowds were there and ready…. In fact the Huckabee and Paul crowds had a lot in common except for certain social issues.

    The crazy part is that there was not a strong following on behalf of McCain, except that the republican leadership from the top down had bought and paid for McCain and had every convention setup as if McCain was the only candidate in the race. It was really sad to see.

    Of course, we all know McCain got the nod to be the republican candidate for president and eventually lost against Obama.

    The sad part is that I saw how the republicans could have easily won had they had the top two contenders be on the ticket. Either a Paul/Huckabee ticket, or a Huckabee/Paul ticket.

    It should have been decided by organizational strength and delegates. Instead it was decided by cronyism…. It’s a definite failure of the republican apparatus.

    Will it ever be fixed?? Or will the party become obsolete and be replaced? Well, 2012 didn’t fair much better when they tried to push through a less favorable Christian who was labeled Obama lite.

    But I hold firm that the ones who run the show at the top are neocons…. I never said ALL politicians are neocons… Just the ones that matter.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9806 access attempts in the last 7 days.