Tag: John Kerry

John Kerry, your Marxist Moron of the Day

Oh John F(ool) Kerry. He is a national disgrace on an epic level. His speech, hopefully his last as Secretary of State, was nothing more than a slap in the face to Israel, and all freedom loving people across the globe. He turned a blind eye to the evil acts of Hamas, of course, and shows his unwillingness to place the blame for the Palestinian/Israeli divide where it belongs, on the Palestinians. The fact is this. If it were up to Israel, there would be peace. The Palestinians could have their own state. And Israel would be their best friend. But, that is a fantasy. The Palestinians largely do not want peace, Hamas does not want peace. They want Israel wiped out. That belief is even laid out in Hamas’ charter. The reality is this, every time Israel has made concessions, including removing settlements from Gaza, they have been repaid by rocket attacks and terror attacks. But, Kerry the fool ignored all of that and blamed Israel and offered up a statement so demeaning as to earn Kerry a special place in Stupidville

Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”

What? Is Kerry saying that being Jewish is somehow incompatible with democracy? No, not really As Andrew McCarthy notes very well, Kerry is showing his true feelings

Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.

As McCarthy points out the constitutions of Iraq, and Afghanistan, which the United States had a significant hand in drafting both name those nations as Islamic, and protect religious minorities. Can a Jewish state not accomplish the same thing? That is what Kerry is saying. As McCarthy notes, religious minorities, including Muslim minorities, are not granted those rights in practice in Islamic democracies. He also points out that where we DO see such tolerance and protection of religious freedom is in the nation of Israel. But, facts, apparently are inconvenient things for both President Obama, and his right-hand buffoon, John Kerry. This is the alternate reality of the Left, the United Useless Nations, and Team Obama. So why is Obama, and the Left so insistent that Israel, the nation that truly desires peace and practices tolerance and freedom must change to appease those that do not? Ben Shapiro explains

Obama’s animus for the state of Israel stretches beyond the typical internationalist leftist view of Israel as a colonialist outpost, a cancer growing in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. Most internationalist leftists think that Israel is the cause of Muslim ire, that if Israel were to disappear, suddenly the Muslim lands surrounding it would view the rest of the world with fresh, dewy eyes. This is the same general philosophy that blames the West for the problem of Islamic violence, that suggests that income maldistribution breeds discontent that in turn breeds terrorism

So, why does Obama despise Israel, he is a Leftist, every major influence in Obama’s life has been a Leftist. And, Shapiro believes that Obama, like other Leftists simply has no use for “others”

Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization. He breaks down Bible believers into two categories: fools and liars. The fools are the “bitter clingers,” the idiot masses who fall into racism and xenophobia and Bible jabber because they’re poor and stupid. The liars are the self-interested characters who want to do what they want to do while citing the Bible for their support.

That is highly plausible no doubt. I would argue that the main issue with Obama and Israel boils down to pretty much the same thing every disagreement that Leftists have with those that support traditional Western values boils down to, Collectivism vs Individualism.

The West values individual liberties to varying degrees. Israel, like America honors a commitment to allowing gender equality and religious freedom. Such commitments align with the ideology of Individualism. The ideal that certain rights are inherent to people and that such rights are given by a Creator, or at the very least are simply part of every human. Such an ideology limits government, and that is simply intolerable to the Left, which is Collectivist.

To the Left, rights are to be defined, and controlled by the State. And Islamic  governments, abiding by Sharia Law, is, like  Communist governments in that individual liberties are non-existent. Even nations that commit atrocities, or that persecute its own people are therefore given a pass by many on the left. Any fault with such governments are ignored by the Left because Collectivism, that is the controlling of rights by the State, must never be challenged or questioned. Sadly, because of their ideology of Collectivism the Left views nations, like Israel, and the United States as bigger obstacles to a better world than they do radical Islam.

Your Daley Gator No-Shit-Sherlock Story O’ The Day

Kerry: Terrorists Will Likely Benefit From Some Of Iran’s Sanction Relief Billions; GOP Senator: ‘D’uh’ – CNS

.

.
Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged on Thursday that Iran will likely use some of the tens of billions of dollars its receives as a result of sanctions relief under the nuclear deal to sponsor terrorists.

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists to some degree,” he told CNBC in Davos, Switzerland. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

Kerry said there were no indications yet that released funds were being directed “to that kind of endeavor” but that he was “sure at some point some of it will.”

He went on to suggest that the impact in the region of such funding would be limited, pointing to the much larger military spending by Gulf Arab states in comparison to Iran.

“The Saudis alone spend $80 billion a year on defense. The entire Gulf state community spends 130 billion a year on defense,” he said. “Iran spends 15 billion a year on its military activities. So it’s so incredibly disproportionate.”

The U.S., by working with its Gulf state partners, would be able to guarantee their security, he said. It would “stand by them, even as we look for this potential other shift in behavior.”

In Washington, Republican senators responded scathingly.

“Talk about stating the obvious,” the Associated Press quoted Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) as saying, adding that even when Iran’s economy was crippled by sanctions it was funding “guns, not butter.”

“To have them actually now say, ‘Well, we think some of this might go to terrorism.’ D’uh. I mean, really?”

At a press conference with several Senate colleagues focusing on Iran, Ayotte said it had been obvious from the outset.

“Finally Secretary Kerry acknowledged what all of us who have opposed this [nuclear] agreement from the beginning saw was obvious – that when they got this economic relief and lifting of the sanctions that in fact some of that money was going to support their terrorism in the region,” she said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) disputed that Iran’s use of the freed-up funds for terror was merely likely, saying in words directed at Kerry that it was “certain that they will use this money to support terrorism. You might as well as have written the check to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad yourself; you might as well have funded Hezbollah yourself.”

“So all of this cash going into the ayatollah’s pockets won’t stay long,” Graham said. “It’s not going into roads and bridges in Iran, it’s going into war machines throughout the Mideast and to think otherwise is completely naïve.”

In Davos, Kerry said Iranian President Hasan Rouhani had indicated that he wants to use the nuclear deal “as a departure point for something new” – although he conceded that “just saying it doesn’t make it happen. You have to now test it and see where we’re going.”

Kerry told the network Iran would likely get $55 billion in sanctions relief, not the considerably larger sums sometimes reported.

“It’s not 150 billion, it’s not 100 billion. Iran will get approximately – according to the Treasury Department and all of the analysis of our intelligence community – about $55 billion,” he said.

“Why won’t they get the 100 [billion] that some people refer to? Because a large chunk of it is already committed to China, to other countries through loans and long-term commitments that have been made.”

‘This is a sovereign country that will make their own decisions’

The IRGC which Kerry referred to is not itself designated a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) under U.S. law, despite efforts by Republican lawmakers to prod the administration into doing so. (While in the U.S. Senate, Kerry opposed such a move, as did then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden; Hillary Clinton did not.)

Iran is a primary sponsor of violent anti-U.S. Shi’ite militias in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq (Khata’ib Hezbollah and others). It has also long supported Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas. Hezbollah, Khata’ib Hezbollah and Hamas are all designated FTOs.

Shortly after the nuclear deal was announced last July, Kerry downplayed concerns about sanctions relief money benefitting terrorists, arguing that the Iranian government had more pressing priorities.

“If President Rouhani and his administration do not [use the freed-up funds to] take care of the people of Iran, they will have an enormous problem,” he told the BBC at the time.

In similar comments earlier last year, White House press secretary Josh Earnest conceded that the administration would not be able to prescribe how Iran uses the money its sanctions relief windfall, but said it was “common sense” to expect Tehran would use it to improve the ailing economy, not to increase funding for terrorism or for other destabilizing actions in the region.

“I’m not going to make any predictions about what they are going to do, and I’m certainly not going to be in a position to prescribe what they should do,” he said. “This is a sovereign country that will make their own decisions.”

.

.

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn Talks Islamic Terrorism With Howie Carr

.

.

*VIDEO* Dangerously Delusional Democrats And The Threat Of Islam

.

.

Why yes, I do question John Kerry’s patriotism

Anyone who has followed Kerry since Vietnam has to if they are intellectually honest. Mike McDaniel knocks this out of the park

John Kerry has been a traitor since the Vietnam War.He gave aid and comfort to our North Vietnamese Communist enemies, betrayed every man and woman that ever served in our military, and has rarely missed an opportunity to support and help any enemy of America. Fortunately, until he became secretary of State, he lacked the power and influence to do really significant damage to America. No more. With the guidance and direction of Barack Obama, a man mentored and raised by Marxists and Islamists, he has done unimaginable damage. Consider this from, of all sources, the Associated Press:

Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran’s future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, ‘President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.’

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: ‘International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.

This secret side deal “newly riled Republican lawmakers,” eh? Shouldn’t an inspection regime relating to nuclear weapons, that is not only supposedly secret from the American people and the American government, but that give the people being inspected the ability to inspect themselves, rile any American? The AP story doesn’t mention Democrat opposition to the Iranian wish list of a deal, but Senator Robert Menendez came out in opposition on August 18. 

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday’s disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, ‘Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.’

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

Yes. John Kerry negotiated and endorsed it.How could an American Secretary of State negotiate and endorse a deal that, by any rational analysis, fails to recognize and uphold American national security interests, and instead gives Iran everything it wants? It’s not at all difficult to understand if one understands progressive thinking.

Progressives see the mere act of talking with enemies, of sitting down at a table to supposedly negotiate with them, as an incredibly significant diplomatic accomplishment in and of itself. This “accomplishment” is seen as tangible proof of the moral and intellectual superiority of the progressive mindset and of the progressives that made such a wonderful accomplishment possible.

Go read it all, I am not up to much writing tonight, my whole body mainly my joints, hurt, so I am trying to take it super easy

Traitor John Kerry Rewards Cuba For Remaining A Communist Dictatorship For Over Half A Century

John Kerry Reopens Embassy In Cuba, But Tensions Remain – CNN

.

.
Secretary of State John Kerry came to Cuba on Friday and raised the American flag above the U.S. Embassy for the first time in 54 years.

“Thank you for joining us at this truly historic moment as we prepare to raise the flag… symbolizing the restoration of diplomatic relations after 54 years,” Kerry said at the ceremony, addressing the crowd in both English and Spanish.

Kerry’s visit marks the symbolic end of one of the last vestiges of the Cold War. But signs of mistrust linger, and beyond the pomp and circumstance lies a long road back from more than half a century of diplomatic animosity.

On Thursday, Cuban state media put out an article in the name of Fidel Castro, writing on the occasion of his 89th birthday, in which he made no reference to the historic resumption of U.S.-Cuba relations but instead waxed on about the damage the American embargo has caused Cuba and the anniversary of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Japan.

The rhetoric from the leader of the Cuban revolution, and the face of anti-U.S. resistance, is not unexpected. But it underscores the long-standing tensions at play as Washington and Havana work to thaw the decadeslong chill in relations.

Even Kerry’s brief visit reflects the complexities of opening a new chapter of engagement with the Cuban government.

He is accompanied by a number of U.S. lawmakers who have advocated normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with the island. Several Cuban-Americans also are part of the delegation.

Dissidents not invited to embassy opening

But anti-Castro dissidents won’t be at the U.S. Embassy ceremony marking the restoration of ties. Instead, Kerry will meet dissidents and human rights activists at another flag-raising, this one closed to press at the residence of the U.S. chief of mission, along with a broad cross section of Cuban entrepreneurs, journalists and artists.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, blasted the decision in a foreign policy speech delivered in New York Friday morning.

“As a symbol of just how backward this policy shift has turned out to be, no Cuban dissidents have been invited to today’s official flag-raising ceremony at the U.S. Embassy in Havana,” Rubio said. “Cuba’s dissidents have fought for decades for the very Democratic principles President Obama claims to be advancing through these concessions. Their exclusion from this event has ensured it will be little more than a propaganda rally for the Castro regime.”

Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and also the son of Cuban immigrants, said it was “shameful” that Cuba could bar dissidents from the ceremony and said the U.S. flag should not fly in a country that does not value freedom.

“A flag representing freedom and liberty will rise today in a country ruled by a repressive regime that denies its people democracy and basic human rights. This is the embodiment of a wrongheaded policy that rewards the Castro regime’s brutality at the expense of the Cuban people’s right to freedom of expression and independence,” Menendez said in a statement.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the opening of the embassy a “sad day” in an interview Friday with CNN en Espanol.

“It’s a sad day for me because we did not get anything, no freedom, the dissidents were not invited, not even a change in the regime, they have the economic control. The American flag up but no changes to the Cuban people, it’s a sad day for me,” Bush said, according to a CNN translation.

But Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who joined Kerry as part of the American delegation, welcomed the Embassy reopening.

“The United States will be able to do much more to protect and serve U.S. citizens in Cuba and encourage a better future for the Cuban people with an American flag flying over our embassy in Havana,” he said in a statement.

U.S. officials shrugged off the fact that dissidents were only invited to attend the second ceremony, chalking it up to “limited space” at the Embassy flag-raising, which they termed a “government-to-government movement.” But it reflected attention to the sensitivities of the regime.

When Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Eduardo Rodriguez visited Washington to reopen the Cuban embassy, he underscored the differences that remain. Standing next to Kerry at the State Department last month, Rodriguez made clear the full normalization of ties between the United States and Cuba would be impossible as long as the blockade remains.

President Barack Obama has eased some travel and business restrictions, but only Congress can lift the 53-year-old embargo, something that is unlikely to happen with Republicans controlling both chambers through the end of his term.

“Where we go from here has to do with what (happens) in the next 16 months, while the President is in office, if he is able to consolidate what has already been done,” said Julia Sweig, a Latin America expert long at the forefront of Washington’s Cuba policy debate.

“That happens by using his executive authority to open up new opportunities for travel, trade and investment. And the Cuban government needs to do the same,” she said. “This could neutralize remaining opposition in Congress and make it impossible for the next president, if it is a Republican, to reverse it.”

There are other areas where the administration is already pushing the limits.

Take tourism. While only Congress can officially lift the “ban” on tourism, the Treasury Department has taken a liberal view of what “tourism” means when it provides licenses to travel to the island. The parent company of Carnival, Princess and several other cruise lines plan to launch “people-to-people” visits to the island by ship. Other tour companies are offering vacation packages to Cuba for Americans loosely labeled as “cultural experiences.”

Sweig said there are other business sectors that could benefit from the same treatment.

“The difference between yes and no on any sector is a political decision by the White House,” Sweig said. “They don’t’ have to wait for Congress.”

Senior administration officials said they are examining what more the President can do to support the Cuban people and Cuban entrepreneurs but said he would be cautious about going too far, too fast.

No plan to gut embargo

The officials said that the President’s calculus in carving out certain sectors – health, agriculture, telecom and information – was that they could be justified within the President’s executive authority as humanitarian in nature and opening Cuba to the outside world.

But Obama will not do an end run around Congress and gut the embargo, they said, something Republican lawmakers opposed to the new policy have accused him of.

“These are areas we think can help bring about improvements in the lives of average Cubans even if they bring some benefit to a government we disagree with,” one senior official said. “We are making exceptions to the embargo but still keeping the premise of it.

The official continued, “The question of whether you want basic manufacturing to sell to Cuba is a very different question that goes to the heart of a law which Congress passed.”

The United States is also looking for the Cuban government to take steps to improve the relationship. The administration hopes to convince the Cuban government to extradite some American criminals currently taking refuge on the island, such as Joanne Chesimard, better known as Assata Shakur, and William Guillermo Morales.

Castro granted Chesimard, a convicted murderer wanted by the FBI, political asylum in Cuba, where she has remained ever since escaping from a life sentence in 1979 from a New Jersey prison. Morales, a member of a militant Puerto Rican separatist movement, planted a bomb at a New York military installation and faced 89 years in prison when he escaped from police custody while in a hospital in New York.

Washington also wants to settle property disputes for Americans that were living in Cuba when the two countries cut off ties.

In addition, the U.S. wants to increase existing, albeit modest, cooperation between Washington and Havana on areas such as counternarcotics, migration, environment and global health. With American diplomats now free to travel across the island, officials hope they will get a better sense of the needs of the Cuban people and how the United States can help.

Perhaps the most important driver of warming ties between the two countries, however, will be the American and Cuban people. Officials say that the increase in Americans traveling to Cuba has been positive, with Cubans interacting with regular Americans for the first time in more than 50 years.

“They see we don’t have horns and a tail,” one official said. “And Americans are getting a more nuanced view of Cuba than cigars, mojitos and old cars.”

.

.

Yes folks, John Kerry really IS that stupid!

Good Freaking Grief!

In his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to sell the U.S. administration’s deal between Iran and the world’s superpowers, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was pointedly asked, “Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that Iran wants to destroy the United States?”

The question, posed by Congressman Lloyd “Ted” Poe (R-Texas) was a reference to the many times the leaders of the Iranian regime havethreatened to annihilate the United States.

In response, Kerry said, “I don’t believe they’ve said that. I think they’ve said ‘Death to America,’ in their chants, but I have not seen this specific.”

Poe countered, “Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead. That would seem like that would be their policy. He said that. You don’t think that’s their policy? I’m not mincing words. Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?”

“I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity, but I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us,” Kerry answered.

Useful Idiot!