Rob Kirby- Crackup Boom & Hyperinflation Guaranteed

Financial Collapse Leads To War

Scanning the headlines in the western mainstream press, and then peering behind the one-way mirror to compare that to the actual goings-on, one can't but get the impression that America's propagandists, and all those who follow in their wake, are struggling with all their might to concoct rationales for military action of one sort or another, be it supplying weapons to the largely defunct Ukrainian military, or staging parades of US military hardware and troops in the almost completely Russian town of Narva, in Estonia, a few hundred meters away from the Russian border, or putting US “advisers” in harm's way in parts of Iraq mostly controlled by Islamic militants.

The strenuous efforts to whip up Cold War-like hysteria in the face of an otherwise preoccupied and essentially passive Russia seems out of all proportion to the actual military threat Russia poses. (Yes, volunteers and ammo do filter into Ukraine across the Russian border, but that's about it.) Further south, the efforts to topple the government of Syria by aiding and arming Islamist radicals seem to be backfiring nicely. But that's the pattern, isn't it? What US military involvement in recent memory hasn't resulted in a fiasco? Maybe failure is not just an option, but more of a requirement?

Let's review. Afghanistan, after the longest military campaign in US history, is being handed back to the Taliban. Iraq no longer exists as a sovereign nation, but has fractured into three pieces, one of them controlled by radical Islamists. Egypt has been democratically reformed into a military dictatorship. Libya is a defunct state in the middle of a civil war. The Ukraine will soon be in a similar state; it has been reduced to pauper status in record time—less than a year. A recent government overthrow has caused Yemen to stop being US-friendly. Closer to home, things are going so well in the US-dominated Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that they have produced a flood of refugees, all trying to get into the US in the hopes of finding any sort of sanctuary.

Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see.

In fact, a point can be made that it is the limited scope of failure that is the problem. This would explain the recent saber-rattling in the direction of Russia, accusing it of imperial ambitions (Russia is not interested in territorial gains), demonizing Vladimir Putin (who is effective and popular) and behaving provocatively along Russia's various borders (leaving Russia vaguely insulted but generally unconcerned). It can be argued that all the previous victims of US foreign policy—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, even the Ukraine—are too small to produce failure writ large enough to satisfy America's appetite for failure. Russia, on the other hand, especially when incentivized by thinking that it is standing up to some sort of new, American-style fascism, has the ability to deliver to the US a foreign policy failure that will dwarf all the previous ones.

Analysts have proposed a variety of explanations for America's hyperactive, oversized militarism. Here are the top three:

1. The US government has been captured by the military-industrial complex, which demands to be financed lavishly. Rationales are created artificially to achieve that result. But there does seem to be some sort of pressure to actually make weapons and field armies, because wouldn't it be far more cost-effective to achieve full-spectrum failure simply by stealing all the money and skip building the weapons systems altogether? So something else must be going on.

2. The US military posture is designed to insure America's full spectrum dominance over the entire planet. But “full-spectrum dominance” sounds a little bit like “success,” whereas what we see is full-spectrum failure. Again, this story doesn't fit the facts.

3. The US acts militarily to defend the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. But the US dollar is slowly but surely losing its attractiveness as a reserve currency, as witnessed by China and Russia acting as swiftly as they can to unload their US dollar reserves, and to stockpile gold instead. Numerous other nations have entered into arrangements with each other to stop using the US dollar in international trade. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't take a huge military to flush one's national currency down the toilet, so, once again, something else must be going on.

There are many other explanations on offer as well, but none of them explain the fact that the goal of all this militarism seems to be to achieve failure.

Perhaps a simpler explanation would suffice? How about this one:

The US has surrendered its sovereignty to a clique of financial oligarchs. Having nobody at all to answer to, this American (and to some extent international) oligarchy has been ruining the financial condition of the country, running up staggering levels of debt, destroying savings and retirements, debasing the currency and so on. The inevitable end-game is that the Federal Reserve (along with the central banks of other “developed economies”) will end up buying up all the sovereign debt issuance with money they print for that purpose, and in the end this inevitably leads to hyperinflation and national bankruptcy. A very special set of conditions has prevented these two events from taking place thus far, but that doesn't mean that they won't, because that's what always happens, sooner or later.

Now, let's suppose a financial oligarchy has seized control of the country, and, since it can't control its own appetites, is running it into the ground. Then it would make sense for it to have some sort of back-up plan for when the whole financial house of cards falls apart. Ideally, this plan would effectively put down any chance of revolt of the downtrodden masses, and allow the oligarchy to maintain security and hold onto its wealth. Peacetime is fine for as long as it can placate the populace with bread and circuses, but when a financial calamity causes the economy to crater and bread and circuses turn scarce, a handy fallback is war.

Any rationale for war will do, be it terrorists foreign and domestic, Big Bad Russia, or hallucinated space aliens. Military success is unimportant, because failure is even better than success for maintaining order because it makes it possible to force through various emergency security measures. Various training runs, such as the military occupation of Boston following the staged bombings at the Boston Marathon, have already taken place. The surveillance infrastructure and the partially privatized prison-industrial complex are already in place for locking up the undesirables. A really huge failure would provide the best rationale for putting the economy on a war footing, imposing martial law, suppressing dissent, outlawing “extremist” political activity and so on.

And so perhaps that is what we should expect.

Financial collapse is already baked in, and it's only a matter of time before it happens, and precipitates commercial collapse when global supply chains stop functioning. Political collapse will be resisted, and the way it will be resisted is by starting as many wars as possible, to produce a vast backdrop of failure to serve as a rationale for all sorts of “emergency measures,” all of which will have just one aim: to suppress rebellion and to keep the oligarchy in power. Outside the US, it will look like Americans blowing things up: countries, things, innocent bystanders, even themselves (because, you know, apparently that works too). From the outside looking into America's hall of one-way mirrors, it will look like a country gone mad; but then it already looks that way. And inside the hall of one-way mirrors it will look like valiant defenders of liberty battling implacable foes around the world. Most people will remain docile and just wave their little flags.

But I would venture to guess that at some point failure will translate into meta-failure: America will fail even at failing. I hope that there is something we can do to help this meta-failure of failure happen sooner rather than later.

Credit to Zero Hedge

North Korea says it could make "pre-emptive strike" on US

North Korea has sent a defiant message to Washington warning it has the power to conduct a "pre-emptive strike" on the US. Pyongyang made the comment in response to joint US-South Korea military drills.

North Korea's foreign minister Ri Su Yong (pictured above) told the UN in Geneva that Pyongyang had the power to carry out a "pre-emptive strike" on the US.

Ri made the comment ahead of the UN Disarmament Conference held in the Swiss city on Tuesday.

He said joint US-South Korea military exercises, which started on Monday, were "unprecedentedly provocative in nature" and could spark a war.

"The DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) cannot but bolster its nuclear deterrent capability to cope with the ever-increasing nuclear threat of the US," Ri told the Geneva delegation. "Now the DPRK has the power of deterring the US and conducting a pre-emptive strike as well if necessary."

His rare speech sparked a swift rebuke from the US ambassador Robert Wood who urged Pyongyang to stop making threats and "rid itself of nuclear weapons."

"We call on the DPRK to immediately cease all threats, reduce tensions and take the necessary steps towards denuclearisation needed to resume credible negotiations," Wood said, referring to six-party talks that collapsed in 2008.

The US envoy also said the exercises with South Korea, which have been held for almost 40 years, were "transparent and defence-oriented" and in full compliance with the armistice ending the 1950-1953 Korean War.

The annual joint exercises had triggered military tensions in recent years between the Koreas.

Rhetorical threat amid further missile testing

North Korea fired two short-range Scud missiles into the sea off its east coast on Monday, according to South Korean officials


Credit to DW

The Breakdown Of U.S.-Israeli Relations Brings Us Several Steps Closer To World War III

In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today.  If you ask Americans to name what area of the globe they believe World War III will begin, the number one choice by a landslide would probably be the Middle East.  And thanks to the stunning breakdown of U.S.-Israeli relations, we are now closer to that war than we have been in decades.  Since the 1970s, the United States has served as the major buffer between Israel and her Islamic neighbors.  Israel has trusted the United States to protect it, and Israel’s enemies have known that an all-out assault on Israel would be fruitless because the U.S. military would step in.  When a minor conflict has erupted in the region, the United States has always rushed in diplomatically to settle things down.  But now the relationship between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is near a breaking point, and tensions in the Middle East just continue to intensify.  At this moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no longer trusts Barack Obama to do what is right for Israel, and it is an open secret that Obama pretty much despises Netanyahu.  And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Netanyahu once again made it abundantly clear that his government will never, ever allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.  If Israel believes that Iran is even getting close, Israel will attack.  But instead of trying to prevent this from happening, Barack Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran that would give the Iranianspretty much everything that they want and would allow them to build all the nukes they desire in about ten years.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that this is a “bad deal”, and he is right.

The U.S. relationship with Israel is one of the most touchy political topics in the country today, and it is going to become even more of a hot button issue as time goes by.  There are millions of Americans that passionately love the nation of Israel, and there are also millions of Americans that are vehemently anti-Israel.  It is amazing that a nation that is about the size of New Jersey and that only has a little bit more than one-tenth of one percent of the global population can perpetually be at the center of global controversy.  Of course those of us that are Christians know that the Bible said that this would happen in the last days, so the truth is that none of us should be surprised.  No matter how much effort global leaders put into achieving “peace in the Middle East”, it never seems to happen, and now things are poised to go to a dangerous new level.

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his case to Congress during a very forceful 40 minute speech…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday that a proposed agreement between world powers and Iran was “a bad deal” that would not stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons — but would rather pave its way to getting lots of them and leave the Jewish State in grave peril.

In a dramatic address to the U.S. Congress at what he said was a “fateful” crossroads of history, Netanyahu openly sided with President Barack Obama’s Republican critics and sparked an immediate and furious reaction from the White House, as relations between Washington and Israel spun into their deepest chasm for many years.

If Israel has lost all trust in the Obama administration, that makes it much more likely that it will choose to take unilateral military action against Iran.

With that in mind, consider the following quotes from Netanyahu’s speech…

-“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

-“That is exactly what could happen if the deal being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal would not prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.”

-“I know this won’t come as a shock to many of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, but it also plays a pretty good game of ‘hide and cheat’ with them.”

-“The ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.”

-“If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”

-“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”

-“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

-“That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

-“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”

And near the end of his speech, Netanyahu referred to the Holocaust when he spoke to Elie Wiesel who happened to be sitting in the audience…

Praising the presence in the audience of concentration camp survivor, author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nazi-hunter Elie Wiesel, the prime minister told him, “Your life and work gives meaning to the words, ‘Never again.’”

Does that sound like a man that is just going to sit by and watch Iran build nuclear weapons?

Reaction by members of Congress was mixed.  Many Republicans were thrilled by Netanyahu’s address.  But many Democrats were outraged, and Nancy Pelosi was nearly brought to tears…

“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations,” said Nancy Pelosi, the leader of Democrats in the House, referring to the group of world powers negotiation with Tehran, “and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Most Americans don’t realize this, but an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could be closer than almost any of us would dare to imagine.

In fact, just a few days ago there was a report that a planned strike in 2014 was aborted at the last minute after Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets…

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

But next time, it might be different.  As I discussed in a previous article, there are reports coming out of the Middle East that indicate that Saudi Arabia plans to allow Israel to use their airspace to strike Iran.

In addition, new evidence of a secret nuclear facility near Tehran that Iran had not told anyone about has been revealed in recent days.  If it turns out that Iran’s nuclear program is actually far more advanced that they have been admitting, that will send the probability of an Israeli strike absolutely soaring.

For years, Iran and Israel have been on a collision course, and now time is running out.

And when war does erupt in the Middle East, the death and destruction could be on a scale that is absolutely unimaginable.

So let us pray that peace prevails for as long as possible.  Unfortunately, thanks to the foolishness of the Obama administration, the period of peace that we have been enjoying does not look like it is going to last too much longer.

Credit to Economic Collapse

Iran Rejects Obama's Demands on Nuclear Program as ‘Unacceptable’

Iran on Tuesday refused to halt its nuclear work for at least 10 years – a condition which President Barack Obama said was non-negotiable if the two sides are to reach a deal on the country’s nuclear program.

The refusal came after Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and United States Secretary of State John Kerry met for a second day of negotiations in the Swiss lakeside town of Montreaux.

On Monday, Obama told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached.

"Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands," Zarif was quoted as saying by Iran's semi-official Fars news agency following Tuesday’s meeting with Kerry.
"Obama’s stance… is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases…," he said, adding that talks with Kerry in Switzerland would nonetheless carry on.

The US hopes Iran will restrain its nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy, thereby reducing the risk of war over the protracted stand-off

In Washington, Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday delivered his much-anticipated speech to Congress, which heard the Israeli Prime Minister accuse Iran of using its nuclear program to develop a weapon.

Netanyahu warned against accepting a nuclear deal with Iran that would be a “countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare” by a country that "will always be an enemy of America.”

© AP PHOTO/ EVAN VUCCI, POOL
US Secretary of State John Kerry, right, walks to a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for a new round of nuclear negotiations Tuesday in Montreux, Switzerland.

"If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons – lots of them,” Netanyahu said in a point-by-point critique of Obama's Iran diplomacy.


Credit to Sputnik

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150304/1019022131.html#ixzz3TNChUzTT

The Water Wars Are Coming

Does a warning mean anything if nobody listens?

With the precarious case of Lake Mead, doomsayers never seem to break the surface. For years, reports of the lake’s declining levels have popped up in the news. Yet residents of the surrounding area still refuse to listen. The latest report from the Interior Department is very troublesome: there is a 20% chance of water shortages for Nevada and Arizona in 2016 if the lake maintains current levels.

Lake Mead, if you are unaware, provides 90% of the water to Las Vegas. It is also a crucial water source for Los Angeles and major cities in Arizona. Thus, it’s easy to see why residents of Nevada and surrounding states have an interest in the viability of the lake to sustain itself. News of drought or weakening levels should be cause for alarm. Often times, attention is roused with reports that water may become scarce in the immediate future. But that scare usually dissipates when rain comes, essentially washing away the fear of future paucity.

There is an assumption by people living in the southwestern United States that water shortages are a naturally-caused phenomenon.A coworker of mine who hails from the region recently informed me that most Nevada citizens don’t understand the underlying forces driving the water crisis. They ignore the fact that the present situation is unsustainable. Worse yet, they don’t see the real culprit behind a continual lack of H2O: the government.

Contrary to popular belief, the current state of the American southwest isn’t the norm. Rather, it’s an artificial creation that likely wouldn’t exist without government planning. What do I mean?

Without Lake Mead, Las Vegas wouldn’t have enough of a water supply to be the country’s leading tourist trap. The same goes for cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and Austin. An artificial lake created by the construction of the Hoover Dam, Lake Mead has the government’s fingertips all over it. And that means its filled with the hubris of a thousand engineers who thought they could thwart nature.

Lake Mead was created almost a century ago with the creation of the Hoover Dam. The dam was originally a make-work program pushed by President Hoover and later completed by Franklin Roosevelt. It was part of many economic recovery programs meant to mitigate the spike in unemployment brought on by the Great Depression. At the time of its completion, F.D.R.called the structure (then named the Boulder Dam) a “great feat of mankind” and “the greatest dam in the world.”

Little did he anticipate. Like all government projects, the unintended consequences wrought by the Hoover Dam are legion. According tohistorian Michael Hiltzik, the population of the southwest swelled upon completion of the dam. “Since that dedication year, the population of the seven states of the basin has swelled by about 45 million. Much of this growth has been fueled by the dam and its precious bounties of water and electrical power.”

The promise of water attracted farmers and developers from across the nation. The phony supply of water created an insatiable demand that was never viable over the long term. As Doug French writes,“government’s damming of the Colorado River attempted to cheat Mother Nature by bringing water to the desert southwest — water that just isn’t and never was there.”

The Hoover Dam boondoggle sprung to mindwhen I recently watched the classic film noir Chinatown. Starring a young Jack Nicholson, Chinatown is based on the seedy dealings of water rights in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Access to water, it turns out, has always been a topic of contention in the southern California area.

The film begins with private investigator J.J. Gittes being hired to investigate the husband of Evelyn Mulwray. Said husband is the owner of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. During his investigation, Gittes stumbles upon a nefarious scheme to rob the city of much-needed water and transfer it to a newly-cultivated valley. Mulwray ends up dead for discovering the plan. Gittes struggles to put the pieces together while protecting Mulwray’s widow from danger.

Chinatown is considered a classic of American cinema because it portrays the unsavory underbelly of black market activity. Government corruption is a prominent theme, but the state is also portrayed as a positive mechanism for distributing water rights. Mulwray is regarded as a hero for transferring the responsibility of water allocation “to the people” rather than keep it in private hands. The idea that government arrogance is to blame for water misappropriation is not an explored theme of the film.

Gittes finds out the hard way that passing the ownership of water from private to public doesn’t weed out the tendency for corruption of the former. Rather, it incentivizes misuse of the public trust by putting bureaucrats in charge of one of life’s necessity. A shady deal is hatched to annex a neighboring valley into Los Angeles, while using this insider knowledge to scoop up the land at discount prices.

This scheme, while fictional, is loosely based on the California water wars of the early 20th century. A century of government meddling has turned the issue of water rights on its head, and further centralized control of waterways in local, state, and federal governments. Just as the residents of Los Angeles fought over water with local farmers, theresidents of Las Vegas will soon find themselves fighting with surrounding states over what’s left of Lake Mead. None of the power players seem to care that the current population settlements of the southwestern United States cannot last. One day the water will run out. The sooner this reality is confronted, the better.

Admittedly, the ownership of water and its various bodies is a difficult topic. Rivers and tributaries don’t flow by man’s commands. They can be directed, but never fully controlled. Privatization of water rights would be a good start for restoring sane usage of natural resources. Don’t expect as much to happen though. Government control is far too entrenched in the process to be removed easily.

Forget it Jake, it’s socialism.

Credit to Zero Hedge

Prime minister is everything the president is not

WASHINGTON – Rush Limbaugh called it a “direct punch” to President Obama and “historically important.”

Praise is pouring in from Limbaugh and other conservatives for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, warning the administration and the world of the catastrophic perils of making a bad deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

“This was leadership in full force. Benjamin Netanyahu was everything Barack Obama is not. Everything,” added Limbaugh.

The conservative icon was effusive, calling the speech a “stunning” example of ” moral, ethical, and legal clarity.”

“Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United States today in a desperate plea for the world to focus, to get serious, and take notice of what is happening.”

“This highlights the hubris and arrogance of Obama, that speeches and words can tame tyrants.

“Well, after six years of Obama’s speeches and persuasion and ego and arrogance, the world is on fire. It is less safe than when Obama arrived on the scene.

“Even though Obama only has two more years in office, he still believes that the power of his personality and his community organizer skills or whatever, that he can persuade Iran after they get the nuke not to use it.”

Watch Netanyahu’s speech:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, R-Calif., had a different take, tweeting:

“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., went even further, comparing Netanyahu’s call for a tougher deal to a child who demands,” I want to go to Disneyland every day. eat ice cream and Coca Cola everyday and not go to school.”

The Democrat called the speech “fear mongering at its ultimate,” and “straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook.”

Yarmuth also complained, “I resent the condescending tone he used, basically indicating that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understands the threat that a nuclear Iran poses.”

“I resent the fact he was telling us how to negotiate.”

And CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger accused the Israeli prime minister of politicizing the Holocaust by mentioning it in his speech.

Former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer shot back that talking about “survival” was not political. “Talking about the Holocaust is the history of the Jewish people.”

Almost 60 Democrats skipped the speech and those who did attend often declined to join the many standings ovations given the prime minister.

But praise for from the right for the Israeli prime minister was overwhelming.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., lauded Netanyahu and blasted the White House, saying, “Despite the shameful politicization by the White House of this incredibly important address, the prime minister provided important insight as to why all peaceful nations, not just Israel and the United States, should be extremely concerned by Iran’s nuclear pursuit.

“For months, President Obama has continued to cave to Iran, lifting numerous sanctions and weakening the terms of a potential nuclear agreement.

“Iranian officials have repeatedly called the United States the ‘Great Satan’ and just last week brazenly flaunted the country’s tests of new ‘strategic weapons.’

“Any nuclear agreement brokered by this administration would hinge on the belief that the extremist leaders in Iran will stick to their word and honor their obligations—a naïve position at best.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla, said, “I hope the president was listening today and will reverse course on the unfortunate leverage he has given the government of Iran over the past year to continue pursuing its nuclear weapon’s capabilities.”

He added, “I stand with Netanyahu’s demands today that Iran’s government must change its behaviors. This must be a non-negotiable item in any agreement the United States seeks to reach with Iran, and anything short of it will be a bad deal, not only for Israel but for the West.”

Calling the speech “courageous” and “historic”, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned, “Concessions to Iran only empower Iran. They have a different motive than we would have and we can’t put ourselves into their minds and think that they think rationally.”

King warned the administration that if Israel has to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity by itself, “The United States of America had better stand with Israel every step of the way.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., warned, “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s powerful words clearly articulated the grave threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The stakes could not be higher for Israel, the United States, and our allies if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. At moments like this, party politics must take a backseat to the safety and security of our people.

“I hope President Obama will stop sending mixed messages about America’s longstanding and unwavering support for Israel and begin speaking with the same type of moral clarity that we heard today from Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

As Netanyahu made clear Israel would act alone, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer observed that the key to the speech was the prime minister had demonstrated Israel would have the support of Congress if it were to act alone, even if it did not have the support of the president.

Iran expert Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy told WND that Netanyahu made an important distinction between America’s founding documents guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the Iranian constitution which calls for death, jihad and the spread of revolution.

“I was struck by Bibi’s understanding it’s not just about the nuclear weapons but also the full scope of Iran’s support of terror, regional aggression, and the ‘gobbling up of countries’ around the Persian Gulf. His demand that the regime end all of its aggression first before concluding any agreement shows me he grasps the full scope of strategic implications to allowing Iranian behavior to go unchallenged and unchecked.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., urged Congress to “pass additional sanctions on Iran as soon as possible, and it should also ensure that any deal is submitted to Congress for a formal review.

“We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”

Rep. Randy Hultgren, R, Ill., recalled meeting with Netanyahu last summer and learning how “Israel’s security, the threats it continually faces from its enemies, and overall instability in the region really hit home when we could hear the distant rumble of explosions and see smoke rising on the horizon from the Syrian conflict.

“Israel’s own conflict with Hamas was a mere 35 miles away. Within that environment, Israeli leaders are forced to make difficult decisions every day about what needs to be done to protect their citizens and their way of life.

“Mr. Netanyahu’s perspective then and today was key to illuminating the issue for the Congress and the nation.”

The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, released a statement saying the speech provided a much needed warning about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu understands first-hand the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran – the very lives of the Jewish people and the future of the nation of Israel itself hang in the balance,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

“It is disturbing that President Obama met with Muslim leaders with ties to the radical terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood, but refuses to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The administration should be embarrassed by the way it has snubbed the leader of Israel – our most trusted and important ally in the Middle East.

“It is both troubling and disappointing that the Obama administration chose to ignore this vital opportunity to stand with our ally in speaking out against terrorism and to assure the American people that securing a deal with Iran will not create a nuclear Iran.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today, and join him in calling for peace and standing together for our mutual interests. It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of radical Islam.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/rush-netanyahu-hit-obama-with-direct-punch/#gMLKzqm1UplyrVOi.99