“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

All The Best


I want to thank everyone who participated in the Elephant Bar over the past twelve years. We had millions of visitors from all around the World and you were part of it. Over the past dozen years, two or three times a night, I would open my laptop and some of you were always there. I will miss that.

My plans are to continue my work with technology and architecture. You know my interests and thoughts.

At times, things would get a little rough in the EB. To those of you that I may have offended over the years, I apologize. From all of you, I learned and grew.

An elephant never forgets.
Be well.

Deuce, 21 June 2018

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

AIPAC and the Saudis are doing their mischief to get the US involved in a war with Iran


  1. If that guy weren't such a sheeple he'd a been packin' too and could have defended himself. Instead, he is dead, fool!


    "Texting argument ends with one man shot dead at Florida movie theatre

    "Pasco County Sheriff’s officials said the shooting happened when Reeves asked 43-year-old Chad Oulson to stop texting at the theatre.

    Reeves and his wife were sitting behind Oulson and his wife. Oulson told Reeves he was texting with his 3-year-old daughter, Cummings said.

    “It ended almost as quickly as it started,” said sheriff’s spokesman Doug Tobin. The sheriff’s office says an off-duty deputy detained Reeves until police arrived.

    Cummings, who had blood on his clothes, told a group of reporters Monday afternoon the show was still in previews when the two couples started arguing.

    Cummings said the men started raising their voices and popcorn was thrown. Authorities said Reeves took out a gun, Oulson’s wife put her hand over her husband and Reeves fired his weapon, striking Nichole Oulson in the hand and her husband in the chest.

    “I can’t believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie,” Cummings said. “I can’t believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone.”"

    1. AshTue Jan 14, 09:53:00 AM EST
      If that guy weren't such a sheeple he'd a been packin' too and could have defended himself. Instead, he is dead, fool!

      I take it you are being sarcastic.

      Florida is a conceal-carry state.

      Why would someone carry in a theater? The mass murders in a movie theater in Colorado might be a reason.

      Why would a man shoot someone over a cell-phone altercation? I do not know. At the time of the shooting at least three people were standing. What happened during the interval from verbal exchange to standing I do not know.

      Saturday, my brand new conceal-carry card, issued by the state of Georgia, arrived by mail. Under Georgia law, I may openly carry or conceal carry everywhere other than those places put off limits by the state. A movie theater would not be off limits.

    2. The shooter was a retired cop.

      Shooting someone over texting and popcorn makes more sense than shooting someone over an interpretation of the Koran.

      It's a movie theatre Ash, almost as sacredly hushed as a library or a place of worship !

      Who threw the first handful of popcorn?

      There is your aggressor.

      “It ended almost as quickly as it started”

      And the movie played on.......

    3. Just returned from a trip to Philadelphia and NJ...

      Could not carry there..

      I bet all those thugs I saw respect the law and don't carry either...

    4. Philadelphia? Jersey?

      I am SO glad I don't live there anymore...

      Deuce you can keep it...

  2. Maybe Aipac is trying to get America not to surrender to Iran?


  3. What honor is there in being a cowardly nation?

  4. ap·pease·ment (-pzmnt)
    a. An act of appeasing.
    b. The condition of being appeased.
    2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

    except Iran has not stopped murdering Americans for decades...

    So appeasement is not the right word...


    bowing down to one's enemies, like a dog does when he wants to show who's dominant..

    that's what America is doing with Iran...

  5. We are being snookered by the Iranians.

    1. Who's the bimbo in the burka?

    2. .

      From the blog's primary supporter and champion of women,

      Who's the bimbo in the burka?


    3. It would be more accurate to ask "who is the liar in the hijab?"

      remember if she did not wear it she could be stoned or shot by the Iranian government.

      In Iran, where wearing the hijab is legally required, women, especially younger ones, ... depending upon a woman’s class, rank, and occupation in society.

    4. Who is the slavish women reading propaganda so covered up at male insistence and threat that one can hardly see her face, much less her hair?

      Happy, Quirk?

    5. .

      A few days ago, Farmer Bob, you proved yourself a step up from your bros by showing the self-awareness to admit that you were a hypocrite. That honesty is appreciated.


    6. .

      Who is the slavish women reading propaganda so covered up at male insistence and threat that one can hardly see her face, much less her hair?

      You merely prove my point. You complain about the system the women finds herself in and then blame the victim.

      Whose the bimbo in the burka

      Perhaps, the self-awareness thingy is a work in process.


    7. Please Quirk, don't push Farmer Bob to think critically, that is hard.

      Perhaps the lady in the video is a conservative girl who doesn't believe that all conservative women need wear short skirts and bat their eyelashes, like on fox, to make their point? Is it the system that drives her choice of dressing herself or her choice?

    8. Ash, grow up.

      That woman has NO CHOICE of clothing (aside from patterns and colors). It's Iranian LAW.

      Grow up.

    9. true that...the Iranians have some pretty silly dress code laws.

    10. Silly?

      Iran STONES to death women that violate the dress code. I'd think you'd get upset about that judging how upset you get about israeli "crimes" that are 100% less lethal and violent..

      One standard for Israel and no standards for Iran or anyone else?

    11. Silly is an understatement. I have no sympathy for the Iranian repressive regime.

  6. I notice the absence of my wio from the blog roll still...


  7. I notice that too and hope it is remedied soon.

    And Obama is snookering us, once again.....


    No facility will be closed, enrichment will continue, research will continue..........and this is called "giving peace a chance".

    Meanwhile Unca 'hani is crowing about how we backed down......

    1. We never tire of game playing with villains. Iran started changing the rules on day one, as you may recall. Soon enough, Iran will have a nuclear weapon which can be delivered by a North Korean rocket. Messrs. Clinton, Bush, and Obama have done a bang up job of containment.

    2. Notice the 6 months got bumped to this month? that's another 2 months added for Iran to hid it's shit..

  8. Replies
    1. Hamas is a terrorist organization, democratically elected by the people of Gaza.

      Maybe there should be consequences for their choices?

      Now that Egypt is fed up with the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas? Look for the fur to fly...

      Already it is rumored that the MB is hiding out in Gaza and using it as a base to launch attacks on......

      ready now?

      Israel? NOPE....


      In fact. on a daily basis Hamas and the MB are murdering Egyptians in the Sinai..

      It's interesting to watch the evolution of the arab middle east.

    2. ALlen, Hamas, not Hama. Assad's pappy already had his sights on Hama, killed 10,000 islamists in 3 days there back in the 80's.

      Now I KNOW it was a typo, but it was too easy to bring up, with all the bating about how bad Israel is, it's good to remember when Israel "demolishes" a Bedouin village 50 times in 20 months, as Rat loves to post, not a single death, let alone a scratched elbow... Now when Assad demolished Hama? ten thousand men, women and kids murdered and then he brought in the steam rollers to crush and level the town...

    3. .......devolution of the arab middle east.....

  9. now take notice at the thread title "AIPAC and the Saudis are doing their mischief to get the US involved in a war with Iran"

    Notice how it's slanted and makes Iran out to be a innocent, peaceful nation? How America is easily manipulated by "the jews" i.e. AIPAC and the Oil barons of Arabia?

    Notice the ignoring of the murder that Iran has waged against the USA for decades?


  10. New Iran agreement includes secret side deal, Tehran official says


    Is it not interesting that Israel is not allowed to be included in these talks and yet? iran's focus on nuking Israel is the reason for the season...

  11. Deuce asserts that AIPACis making mischief, Quirk says that AIPAC is an Israeli governmental organ...

    So if the USA is discussing with Iran it's nuke program, the one that Iran denies it has, and Iran fully supports the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, why should Israel be denied a seat at the table..

    Who said that anyone can talk to friends, but diplomacy is about enemies talking to each other.

  12. Interesting headline from the 2nd video.

    Deuce states: AIPAC and the Saudis are doing their mischief to get the US involved in a war with Iran

    And yet the headline says: AIPAC asks Congress for new sanctions that will kick in IF IRAN RENEGES ON DEAL.

    So the thread headline is a lie.

    Sanctions are the alternative to war. AIPAC is trying to get Iran to comply with the world over it's nuke program peacefully and you Deuce twist it.

    If Iran reneges new sanctions would or could be enacted.


    maybe Iran is not dealing in good faith? If they do? No new sanctions.

    Better thread titles would be appreciated.

    1. Nonsense, the purpose of the proposed standby sanctions is to taunt Iran and break the agreement before it is implemented. It is outrageous paternalistic aggression. You don’t enter into an agreement designed to normalize relationships and then threaten your negotiating partner. It is in your face bullshit designed to humiliate and wreck the reconciliation between the US and Iran.

      The last few threads have been about Jewish sensibilities to anything that has the slightest odor of Anti-semitism. It resolves around history, experience, pride and respect. No human society expects lesser treatment than that demanded by Israel and or the Jews.

    2. Taunt? LOL

      Any excuse....

      OK, you stick with your pov and I'll stick with mine.. All the while? Iran is still building more centrifuges, heavy water plant, breaking sanctions with new contracts with china and russia, providing weapons for the syrian war, causing shit in a 1/2 dozen nations and calling for the erasing of Israel from the planet.

  13. A better title for the Thread? "AIPAC leads the charge on Capital Hill to hold Iran accountable for the Geneva Agreement, if Iran fails to live up to it's signed agreement"

  14. Sanctions are the only tool left in the box short of war...

    Maybe you should post a thread about why obama has done all he can to not enforce Congress's sanctions against Iran for the last 5 years?

  15. .

    Deuce asserts that AIPACis making mischief, Quirk says that AIPAC is an Israeli governmental organ...

    There is only one country's interests that AIPAC worries about. And it isn't the US.


  16. .

    except Iran has not stopped murdering Americans for decades...

    This from the man who brags about being a member of the JDL.

    Between 1980 and 1985, there were 18 Jewish terrorist attacks in the US. Fifteen of them were by the JDL.

    The Jewish Defense League or JDL is a Jewish organization whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary".

    Where have I heard that phrase 'by any means necessary' recently?

    Shouldn't you be out writing a pamphlet or something, WiO?


    1. Brags? I made a joke ONE time that I was a member of the political wing of the JDL, the community organizer side of it and now that's how you want to paint me?

      This coming from you, a person that called me a foreign agent of israel, this blog that called me an israeli (which I am not, but would be proud of if i was), this blog that labeled me as a 5th columnist and a national security threat?

      Give it a rest.

      I do support the concept of fighting anti-semitism. I do support the idea that Jews should defend themselves against rape, murder and mayhem. AND I do support the notion that folks like you wish to make it a crime for a Jew to defend humor her self from attack.

      And yes, anti-zionism is anti-semitism as expressed by you.

    2. .

      And yes, anti-zionism is anti-semitism as expressed by you

      Take a look in the mirror.

      Have you ever made one negative comment with regard to Israeli policy on this blog? Not, that I have seen other than possibly that the policies themselves are not pursued aggressively enough. IMO, you do put the interests of Israel above those of the US. How many times have we seen posts here denigrating US policy decisions and predicting with approval that because of these Israel will now join forces with Saudi Arabia and/or China in opposition to the US. Or the claim that US policy on Iran will result in the collapse of western civilization.

      As to the anti-Semitism charge, I consider you a simple race-baiter, and you are not alone. IMO, anyone who can charge that because I said that due to my background being raised in the American tradition, I did not agree with the policy of Zionism (did not agree with it not argue that Israel didn't have the right as an independent nation to adopt it) would say that I would love watching all Jews eliminated 'by whatever means necessary' is either deranged or a simple agitpropist who out of habit resorts to the same old anti-Semitism charges targeted in the previous stream that are simply used to cow people into quiescence. Obviously, it hasn't work with me or anyone who can see through your bullshit.

      The same applies to your friends who because I fail to approve of current Israeli policy, assert that I approve of the deaths or deportation of Christians and Jews throughout the ME, and even that I am a misogynist, for God's sake. The only thing I have argued here are issues that involve policies of the Israeli government or asinine statements you put up here that have no basis in fact. Instead of providing argument against the positions and facts I lay out here, you and your bros ignore them, ignore the questions that are asked of you, feign a case of the vapors over the tone used in the question, offer diversion, and basically fail to do anything in the end but once again raise your ridiculous anti-Semitic charges.

      You disapprove of my condescending tone. How could anyone with an ounce of brains not feel the same way about you guys?

      Here is an article by Richard Cohen, a conservative and staunch supporter of Israel. In it, he defends Israel wrt the academic boycotts against her. For the most part, he justifies Israel's position across the board but he also discusses the issue of the ubiquitous charges of anti-Semitism as used by dolts like you.


      When I first came to this blog I was like Doug in la-la land, never really having thought about Jews and Israel much at all, having a generally positive opinion of Israel assuming it was merely a Mid-Eastern reflection of the US. However, over the years, being forced into looking into specific issues usually prompted by statements you put up that just seem a little bizarre, I have become more critical of specific policies of the Israeli government, not of Israelis, not of Jews in general, but of the policies of the Israeli government.

      So if I am actually anti-Semitic in your opinion, you can be proud of the part you played in bringing me to that position.

      I repeat, you are a simple race-baiter and not a very bright one.



    3. Well thanks Quirk for your "grade"... Coming from you? I take it as a complement.

      As for brightness? LOL You are the one that thinks MAD worked for the soviets and will work for Iranian hidden Imam whackadoodles...

      Your brightness shines like single candle in a large hall..

      Look in your own mirror...

      As for this line "So if I am actually anti-Semitic in your opinion, you can be proud of the part you played in bringing me to that position"

      So because according to you I am simple race baiter and not very bright I can make you change into an anti-semite...

      oh the powers of the un-bright over the self anointed genius of the Quirk...

      How do you stand living on a planet filled with those so unworthly of you?

    4. quirk, dont strain yourself.

      Embrace your idiocy. Modern day anti-zionism ISA anti-semitism.

      You reek of it...

      Not to worry I would never mistake you as a friend of either the Jews or Israel.

      But the good news? My vote counts JUST as much as yours...

    5. This is a great line quirk... Did you think of it all by yourself?

      "Have you ever made one negative comment with regard to Israeli policy on this blog?"

      Like this blog needs anymore people making negative comments about israeli policies on this blog? Why should I open up and tell you what I feel is wrong with Israel? Really are you as ignorant as you claim to be bright?

      Your bullshit is remarkable...


    6. quirk: As to the anti-Semitism charge, I consider you a simple race-baiter, and you are not alone. IMO, anyone who can charge that because I said that due to my background being raised in the American tradition, I did not agree with the policy of Zionism (did not agree with it not argue that Israel didn't have the right as an independent nation to adopt it) would say that I would love watching all Jews eliminated 'by whatever means necessary' is either deranged or a simple agitpropist who out of habit resorts to the same old anti-Semitism charges targeted in the previous stream that are simply used to cow people into quiescence. Obviously, it hasn't work with me or anyone who can see through your bullshit.

      Your intolerance speaks volumes. Those that state: "I did not agree with the policy of Zionism" and let's not forget your "you can shove zionism up your ass" speaks quite clearly about your intentions.

      So quirk guess what. You are what you claim you aint...

      Live with it..

      But know there are some of us that look past your expansive use of language as just a billy club of bigotry.

      SO shove that up YOUR ass :)

    7. .

      Sir, I do not like your tone.

      It is quite condescending.



  17. John Kerry is drooling to have a Noble Peace Prize just like the Prez.

    1. So what if a suicide cult gets nukes? He wants his Peace Prize.

    2. .

      You pasted that silly story on the last thread from the American Thinker about the lessons we could take from Reagan and the USSR. I gave you my response there.

      Do you think Iran presents anywhere near the threat the USSR presented to the US during the Cold War. Look at what Reagan did when Gorbachev offered glasnost working towards détente? What did Maggie Thatcher say about it? How did it work out?


    3. I can only hope that Iran does not set off a nuke over America.

      It's called asymmetrical warfare. Maybe you should study the concept. Then you would not make amateurish comments like you just did….

      Also your caveat "anywhere near the threat the USSR presented" What does that mean?

      How is that a standard to measure anything by?

      The Twin Towers were hardly anything that the USSR could have done to us and yet? It was presented as a major threat to the USA.

      Your lack of understanding of the Iranians and their religious pov is telling..

      You just don't get it…

      You make glib comparisons to the Soviets.

      Truly ignorant of the issue.

    4. The twin towers statement was not clear.

      The soviets could nuke us 40 times over. Taking out an office building was not anything we ever considered the USSR would do.

      The calculus of mutually assured destruction is NOT what now is going on with Iran.

    5. .

      Also your caveat "anywhere near the threat the USSR presented" What does that mean?

      How is that a standard to measure anything by?

      This is the standard you raise every day whenever there is the slightest comment on Israeli policy.


      This is a standard that you use on this blog constantly

    6. So you don't answer the query and just raise confusion?

    7. .

      'What do you say about the numerous Jews through the decades and up to the present in the U.S., in Israel, and around the world who for various reasons both religious and secular oppose Zionism? Are they anti-Semites? A simple yes or no is all that is required.'

      One policy for WiO and another for everyone else on the blog.


    8. Asked and answered several times

      shove that up your anti-zionist ass....

    9. .


      What was your answer? When was your answer?


    10. .

      I didn't see it. All I asked for was a simple yes or no.

      You would rather continue with this nonsense rather than re-type at most 3 letters?

      It's hard to take you guys seriously.


    11. I follow this blog pretty closely and I've never seen his m attempt an answer. He knows he is boxed in. He knows he us w hypocrite and he is hoping to obfuscate his way out. I'm guessing even bob knows the truth in this particular issue.

    12. Gotta luv blogging by phone..


  18. .

    Notice how it's slanted and makes Iran out to be a innocent, peaceful nation? How America is easily manipulated by "the jews" i.e. AIPAC and the Oil barons of Arabia?

    2001, Bibi Netanyahu

    Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction...

    They won't get in our way. They won't get in our way.

    So let's say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It's absurd. We have that kind of support and we say "what will we do with the...

    Some here get upset with a little condescension. Bibi goes beyond condescension to contempt.

    How Americans can be manipulated by the Jews? Bibi certainly believes in it to the point of sending out surveys to American Jews on who they would support in a US/Israeli crisis. Now, that takes a little chutzpah.


    1. Americans are easily manipulated. Look at how easily Obama has done it.

      But American support of Israel isn't a manipulated support.

      It has been there for decades.

      From Administration to Administration, decade after decade.

      Just accept it. That is the way most of us feel, we unwashed.

    2. .

      I accept it. I merely call it what it is.


    3. I accept it. I merely call it what it is.

      No, you cal lit as YOU see it. You are not the end all of what is true or truth. You have your own bias as does everyone else here

  19. OBAMA: 'Give peace a chance'...
    'Win' for Iran...
    ROUHANI: 'World Powers Surrendered to Iranian Nation's Will'...
    General: America Pursuing Diplomacy Because They Cannot Defeat Us Militarily...
    Foreign minister lays wreath at grave of Beirut Marine barracks bomber...
    'Secret Side Deal' with Tehran.......

    Headlines on Drudge

  20. Re: JDL

    ...a terrorist organization outlawed in Israel and US...

    1. I made a smartassed remark ONCE in response to being called a traitor, a 5th columnist, a national security threat, a foreign agent, an Israeli (Not that I found offense to the idea), a liar, un-america (cause i didn't cap the a in america thanks rufus)…

      But in America we can have a President that were weather underground terrorists and he can be a "community organizer"..

      One standard for Jews and Pro-Israel Americans and no standards for anyone else. It's not anti-semitism, it's just anti-zionism when the call you Y, when they say you have big noses cause air is free…

    2. WiO,

      The "Y" slur and the observation that Jews have "big noses cause air is free" were directed at me, personally. When people resort to profanitiy and racial slurs, you know you have hit pay dirt. I do not take these things personally because I am dealing with fictional characters on a blog. Face to face, they would not dare.

    3. And I did it right out of the blue, without provocation. Sure.

    4. You were looking for attention I suppose.

  21. If AIPAC has the power attributed, why are we having this conversation? The Iranian War should be the matter of history.

    1. I think we should be worried about CAIR, not AIPAC. (did they change their name?)

      They've been linked to terrorism, and are an unindicted co-conspirator in some case or other, IIRC.

      Some of their folks visit the White House on occasion.

      Where's the outrage?

    2. Indeed, CAIR has changed its name......it is now the Washington Trust Foundation........or, wait for it, now laugh, WTF......they are up to their armpits in all sorts of nefarious schemes.......terrorism, you know, also money laundering.....other shit too........



      for full report.

    3. .

      Another view.

      Since it lost a major battle with former President Ronald Reagan over a huge arms sale to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s, the Israel lobby has generally avoided directly confronting a sitting president, but, at this point, it appears determined to take on Obama over Iran.

      For some observers, its opposition is difficult to understand, particularly because key members of the Israeli national security establishment have conspicuously declined to join Netanyahu in denouncing the Geneva deal.

      “I’m amazed that they’ve taken it this far,” said Keith Weissman, a former AIPAC specialist on Iran. “Bottom line is that if the Iranians comply with the terms of the deal – which it seems like they are doing so far, despite some internal resistance – they are further from breakout capacity [to produce a nuclear weapon] than they were before the deal.”

      But Douglas Bloomfield, a former senior AIPAC executive, suggested the motivation may be of a more practical nature. “It’s good for business,” he told IPS. “AIPAC has spent the last 20 years very, very effectively making a strong case against Iran, and Iran has been a great asset to them.”

      “They want to show they’re not going to give up on this; they’ve built a huge financial and political base on it. …Most of the Jewish groups and all of Congress have been on auto-pilot on Iran; nobody ever thought you might actually get a deal… In AIPAC’s case, they’re terrified they’re going to lose their major fund-raising appeal.”

      Iran Sanctions Bill Big Test of Israel Lobby Power


  22. Assassination

    Assassination of Meir Kahane

    In November 1990, following a speech to an audience of mostly Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn, as a crowd of well-wishers gathered around Kahane in the second-floor lecture hall in midtown Manhattan's Marriott East Side Hotel, Kahane was assassinated. He was shot to death allegedly by El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian-born American citizen who was initially charged and acquitted of the murder. Nosair was later convicted of the murder in United States district court incident to the trial for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Prosecutors were able to retry Nosair for the murder because the federal indictment includes the killing as part of the alleged terrorist conspiracy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and later made a confession to federal agents. Kahane was buried on Har HaMenuchot in Jerusalem. Kahane's funeral was one of the largest in Israel's history, where approximately 150,000 participated.

    1. To Whom It May Concern:

      Re: Wiki history

      When one is convicted of a crime, it is no longer "alleged". The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was not the "alleged terrorist conspiracy." El Sayyid Nosair was not "allegedly" the assassin of R. Kahane.

      Sorry to nitpick, but I like the historical record to be tidy and, most of all, truthful. With so many bigots running around these days looking for an excuse to vent, great precision is necessary.

  23. Straight Talk:

    "“One of the things that I’m going to be talking to my Cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation, in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans,” Obama said.

    “The belief that everybody’s got to take responsibility, everybody’s got to work hard, but if you do, that you can support a family and meet the kinds of obligations that you have to yourself and your family, but also to your communities and your neighbors.”

    1. Aklaba beetp bookp jezp nirk doop noop poop.


  24. No, we shouldn’t trust Obama on Iran

    President Obama’s interim deal with Iran is so bad that he has to keep it secret.
    No, really.
    The Los Angeles Times reports:

    “Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran’s chief negotiator said Monday.” The implementation deal itself has not been released or shared with members of Congress. (“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the text of the implementing agreement would be released to lawmakers. He said the six parties were weighing how much of the text they could release publicly.”)

    The LA. Times report explains, “The nonpaper deals with such important details as the operation of a joint commission to oversee how the deal is implemented and Iran’s right to continue nuclear research and development during the next several months. . . .”

    The latter issue is a major sticking point with the Israelis and U.S. members of Congress.

    The United States says Iranians can do only “paper and pen” research (whatever that is); the Iranians say they can do whatever they please. The text of the agreement remains hidden from view.

    This bizarre situation has the White House crying that the House and Senate members who favor increased sanctions are welcoming war.

    The president demands we give diplomacy a chance but won’t tell us what his diplomacy has produced.

    Needless to say, no negotiation of such magnitude has been as concealed from Congress and the American people. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the co-author of a series of sanctions laws — all opposed at some point by the administration — is demanding the White House release the deal, to no avail.

    Not surprisingly, members of Congress and outside experts are blasting the administration...

    ...The administration would have a whole lot more credibility if it had stood up to Iran at some point — on anything. But members of Congress can see what the mullahs see:

    This is a president who has zero staying power, no inclination to carry through on threats, a willingness to undermine the U.N. resolutions that call for dismantling of Iran’s illegal nuclear power, a disturbing habit of repeating Iranian talking points (e.g. falsely claiming there is a fatwa against nuclear arms) and now a record of trading easily reversible Iran moves for substantial concessions.

    Why would any lawmaker who really cares about stopping Iran — and frankly stopping the dangerous drift toward acquiescence to the world’s largest state sponsor of terror — take a “trust me” from the White House? The Israelis and our Gulf allies sure aren’t.

    1. Its existence did not stay a secret for long. Neither will its contents.

      The US is not going to war with Iran. In fact, at this moment, the USN and USAF are providing an early warning shield to protect Iran from an Israeli attack. Furthermore, Mr. Obama has demanded that any Israeli action against Iran must have his approval. War is out of the question, whatever Congress does.

      IMO all the saber rattling in Congress has more to do with the election than Iran. The Congress folk just want to be on the record when Iran pulls the rug from under the administration. Mr. Obama is probably praying that the rug pulling comes after the election. Iran may accommodate. Iran is going nuclear. The question is whether it will brazenly do so before or after the election.

    2. Even Republicans are cutting pensions for career military folk, that pretty much establishes our intentions with respect to another land war in Asia, doesn't it?

  25. O...I can hardly wait...Be still, my beating heart...

    Hollywood fundraises for Texas abortions with ‘Night of a Thousand Vaginas!’

    No, it isn't a gynecologist's worst nightmare, it's comedy...Ha...Ha


    1. ...what a title for a 50's movie...

    2. I like, and would suggest, "The Long Night of The Thousand Sweating Vaginas".

  26. From 1,000 vaginas, we head to France and one ...

    How does Francois Hollande pull these women? like Julie Gayet and Valerie Trierweiler

    Personally, I hate the man...Could I hate him impersonally?...Hmm...

  27. If the government will pay for a penis pump, will it pay for the organic model?

    1. And penis enhancement, too.

      Every American man, and each male illegal immigrant too, has a constitutional right to a plump pumped up pecker, a really woodie.

      Everyman a Plump Pumped Up Peckerwood......

  28. When one is convicted of a crime, it is no longer "alleged". The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was not the "alleged terrorist conspiracy."

    So when the attackers of the USS Liberty got their Sons of Ya'akov Expeditionary Medals, we no longer have to say "alleged attack".

    1. The attack was all too real and no one other than you has said "alleged". The question went malice, something with which you are intimately familiar. In every case, malice was not found.

  29. I can only hope that Iran does not set off a nuke over America.

    No doubt because they'd get all the credit for bringing down the Arch of American Civilization before Israel gets the chance to do it, as Allen threatened.

    1. allen does not threaten. If there is a nuclear exchange, the world you know will cease to exist as will civilization. By the way, I did not use "Arch of American Civilization" (whatever that means).

      Israel has never gone to war lightheartedly. We have never used propaganda posters and commercials glorifying war. We go to war reluctantly but always with the intention of winning, since defeat is not an option.

      At the moment, the Muslims are doing very well dismantling themselves on their own without any help from Israel. You may be sure that the only assistance anyone will get from Israel is a longer shovel.

  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Saudi nationals here in the USA must belong to both AIPAC and CAIR these days.

      This is confusing to a simple man who can't figure out how you can have better odds by simply switching positions between two equal choices.......

      If anyone can explain this to me in hay bale and hand wrench terms, please do so. It really bugs me

  31. The Conga Line is trying to goad America into rushing to war with Iran precisely because they know damn good and well MAD does works, and after Iran nukes up, the Mullahs will be untouchable. And that's the calculus on the other side as well.

  32. Dear Miss T, you are making very sense right now.

    1. Probably cloudy in Seattle but beautiful clear night here.

      The moon is full, and is giving birth to a star a little to the north. (probably a planet)

      This is just how the nigger Jim said things occurred, in the 'Adventures'......

      The stars didn't just happen, nor was they made......Huck's two choices.....but rather they was laid by the moon, like chickens lay eggs......

    2. The nigger Jim was a Hindu but didn't know it.

    3. Dear Miss T, you are making very LITTLE sense right now.

      I am really getting sloppy and am beginning to be concerned about myself....

    4. Making very sense is she? Good to know. Have another belt on me bobbo.

    5. If I were drinking I wouldn't make such an error, Ash.

    6. You can be certain your next typo is going to very heavily criticized, my good man.

  33. The moon is full, and is giving birth to a star a little to the north. (probably a planet)

    Skyglobe (one of the programs left over from MS-DOS days that I still love) says it's Jupiter, Bob.

    1. There is a halo around the moon, from ice crystals up high I imagine.

      We may be witnessing not just any old average star birth, but the Birth of a Hero Star (planet) here.

  34. The ObamaCare numbers are a bunch of crap as everyone but the willfully blind already knew -

    Analysis: It sure looks like the WH’s Medicaid expansion stats are made up

    posted at 1:05 am on January 14, 2014 by Guy Benson

    The always-sharp Sean Trende first voiced his suspicions about the Obama administration’s official Medicaid numbers last week, arguing that the advertised “4 million new enrollments under Obamacare!” figure was almost certainly a wild exaggeration. Upon further review, Trende is now convinced he’s right, and that Team Obama is cooking the books to serve their narrative:

    There were two major problems with the administration’s numbers. First, of the 4 million new enrollees, more than half of were in states that did not even undertake the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. So we can be pretty comfortable that the number of enrollees due to the ACA is no more than 1.9 million, using the data provided by the administration. (There are probably some previously eligible folk who decided to apply after hearing about the expansion, but their number is likely relatively small.) … The second issue is that of those 1.9 million, some would have enrolled (or re-enrolled) in the program under the pre-expansion rules. Every state had a Medicaid program in place prior to the expansion, although the eligibility level varied widely from state to state, and therefore would have signed up people in the program absent the new funding.

    Click through for Trende’s updated analysis, which examines Arkansas as a case study to extrapolate and estimate the true number of newly-eligible Americans who’ve signed up for Medicaid as a result of Obamacare. (Spoiler: It’s less than a quarter of what the administration is bragging about in public). Meanwhile, the White House won’t tell us what percentage of Americans who have “selected plans” through Obamacare’s exchanges are actually paid up and enrolled. Not that it necessarily matters; even some of those consumers who’ve followed through on every jot and tittle still haven’t managed to obtain coverage. Beyond that, HHS’ recent disclosure on the percentage of ‘young invincibles’ within state-level risk pools portends significant adverse selection disruptions ahead. And the administration’s “cost containment” story is a fiction. Distorting, withholding and downplaying data: How else is a desperate political operation supposed to shift the punishing winds of public opinion?

  35. January 14, 2014
    Sarah Palin's father harassed by IRS six times since 2008
    Thomas Lifson

    The problems with a politicized IRS may be far more serious than we have yet suspected. Sarah Palin's brother Chuck Heath, Jr. posted the following on his Facebook account January 11th:

    My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words "horribly harassed" six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.

    Government and politics are ugly. Kudos to the few that are trying to clean it up. (hat tip: PJ Tatler)

    Assuming that this is true, it represents either a remarkable coincidence, or (more likely) a pattern of political abuse by the most powerful and most feared arm of the federal government dealing directly with everyone who lives in or enjoys citizenship in the United States. This is frightening, to say the least. And in what may be even worse news, it appears that the shambolic "investigation" of the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofit groups is about to claim that there is nothing to see here, move on. Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal:

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't plan to file criminal charges over the Internal Revenue Service's heightened scrutiny of conservative groups, law-enforcement officials said, a move that likely will only intensify debate over the politically charged scandal.

    The officials said investigators didn't find the kind of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would amount to a violation of criminal law. Instead, what emerged during the probe was evidence of a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules about tax-exemption applications it didn't understand, according to the law-enforcement officials.

    While the case is still being investigated and could remain open for months, officials familiar with its progress said it is increasingly unlikely any criminal charges will result. That could change, the officials cautioned, if unexpected evidence is discovered that alters their thinking.

    Gee, I guess when Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment, she was just kidding. There was no crime committed.

    The New York Post editorializes:

    Maybe the FBI is right, that it's just all a big misunderstanding, that IRS officials were only at the White House for Easter Egg rolls. Even so, our Constitution doesn't leave accountability to the judgement of the FBI. To the contrary, our system holds that the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, have the right to know what their government is doing.

    In short, if the threat of criminal charges has in fact been removed, there's no more excuse for Lois Lerner not to tell us, under oath, what she was apparently afraid to say in May.

    It is time for an IRS Special Prosecutor. This is a lot more serious than Chris Christie making TV ads for New Jersey tourism.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/sarah_palins_father_harassed_by_irs_six_times_since_2008.html#ixzz2qR4H7j4P
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    1. The Obama Administration is the worst in our history.

    2. The head of the Investigation worked for Obama's Campaign!

      The Scales of Justice.

  36. There's a brain dead lady in Texas on life support. She and her husband were both paramedics, and both signed of on not being kept alive in her condition, but since she's pregnant, the law there says they can't pull the plug.

    The Captive Vagina.

  37. "If you are going to vacuum your junk, just make certain you never pay retail for the penis pump"


    Cut rates, coupon deals, remanufactured used devices, low pressure interest loans -

    More info -

    Box 10000001
    Detroit, Michigan

    Self addressed stamped return envelope required.

  38. Suckers-R-Us

    New agreement doesn't give IAEA enough access to Iran to investigate whether they're working on nuclear bomb

    Nackaerts.jpgHerman Nackaerts, living in hope

    Iran keeps playing Obama and the other Western leaders for fools. And they are, of course. "IAEA gains more Iran access, but not enough for bomb probe," by Fredrik Dahl for Reuters, January 13:

    (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog's increased access in Iran to monitor a landmark agreement with world powers still falls short of what it says it needs to investigate suspicions that Tehran may have worked on designing an atomic bomb.
    It is also a far cry from the wide-ranging inspection powers the International Atomic Energy Agency had in Iraq in the 1990s to help unearth and dismantle Saddam Hussein's clandestine nuclear program after the first Gulf war.

    Nevertheless, the IAEA will see its role in Iran expand significantly under the November 24 interim accord between the country and the six major powers, the implementation of which will start next Monday.

    Since the deal is only preliminary, the IAEA and its investigation may gain more prominence in later talks on a final settlement of the decade-old dispute over Iran's nuclear program, but it remains to be seen how far it will go.

    "This is just an appetizer, I guess ... a starter," former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Herman Nackaerts said.

    Good luck with getting the rest of your meal, Nackaerts.

    Posted by Robert Spencer on January 14, 2014

  39. Finally !!

    This must be the in depth report on the Benghazi betrayal that Obama promised us all in the last campaign -

    Jihad Watch

    Benghazi: Obama was told immediately that it was a "terrorist attack," not a protest on Muhammad video

    What is most disturbing about Obama's deceptiveness here is that he blamed the Muhammad video -- in effect blaming America's freedom of speech and implying that restrictions on the freedom of speech would be warranted. As Pamela Geller notes: "Not one week after the September 11th attacks on our consulate, Obama stood before the world at the UN and said, 'the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.' Obama said this knowing that the murder of our people and the attack on our consulate was in the cause of Muhammad." You'd almost think he wanted the U.S. to adopt Sharia blasphemy restrictions.

    "The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest," by James Rosen for Fox News, January 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):

    Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

    Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

    According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

    "My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."

    Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

    1. Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

      Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee's hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

      Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night -- as Obama's hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch -- that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

      "In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."

      Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack." ...

      Posted by Robert Spencer on January 14, 2014

  40. QuirkTue Jan 14, 05:41:00 PM EST
    'What do you say about the numerous Jews through the decades and up to the present in the U.S., in Israel, and around the world who for various reasons both religious and secular oppose Zionism? Are they anti-Semites? A simple yes or no is all that is required.'

    Thank you Mr Lawyer. But the answer is not a simple yes or no.

    The modern issue of anti-zionism of being anti-Semitism has nothing to do with the anti-zionism of "numerous" jews from the previous decades. BTW what is a "numerous"? 1%? 5% of the total population of Jews in the world?

    Jewish culture, religion and it's peoples support the self determination of the Jewish people for nationhood in it's historic homeland in Israel by a majority of over 98%. Of course there are always exceptions. There are also deluded, ill and simply retarded folks as well. Are they a part of your "numerous" calculus?

    Quirk: "who for various reasons both religious and secular oppose Zionism?" Should we give weight to the remaining Iranian Jews who oppose zionism? Or should we give the vast majority of Jews that escaped Iran more credence.

    The political tool that is now the rage in the world which is anti-zionism is in fact anti-Semitic,

    And yes there are self hating Jews who are intact anti-Semitic.

    And I am sure there are "numerous" Jews that embrace Islam, Christianity and the modern Porn industry. This does not change the calculus.

    There are NUMEROUS articles that describe the "anti-zionist" movement as a cover for anti-Semitism.

    You have have dismissed Daniel Pearl's mother article as ignorant or so other such dismissive term.

    Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative "Jewish lobby," the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli "warmongers."

    In a nut shell, a simple answer is...

    If you hate Israel and wish to deny the jewish people self determination in it's historic homeland and apply a standard of judgement that ONLY Israel has to live up to? You are an anti-Semite

    1. .

      I will have to respond later this afternoon as I have appointments I have to attend. But I respond. As usual, your comments are riddled with misleading and inaccurate statements.


  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

  42. Is it anti-zionism or anti-semitism or just stupidity that my "wio" is not added to the blog roll?