Translate

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Live Webcast with PM Netanyahu



 My question for PM Netanyahu:

 Dear PM Netanyahu,

In your speech to the UN General Assembly you quoted Bernard Lewis:
“There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.
Recently, only Michael Oren in his LA Times Op- Ed (June 19) and Norman Podhoretz in his WSJ Op-Ed (July 29) mentioned Lewis.

Since this quote by Bernard Lewis about the death of MAD vis-à-vis Iran is so essential to the understanding of the magnitude of the Iranian nuclear threat, why is it not used more extensively to sway world public opinion?

Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later



There was no ‘better deal’ with Iran to be had. Now this calamitous one offers Tehran two paths to the bomb.



By NORMAN PODHORETZ

Almost everyone who opposes the deal President Obama has struck with Iran hotly contests his relentless insistence that the only alternative to it is war. No, they claim, there is another alternative, and that is “a better deal.”

To which Mr. Obama responds that Iran would never agree to the terms his critics imagine could be imposed. These terms would include the toughening rather than the lifting of sanctions; “anytime, anywhere” nuclear-plant inspections instead of the easily evaded ones to which he has agreed; the elimination rather than the freezing of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure; and the corresponding elimination of the “sunset” clause that leaves Iran free after 10 years to build as many nuclear weapons as it wishes.

Since I too consider Mr. Obama’s deal a calamity, I would be happy to add my voice to the critical chorus. Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly with the critics that, far from “cutting off any pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon,” as he claims, the deal actually offers Tehran not one but two paths to acquiring the bomb. Iran can either cheat or simply wait for the sunset clause to kick in, while proceeding more or less legally to prepare for that glorious day.

Unfortunately, however, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right when he dismisses as a nonstarter the kind of “better deal” his critics propose. Nor, given that the six other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, could these stringent conditions be imposed if the U.S. were to walk away without a deal. The upshot is that if the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.

And there’s the rub. Once upon a time the U.S. and just about every other country on earth believed that achieving this objective was absolutely necessary to the safety of the world, and that it could be done through negotiations. Yet as the years wore on, it became increasingly clear to everyone not blinded by wishful delusions that diplomacy would never work.

Simultaneously it also became clear that the U.S. and the six other parties to the negotiations, despite their protestations that force remained “on the table,” would never resort to it (and that Mr. Obama was hellbent on stopping Israel from taking military action on its own). Hence they all set about persuading themselves that their fears of a nuclear Iran had been excessive, and that we could live with a nuclear Iran as we had lived with Russia and China during the Cold War.

Out the window went the previously compelling case against that possibility made by authoritative scholars like Bernard Lewis, and with it went the assumption that the purpose of the negotiations was to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

For our negotiating partners, the new goal was to open the way to lucrative business contracts, but for Mr. Obama it was to remove the biggest obstacle to his long-standing dream of a U.S. détente with Iran. To realize this dream, he was ready to concede just about anything the Iranians wanted—without, of course, admitting that this was tantamount to acquiescence in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them.

To repeat, then, what cannot be stressed too often: If the purpose were still to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, no deal that Iran would conceivably agree to sign could do the trick, leaving war as the only alternative. To that extent, Mr. Obama is also right. But there is an additional wrinkle. For in allowing Iran to get the bomb, he is not averting war. What he is doing is setting the stage for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

The reason stems from the fact that, with hardly an exception, all of Israel believes that the Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim that they are bound and determined to wipe the Jewish state off the map. It follows that once Iran acquires the means to make good on this genocidal commitment, each side will be faced with only two choices: either to rely on the fear of a retaliatory strike to deter the other from striking first, or to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own.

Yet when even a famous Iranian “moderate” like the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has said—as he did in 2001, contemplating a nuclear exchange—that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality,” how can deterrence work?

The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives before us are not Mr. Obama’s deal or war. They are conventional war now or nuclear war later. John Kerry recently declared that Israel would be making a “huge mistake” to take military action against Iran. But Mr. Kerry, as usual, is spectacularly wrong. Israel would not be making a mistake at all, let alone a huge one. On the contrary, it would actually be sparing itself—and the rest of the world—a nuclear conflagration in the not too distant future.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. His books include “Why Are Jews Liberals?” (Doubleday, 2009)


Let us remind ourselves what did the authoritative scholar Bernard Lewis actually say:  

“In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning.  At the End of Time, there will be general destruction  anyway.  What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...”

When was the last time you saw this quotation in print?
Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD being ignored?

Pollard and Iran

It is unthinkable that anyone should consider Pollard’s release as rendering the Iran deal more palatable to Israelis.



The Obama administration hotly denies any attempt on its part to link Jonathan Pollard’s release set for November with its PR blitz to preempt congressional rejection of the Iran deal reached by world powers on July 14.

In the strictest legalistic terms, this position is hardly in doubt. Pollard – convicted in 1985 for espionage on Israel’s behalf - will have served 30 years of a life term when he is released in November. He presumably met the two outright preconditions for his release: good behavior and constituting no danger. 

Pro forma, no special administration favors – no clemency or commuting of Pollard’s sentence – were needed to secure Pollard’s forthcoming freedom, since Pollard will have served his full term as it was deemed at the time of his unfortunate plea-bargain and ultra-harsh punishment.

Pollard had reached a plea bargain which would have meant a 20-year maximum term, if not less. The presiding judge, however, ignored the deal and sent Pollard up for life, a sentence considered extremely disproportionate with regard to espionage by an ally, especially in comparison to far more grievous espionage cases.

Some Washington higher-ups – like former CIA director James Woolsey – have come around to the view that Pollard was overly punished because he is a Jew, that he became the victim of thinly camouflaged anti-Semitism.

None of this discourages Washington innuendo geared to rake in political profits from what cannot conceivably be construed as a benevolent gesture by administration officials – unless, of course, they try to pass off curbing their ill-will as an active act of goodwill.

Given the duplicitous treatment to which Pollard has been subjected, no degree of cynicism can be ruled out.

Successive American administrations – Obama’s not least – had callously sought to use Pollard as their pawn in assorted realpolitik maneuvers.

Last year, Israel’s purported reward for releasing from its custody some of the most heinous Palestinian mass-murderers was to be Pollard’s liberation – after the fourth and last batch of terrorists were to be set loose. The process, however, was disrupted by Ramallah’s obstructionism.

The abiding impression imparted by that episode was that Pollard was being perceived almost as a hostage.

Former US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross admitted in his 2004 book, The Missing Peace, that he advised then-president Bill Clinton against releasing Pollard in the framework of the 1998 Wye Accords negotiated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first term (this despite Ross’s belief Pollard’s life sentence was disproportionate and that he deserved to go free unconditionally).

Ross argued that Pollard was simply far too valuable as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis Israel to be released cheaply. Ross thus furnished us with the definitive explanation for Pollard’s inexcusably drawn-out agony.

Pollard has long suspected as much and had urged that he not be used as a “sweetener” to persuade Israel to agree to dangerous unilateral concessions. Despite his prolonged plight, Pollard has repeatedly pleaded not to be traded in return for the release of Arab murderers and terrorists, whose crimes bear no relation to his case and are morally incomparable to it.

The very thought that Pollard would now be exploited to “sweeten” both Israeli opinion and that of American Jews on the Iran issue is morally repugnant in the extreme.

It is instructive to recall that Pollard’s sin was passing information to a friendly country on such matters as Iraqi and Syrian WMDs, Soviet arms shipments to Damascus and Libyan air defenses. Indeed, this was largely data withheld by the Pentagon in violation of the 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel.

The departure from all punitive precedents in Pollard’s case smells foul. Iran’s nukes constitute an existential danger to the Jewish state. Hence, it is unthinkable that anyone should consider Pollard’s release as rendering the Iran deal more palatable to Israelis.

This is an insult to our intelligence that condescendingly belittles the gravity of our predicament. 

***




"This is an insult to our intelligence that condescendingly belittles the gravity of our predicament. "

Indeed. But in the interview Mike Huckabee gave to FOX news defending his statement that Obama was marching Israel to the door of the oven, it became apparent that Americans just do not understand this predicament. Apart from Tom Shilue, everyone else was attacking Huckabee. Geraldo Rivera called the comments “inappropriate.”

But it is irrelevant what Obama administration thinks they are achieving and even their motivation. What matters is the net effect. And the net effect of Obama’s absurd policy of appeasement of Iran is that he was marching Israel to the door of the oven.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Israel Katz’s idiotic response to Huckabee’s brave statement

Finally someone in the US tells the truth and here we have an Israeli politician undermining the most brilliant stand I have seen on American television for some time. Shooting ourselves in the foot!

Of course, Israel will not permit this from happening, but the world must know what would happen if Israel does not act, so Huckabee is absolutely right. 

What Huckabee’s interview with FOX New revealed to me is that Americans, even Fox News, DO NOT have any idea what is going on.  This is really scary


I think the Israeli government is trying to be diplomatic with a president who obviously has gone beyond diplomacy. Ron Dremer does not doubt the “sincerity of the president or his team when they believe this deal makes not only America safer, makes Israel safer”


But it is irrelevant what Obama administration thinks they  achieving and even their  motivation. What matters is the  net effect. And the net effect of Obama’s absurd policy of appeasement of Iran is that he was marching Israel  to the door of the oven.  








Likud minister to Huckabee: Nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore







By JPOST.COM STAFF


Transportation Minister Israel Katz (Likud) on Tuesday rejected comments made by Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in which the former Arkansas governor invoked the Holocaust in his criticism of the Iran nuclear deal.

Huckabee has faced accusations of extremism and partisanship from US President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the Anti-Defamation League after saying over the weekend that, with the Iran deal, Obama would "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

Katz, who is considered one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest allies in the Likud, implied Tuesday that Israel was stronger than Huckabee's comments suggest.

"Respected Mr. Huckabee: nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore," Katz stated. "To this end we established the State of Israel and the IDF; and, if need be, we will know how to defend ourselves, by ourselves."

Katz agreed that the Iran deal must not allow the "Iranian terror kingdom" to become a nuclear threshold state, but said that the comments by Huckabee were "wrong and unnecessary."

Huckabee is running for the Republican nomination for president, and his rivals weighed in on his controversial remarks on Monday. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said the comments were "just wrong," despite his staunch disapproval of the agreement; while former senator Rick Santorum said the remarks were "absolutely right."

In Jerusalem, Netanyahu continued his assault against the Iran deal during a speech he gave in the Knesset.

Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah are already celebrating the billions of dollars Iran will receive as a result of this agreement, which will be used to help them in their terrorist activities, Netanyahu said.

Iran, he added, continues to threaten the United States in spite of the agreement and has already declared that its nuclear sites will not be inspected even though it is one of its obligations under the deal, Netanyahu said.

“This agreement gives international legitimacy to Iranian nuclear armament in the future and its continued aggressive activity in the present,” said Netanyahu as he explained that Iran was the largest terrorist state in the world.

Michael Wilner and Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.

Monday, July 27, 2015

HUCKABEE: WHY WOULDN’T I BRING UP THE HOLOCAUST WHEN ‘WE’RE ON THE VERGE OF REPEATING IT’?




Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defended his remarks about the Iran deal, stating “we’re on the verge of repeating it [the Holocaust] again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing,” so it makes no sense to avoid bringing up the Holocaust on Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Five.”

When asked if he stood by his comments, Huckabee stated, “Absolutely I do. Absolutely I do. The last time the world did not take seriously threats that someone was going to kill massive amounts of Jews, we ended up seeing 6 million Jews murdered. We didn’t take it seriously. The Iranian government — we’re not talking about a blogger here, we’re talking about the Iranian government — has repeatedly said that it’s going to be easier to take the Jews out because they’re all concentrated in Israel, we won’t have to go all over the world and hunt them. They used the word ‘holocaust.’ They used that word in talking about what they wanted to do. They refused, in this negotiation, to recognize Israel’s right to exist. They refused to tone down their rhetoric and continued to say that the Holocaust did not exist, and that they’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the map. When people who are in a government position continue to say they’re going to kill you, I think somebody ought to wake up and take that seriously.”
Co-host Dana Perino then argued, “he [Obama] has said repeatedly anybody who is against the deal that he is making with Iran, that they are warmongers, they just want war, which is unfair and unserious. But I do think that, from a rhetoric standpoint, when you bring up the Holocaust, everybody loses.” And “I that think that for Democrats who are on the fence, of possibly refusing to go along with Obama on this deal, that then, all of a sudden, they get pushed into a position of defending the president. And you even saw Joe Manchin today of West Virginia say he’s probably going to support the deal.”
Huckabee responded, “Well, if I get credit for them supporting the deal, then I’m a much, much bigger deal than I think people thought I was. Look, here’s what I would want to remind people: If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all, because the last time — it’s Neville Chamberlain all over again. We’re going to just trust that everyone’s going to do the right thing. Three times I’ve been to Auschwitz, when I talked about the oven door, I have stood at that oven door. I know exactly what it looks like. 1.1 million people killed. For 6,000 years, Jews have been chased, and hunted, and killed all over this earth, and when someone in a government says, ‘We’re going to kill them,’ I think, by gosh, we better take that seriously. And for the president to act like that the only two options are have a war or take his deal, that got nothing, got nothing. We didn’t get the hostages out. We didn’t didn’t get a concession that they would stop this rhetoric about wanting to wipe Israel out, or they didn’t stop chanting ‘Death to America.’ We got nothing. I read the whole thing, I read it, and I thought you’re kidding. This is it? This is the best deal? Why can’t we criticize it?”
Co-host Geraldo Rivera then stated that as a Jew, he thinks Huckabee’s comments were “inappropriate.” And “There are some place you cannot go. You cannot compare the slaughter of 6 million Jews to anything, other than, maybe the slaughter of the Armenians or something else in history. You cannot compare it to a negotiation over a deal like this.”
Huckabee asked in response, “Why do we have the Holocaust Museum in Washington? Why do we have Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, that I visited dozens and dozens of times? Why do we have it?” Rivera answered that those things are “sacred” and shouldn’t be politicized. He added, after Huckabee asked again “to remember.”
Huckabee continued, “Why? So that we never repeat it again. If we’re on the verge of repeating it again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing, how do we not bring up that language?”
Geraldo responded, “We don’t even use that when there’s a slaying in a school, and multiple victims. We still don’t go there. Because this was the systematic attempt by an industrialized nation to wipe out a race of people. That is different. That is unique. You may not go there. And I’m begging you to apologize and to retract that.”
Huckabee declared, “I will not apologize and I will not recant, because the word ‘holocaust’ was invoked by the Iranian government. They used that very word.” Geraldo answered by asking, “Are we going to go there then?” And pointed to the Anti-Defamation League’s condemnation of Huckabee’s remarks
Huckabee responded by stating, “the Democrat Jewish community’s been universal in condemning it. For them, it is a political issue. For me, it is not. It’s a humanitarian issue. And when you have a government saying they’re going to kill every Jew on the planet earth, and they use the term ‘holocaust,’ I’m not sure why we have memorials about the Holocaust if we’re not going to remember why we had it, what happened to 6 million Jews, how they were systematically murdered. And the fact is Geraldo, that’s exactly what the Iranians have said for, I mean, as long as the ayatollahs have been in power, for 36 years. They have continually said, ‘We’re going to kill every Jew.’ Now, at what point when a gun is pointed to your head do you not take that seriously?”
Co-host Eric Bolling said he doesn’t take issue with the comment itself, but rather, “My problem is that it took the focus away from what President Obama said, that 99% of the world is in agreement with this deal, which I fully, fully disagree with, number one, and number two, who cares about the rest of the world? I care about what Americans think. And right now, I think there’s 50% of Americans who hate this deal right now. And can we just focus on that for a little bit? Can you answer President Obama’s comment that 99% of the world is in agreement with the deal?”

Huckabee addressed Obama’s comment by wondering why “none of the people in that neighborhood” supported the deal if it is was such a great deal. He also pointed to Israel’s opposition to the deal, which he argued was possibly “because they, too, have seen this movie before, and they know that it does not end well. I think it’s a naive deal, and it didn’t get anything. I mean, you should have had some preconditions. The precondition should have been three things, at least: Four hostages…should have been released. They should have been on the next plane home. You should have had a concession that no more anti-/death to America talk, and no more talk about wiping Jews off the face of the earth and destroying Israel.”
Co-host Tom Shillue defended Huckabee’s remarks, which he argued is “a sober statement to make, because when they announced the deal they were saying, ‘Death to America, death to Israel.’ So, it makes perfect sense to me.”

**

What Huckabee’s interview with FOX New revealed to me is that Americans, even Fox News, DO NOT have any idea what is going on.  This is really scary. 

Obama’s secret Iran deals exposed



Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)







President Obama promised that his nuclear deal with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.

Worse, Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.

In an interview, Pompeo told me that he and Cotton were meeting with the deputy director of the IAEA and the agency’s two top Iran negotiators just days after the nuclear accord was announced, when they asked how the agency will carry out verification at the Iranian military complex at Parchin. IAEA officials told them, quite casually, that the details were all covered in agreements negotiated between the IAEA and the Iranian government. It was the first they had heard of the side deals.

Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”

It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).

In other words, Obama is gambling our national security and handing over $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, based on secret agreements negotiated between the IAEA and Iran that no U.S. official has seen.

“We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo says. “No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”

In fact, the Obama administration’s failure to transmit these side deals to Congress is a violation of the law. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which Obama signed into law, explicitly states that the president must transmit the nuclear agreement along with “all related materials and annexes.” That clearly covers any side agreements covering the verification of Iran’s compliance.

Susan Rice told reporters the administration “provided Congress with all of the documents that we drafted or were part of drafting and all documents shared with us by the IAEA.” Sorry, that’s not what the law requires.

But the administration cannot hand over what it apparently does not have. For Pompeo, that raises even more troubling questions. “Why on earth is the president letting the negotiations [on verification] be negotiated by someone other than us?” he asks. How can it be that the administration would “do a deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, that’s spent its entire existence cheating, and we would sign off on a deal with them whose core provisions are completely unknown to our side? It’s remarkable.”

What is in the secret side deals? According to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the side deals governing inspections of the Parchin military complex allows Iran to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors. That is like letting Lance Armstrong collect his own blood samples for a doping investigation. “I suspect if we’re able to actually go over [these agreements], you find half a dozen that you would stare at and realize we really didn’t get verification,” Pompeo says.

Congress should insist on seeing the side deals before it votes on the Iran accord. The only way to stop the agreement is for Congress to override the president’s veto through a resolution of disapproval with a two-thirds vote in both houses. That would require 13 Senate Democrats and 45 House Democrats to vote no — which would have been highly unlikely until the revelation of these secret deals.

It remains to be seen whether the revelation of the secret side deals will make it impossible for Democrats to vote in favor of the Iran agreement. How, Pompeo asks, can they explain to their constituents that they voted for a nuclear deal with Iran without knowing how it will be verified?


“My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto,” Pompeo says. “It’s a long climb, but this is important.”

HUCKABEE: OBAMA MARCHING ISRAELIS TO ‘THE DOOR OF THE OVEN’







Presidential aspirant and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee joined Breitbart’s editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow in an interview on Saturday.


Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday, the governor demonstrated his keen ability to articulate conservative principles and values—a likely reason why he enjoys the highest favorability ratings of all GOP candidates running for president in 2016.

Governor Huckabee didn’t pull any punches when talking about Obama’s Iran nuclear deal: “This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped.”

Modestly, Huckabee acknowledges that his high favorability rating is good news. “People don’t vote for someone they don’t like. So I just got a make sure I don’t start doing stuff that make people stop liking me,” he chuckled.

Marlow, who hosts the program airing on Sirius XM Patriot radio channel 125 on Saturday mornings, asked Huckabee, “What are conservatives fighting for in this race?”

Huckabee answered that he believes the biggest mistake conservatives make is they speak like they are talking “to an assemblage of people in the corporate board room on Wall Street.” Instead, he explained that conservatives need to convey a simple message of “conservatism, limited government, more local government, lower taxes, and less regulation to people who sweat through their clothes everyday and have to lift heavy things to make a living.”
Huckabee added that when “We fail to communicate to working men and women of this country, they don’t connect with us. Ineveitably we lose.”

Marlow asked the governor what is his concept of American values. Huckabee replied that American values can be summed up in the language of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, all of us are created equal, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To the governor, our values boil down to everybody plays by the same rules in America. “We are a nation of law—not emotions, not men, not money, not power—but a nation of law,” he clarified. “Our worth and our value comes from a higher source, God. Not the government, but from God.” Huckabee informed that from this fundamental value all other values emanate.
Marlow changed the topic to the ongoing Planned Parenthood scandal. He asked the governor what he thinks about the American government funding the largest abortion provider in the nation, recently exposed for allegedly selling baby body parts and fetal tissue.

The 59-year-old author and former Fox News host said that he has formally called for the immediate end to government funding of Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately that may be difficult. Huckabee pointed out that “Democrats get a lot of money from the pro-abortionists.”

The amenable statesman recounted that he has called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood for years. “The fact that they are getting between $500-540 million of taxpayer money is really a disgrace,” he asserted.  “It is disgusting to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood that chops up babies and sells the parts like parts to a Buick.”

America needs to “come to grips with a 42-year nightmare of taking babies from their mother’s womb. This needs to come to an end,” insists Huckabee.

The country needs to be “civilized,” Huckabee contends. He told Breitbart News Saturdaylisteners that if he were president, it would be his job to make sure the government was protecting innocent human life, not destroying it and selling it for a profit.

When asked by Breitbart’s EIC how he would handle massive illegal immigration, the governor responded that the first thing he would do is seal the border. He compared the crisis to a broken pipe in your kitchen. “When water is everywhere, the first thing you have to do is stop the leak.”

The governor said that a major part of the illegal immigration problem is “Big Business makes sure that nothing ever gets done.” He argued that the best way to take away advantages of being an illegal immigrant is to institute a consumption tax.  The illegals and the cartel drug dealers don’t pay the kind of taxes that most working Americans have to pay.
“They don’t report their income and the employer’s are not paying the employer tax,” Huckabee complained. “If you take away this financial advantage, you are going to see Americans going back to work.”


***


Why such an uproar to his remarks? Obama's policies are  leading Israel to 'the door of the oven'.  To be incinerated in  an Iranian nuclear attack. Of course, Israel will never let that happen.

So why the uproar when the statement is true?

Jonathan Rosenblum said this two years ago:

"The failure of American Jewry during the Holocaust pales besides that of American Jewry today. By virtue of its unshakable adulation of Obama, American Jewry has watched calmly as he placed 6 million Jews in Israel under threat of extinction from an Iranian nuclear bomb"