Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Kerry’ To House…

“Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God a service” (John 16:2).

Kerry’ To House…

By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:    
Published July 29, 2015


Kerry says “a no vote means war against Iran”, yes John, but a yes vote means war
against the West…

Secretary of State John Kerry, using scare tactics, told a packed meeting of skeptical House lawmakers on Wednesday that a vote against the so-called Iran nuclear deal would be a vote to "go to war against Iran," according to members leaving the meeting.

The Obama administration will use the next several weeks to pitch skeptical Republicans and Democrats on the deal before Congress considers voting on the deal. Votes are expected on a resolution to disapprove of the deal which just benefits Iran and kicks Iran’s nuclear can down the road a ways.

But despite Kerry's shrill warning about the prospect of armed conflict, some left the meeting saying they weren't convinced. Among the skeptical Democrats was Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., who said Kerry's approve-‘or-else’ pitch was falling flat.

"I think Congress has a role to play here," Lipinski said. "And I don't think that voting 'no' means a vote to go to war. And that is what the argument that seems to be put out there, that a vote of no on this is a vote to go to war. I don't think that's true."
Republicans leaving the meeting said they weren't sold on the plan, even though Kerry worked hard to convince members.

"It's the biggest turnout I've seen for any of these briefings," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told the Washington Examiner, after walking out of the meeting. "I don't think they were convincing folks."

"I was perplexed," Tom Rooney, R-Fla. said. "Was this a briefing or was this a sales pitch? There is two sides to every story and clearly that was one side."

Kerry, who was joined by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, told lawmakers that the agreement would steer Iran away from a nuclear bomb, an argument that appealed to some Democrats.

"It was very informative," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. "The secretary was compelling in everything he said. He was essentially saying, ok, here is the best deal we could get and here is what we got in the deal and I need to know what the alternative is."

But Cleaver, like many other Democrats who attended the meeting, said he remains undecided about whether he'll vote to approve the deal. "I'm reading it, reading everything," he said, motioning to a folder under his arm.

The Obama administration will likely focus its efforts on winning over Democrats, who are needed as a firewall to prevent Congress from overriding a presidential veto if the House and Senate vote down the agreement.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Despite the probability of the U.S. going to war against Iran, the alternative is Iran going to war against the West.  What would you rather have?   

However the fundamental problem here is, that no one connected to these negotiations, except Obama of course, knows that one just doesn’t negotiate with Muslims.  Unless one wants to get the short end, or worse.  The Muslims will break a ten year treaty every time, usually within the first three years.  They have to, it’s part of their religion.  Read their playbook the Hadith.  This is why every treaty with the so-called Palestinians/Hamas, has failed.  Treaties in Islam mean only one thing…they buy time.  That is what the Iran Nuclear Treaty is. 

Breaking!  Obama may not follow law if Congress votes down Iran Deal. 


Thanks for listening – de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

No comments: