Hillary’s Husband Ended The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program In 1994

2016-01-06-06-52-362016-01-06-06-44-28U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute – NYTimes.com

Barack Obama just made the same deal with Iran.


About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Hillary’s Husband Ended The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program In 1994

  1. gator69 says:

    If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost.
    -Barack Obama

    • Ted says:

      Somewhat off topic, but also a quote from Dear Leader:
      “I believe in the second amendment, that guarantees a right to bear arms,”
      -Barack Obama January 5, 2016

      So there you have it. The debate is over. Dear leader says the constitution DOES guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The only possible reason anyone could ever disagree is because he’s black(ish).

      • Jason Calley says:

        Of course he also agrees that you have a right to free speech. And by “free speech” he means speech given from a pre-designated area, far away from politicians, crowds and the press, preferably surround by chain link and armed guards.

        I wish that were parody, but it is not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them” …… ——Barack Obama

      Hate to tell ya Barry but the Supreme Court DOES NOT AGREE. The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection by Richard Stevens, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die

  2. Andy DC says:

    Maybe the agreement had a hidden exclusion for hydrogen bombs.

  3. Jason Calley says:

    Hillary’s husband ought to be in jail — but as for the NK nuclear deal, Donald Rumsfeld made a nice profit off that too. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-during-deal-with-north-korea/3176922

    • Mark Luhman says:

      I suppose you are the member of the same crowd that blame bush for everything including the NK nukes, I hear it from more that one demorat that it was Bush that let the NK have nukes. Demorats are really good on rewriting history a modern Demorat believes it was the Republican parity that supported and wanted to expand slavery pre civil war and it was Republican that supported the Klan post civil war. The worst part the Demorat supporters in this country believe that adult bovine fetal matter. So Jason keep up your work for the Demorats, I am fairly certain the Demorat voters will by the BS but save it for a site that has them on it.

      • Jason Calley says:

        “I suppose you are the member of the same crowd that blame bush for everything”

        Not even close — but I do believe in using the same standards for Republicans that I use for Democrats. Seriously, Mark… think for a moment. Decade after decade, we see one party or the other pass legislation that is a total violation of the Constitution, but what happens after that party loses power and the other party gets control? Do they rescind all the illegal legislation? The answer is no. Think of all the damage that the Democrats did under Bill Clinton. Now, remind yourself that after Clinton was gone (and it should have been sooner if the Republican Senate has not refused to convict him after he was impeached) the Republican party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Did the Republicans repeal all the anti-gun laws? No? Did the Republicans maybe enforce the laws against illegal aliens? No? Did the Republicans stop illegal spying on American citizens? No? Did the Republicans call for a vote on going to war, as the Constitution demands? No?

        Look, I understand your dislike of the Democrats. I share it — and have probably been vocal about it for longer than you have — but if you still think the Republican party is going to save the Republic, you have not been paying attention. Voting Democratic is saying “yes, I am in favor of a tyrannical government just like is being promised.” Voting Republican is saying, “yes, I am in favor of a tyrannical government — but at least I get to hear some patriotic sounding buzzwords.”

        • Latitude says:

          Exactly Jason….they have us all running around waving our little blue and red flags, thinking we’re actually doing something

          Same dog….different collar

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Latitude! “Same dog… different collar.”

          I might steal that line from you.

          I do hope that Mark does not take what I said as any kind of indictment against him. Mark, if you are reading this, we here in the US need all the help we can get these days! I don’t know what the answer is, but the first step has got to be to examine what has worked and what has not worked. What has not worked is voting either Democrat or Republican. It just keeps getting worse and worse, decade after decade. Again, I am not smart enough to know what the answer is, but if enough people start thinking about what has NOT worked in the past, maybe someone will figure it out. The scary fact is, the old Republic and the Constitution is already gone and we need to face up to the fact that We The People have some very difficult decisions in front of us.

        • Andy DC says:

          That is why Trump is appealing. He at least gives hope to those who see “establishment” candidates from both parties as phony, ineffectual, bought and sold puppets on a string, working not for us, but for the moneyed special interests.

          Trump might disappoint in the long run, but at least he is not beholden to anyone, or so he says.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I will add this to what Jason said:

        America’s Ruling Class

        The Regulating Class

        E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

        History, HACCP and the FOOD Safety Con Job This Article documents the intentional destruction of the American farmer from WWII to the present. The goal was to drive Americans into cities. To make them dependent on corporations and the government. To deprive them of independence and the social network and connections found in villages and towns. To provide cheap throw away labor for corporations and to make Americans itinerant workers. In other words to destroy the fabric of American society and destablize the USA. This is what the Soviet Union did to the countries they annexed only they were not as subtle about it.

    • Jason,

      I assume you and I agree on a lot when it comes to the troubled state of our Republic’s two-party system. I won’t even go into the idiotic America-hating mess that is the contemporary Democratic Party but I loathe both parties’ establishments and their shady revolving door routine between government and industry. I’m embarrassed by the lack of influential GOP voices against deficit spending. I despise the GOP wing supporting illegal immigration and the comfortable working relationship GOP-supporting large corporations have with the regulatory state. Just as you, I feel similarly powerless given the choice between a party of Obama, Clinton or Sanders and a party of Boehner, McConnell or Ryan. Like you, I don’t see an easy way out.

      However, making comparisons between American Presidents cutting dangerous and unenforceable deals with hostile foreign powers and a board member of a private corporation is a bridge too far. There are bankers who hate the politically corrupted and counter-productive federal banking regulations but still have to do business in the environment the politicians created. There are medical insurers who opposed Obamacare but must do business in the resulting mess. I’m sure you can continue with the analogies without my input.

      Board members have fiduciary responsibilities to their companies and shareholders. What would you do as a director if you were informed by management that the company has an opportunity to enter into a major contract under similar circumstances? Would you oppose it? Would you push for a board vote against it? Would you resign if a board majority supported the contract? Would you refuse to serve on any company board to begin with because of the possibility you may be put in such a situation and would have to make a decision?

      I do not agree with the moral equivalency your comment suggests.

      Second, I was unhappy with the results of the last two Republican Presidential primaries and the record and positions of the winners but I’m certain Mitt Romney and even John McCain would have been better Presidents. I’m sure they would allow many problems to continue, I’m certain I would not like some of their policies but we would not be discussing whether they were designed and intended to damage the United States.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Colorado! I would agree that there is not a moral equivalence between Clinton and Rumsfeld in relation to the NK nukes, but I did want to point out that both parties have dirty hands. Instead of “good cop, bad cop” (like in the movies), thpink of it as ” bad cop, worse cop.” There have been other times when the Republicans have been the worse cops and the Dems were the slightly not so bad. (Nixon establishing OSHA, the EPA and price and wage freezes).

        Long term and large scale I am optimistic…but closer to home there is plenty of blame for both parties!

        • Gail Combs says:

          E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” nails it.

          “Socialism’ on one side and ‘corporatism’ on the other both with strings back to the same group of Globalists and not one representative for Main Street.


        • Jason:

          Yes, we agree that both parties have frequently dirty hands and as a believer in limited constitutional government I also like to use the “bad versus slightly less bad” scale for their big government policies.

          However, as far as I am from defending Nixon’s economic, labor and environmental policies:

          – President Johnson sent the “first” OSHA bill to Congress in 1968. When it finally passed under Nixon, it was broadly supported by just about everyone, and certainly by the Democrats and their union allies.

          – Congress passed the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 and handed Nixon the power to establish price and wage freezes. Governmental economic illiteracy and incompetence was widespread in the 1970s.

          – Besides dealing with real pollution problems of the 1970s, Nixon’s original EPA was decentralized and more responsible to local concerns. It was only later that it grew into an oppressive leviathan that undermines property rights, bullies citizens and regards CO2 a “pollutant”.

          And let’s not forget that Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House long before, during and after the Nixon Presidency.

          I am open to consider any Democratic position in the “slightly not so bad” bracket but I don’t think your list makes it. And given the makeup of their current constituency, I think any “less bad” stuff must be from a distant past. I think the Democrat Party is beyond repair. The only question I have is: Can the GOP be fixed?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Colorado! Thanks for your thoughts — and I appreciate the extra knowledge you bring to this topic. The perfidy of the Democratic Party went into high gear with Johnson and has been stuck there ever since. I just wish the Republican Party had a record of undoing what the Democrats have done (and with only a few exceptions, vice versa.) It seems to me that the major point that we might disagree on is the point that you make in your comment closing: “I think the Democrat Party is beyond repair. The only question I have is: Can the GOP be fixed?”

          Ditto on the Dems beyond repair, but as for “Can the GOP be fixed?”, well… I don’t think that it can. It may be that the reason I feel that way is that my concept of what it would take to “fix” the GOP is a bit more extreme than most. By “extreme” I mean a return to the limits of the Constitution. I do not see anyone in a position of leadership in the GOP who believes in that anymore. Ron Paul (love him or hate him on any other grounds) advocated that return — and he was cut out of all party support by the GOP. An example is the Republican response to Obamacare. Initially there was great dissent from the GOP, but now, I am hearing more and more sound bites that the Republicans are dedicated to ending Obamacare — and replacing it with their own alternative! Not good enough…

          Oh well. Colorado, maybe I am wrong and the GOP can still be saved. I would love to be wrong on this one, but it sure looks to me like both major parties have given up on the proposition that We The People can run our own lives better than they can run it for us. If you prove me wrong I will be eternally grateful.

        • It seems to me that the major point that we might disagree on is the point that you make in your comment closing: “… Can the GOP be fixed?”

          Jason, I am just as skeptical. The entrenched establishment is hard to dislodge. My comment is about the nature of the protest constituencies of both parties. In the Democratic Party it is the hard Left for who even the current extreme platform is not enough. I do not see a revolution of the basically extinct Blue Dogs but we may see another determined push to the left. In Boulder, I’m surrounded by people who love Bernie Sanders because they are disapointed Obama didn’t go far enough. They may change their party and move it farther away from any notion of limited government.

          On the GOP side the protest constituency is the Tea Party. They are despised by the Republican establishment because they push for a return to a constitutional government. In the absence of a viable third party (don’t look at me that way, Gary Johnson, I said “viable”) this is the only hope within the existing framework but as I said, I’m skeptical. It is more likely that we will see a further deterioration, leading perhaps to a break up and reshuffling of the current party system. This country is different but we can see the breakup of traditional blocks in Europe, even in places like Germany that for a long time had two dominant parties.

          I have no clue where it’s gonna go but I doubt it will be pretty. I want to be wrong but I think Murphy was an optimist.

  4. I’m not as worried about Iran (Shiite) nukes as I am about Pakistan (Sunni) nukes, and they already have nukes.

  5. Leon Brozyna says:

    Obama, representing the US, draped in a cloak of self-abnegation, ought to have, as his administration’s theme song, Brenda Lee’s, “I’m Sorry”, which he could then sing at every gathering of real leaders which he attends.

    Did he give us peace in our time … or ISIS … …

  6. JPinBalt says:

    POTUS’ “agreement” with Iran was a PR stunt. Iran had a massive number centrifuges working overtime enriching uranium seven years ago as Obama was taking office. Bush did not want to approve or give Israel US bunker busting bombs to hit underground Iranian nuclear facilities before the election. Retaliation and say any in-kind Iranian hit of Israel’s nuke facilities in Tel Aviv suburbs was not looked upon as good before an election. New POTUS took a pro-Palestinian position just after taking office. Unchecked enrichment just continued seven more years. Any claim of Iran for peaceful purposes just to produce electricity and not a nuclear bomb are an absolute joke, obvious their objective was/is a nuclear bomb. Time has gone by and Iran by best estimates currently has produced enough fissionable material or enriched uranium on hand to make a handful or nukes. The final enrichment process stages from already moderately enriched uranium are also less than initial. The only thing is how detonate and deliver. It is likely Iran already has a nuke or could easily have on in just months given their stockpile of enriched uranium. The possibility of Iran nuking Israel or just balance of terror is now a given, not a future possibility. The continuing escalation of Sunni and Shia tensions in the Mid-East, Saudi Arabia and Iran, also undoubtedly means Saudi Arabia will embark on its own nuclear weapons program. So long-run we will have two more crazy cleric controlled religious states in unstable Mid-East with nuclear weapons at disposable.
    The Iran agreement is like North Korean agreement or worse. We got nothing out of it. The last minute negotiations were ambiguous with inconsistent statements of verifiability by high raking politicians and diplomats on both sides with no public release of the fluid document. It was all PR to save planet with no such thing and virtually ensuring Iran get a nuke or will later announce such as they likely may already have one. Just like N. Korea, joke to think any foreign inspectors can go anywhere they want in a military facility or if country can just say no at a future date and not let in or throw out. The Obama plan is to allow Iran to get nukes or pave way to recognize they have then a future date which is largely irreversible like an even more isolated country N. Korea where there is little backbone on possible sanctions. We just released money which can be used for terrorist activities and booster the current regime with almost nothing in return except politicians bragging they got some BS solution or fix which is none of the sort. The possibility of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb passed years ago.

  7. Thinkaboutit says:

    @ Latitude
    Shouldn’t it be better to say ; Different dogs , same master?

  8. ristvan says:

    Fact. Iran sits on over half of the largest known natural gas field in the world, Pars. Fact, the cheapest, least capital, most energetically efficient way to generate electricity is CCGT, combined cycle gas turbine. Ergo, Iran has no need of nuclear electricity for the next x100 years.
    They want a bomb. And Obummer gives them that EVEN IF Iran complies with his unverifiable agreement, in 10 years plus a few months.
    The Clinton NK analogy is more than apt. At least NK did not have natural gas, and could ‘legitimately’ have wanted nuclear electricity. The Iranian claim to same is pure nonsense. Amazing that the media have not picked up the two simple facts proving Iran lies.

    • gator69 says:

      Amazing that the media have not picked up the two simple facts proving Iran lies.
      Would that be the same media that agrees with the climate alarmists, and every other left wing/progressive ideology?

      Still amazed?

  9. Jason Calley says:

    I do here propose that someone in Hollywood write a movie script about the investigation into Hillary’s illegal email system. The title will be “In Her Majesty’s Secret Server”.

    I only demand 2% of the gross.

    (Yep. Nothing to do now but sit back and wait for the money to roll in. Yep…. any moment now…)

  10. OrganicFool says:

    Hans Blix visits Kim Jong
    (Team America)

    “Let us see your whole palace or else…we will be very very angry and write you a letter telling you how angry we are.”

  11. gator69 says:

    California really does have the country’s stupidest people…

Leave a Reply