Earlier this year, for reasons that remain unclear to this day, the US government decided to re-annex Texas.
The idea, according to on-the-ground intelligence, was to send in the SEALs and other elite military units under the guise of a “training” exercise on the way to instituting martial law and nullifying Texans’ second amendment rights. The exercises, dubbed "Jade Helm 15", began on July 15 and run through next week. As of now, the feared “Texas takeover” has not in fact played out.
As far as we can tell, there are only two possible explanations for why insubordinate Texans weren’t rounded up in rail cars and shipped off to makeshift internment camps at abandoned Wal-Marts. The first explanation is that Jade Helm really was what the military said it was - a training exercise. Needless to say, that seems unlikely - just ask Walter Eugene Litteral, Christopher James Barker, and Christopher Todd Campbell (pictured below).
The more plausible reason why Texas is not currently under siege by federal forces is that the US Spec Ops command realized the government’s original assumption - that besides the Texas guard, the state would be largely defenseless against a federal incursion - was a dangerous miscalculation...
As you might recall, Chuck Norris pledged to protect the state in the event Jade Helm turned Texas into a war zone and we can only assume that it was Walker Texas Ranger’s warning to Washington (“these ‘exercises’ come too near to my ranch’s backdoor”) which ultimately served to dissuade the Pentagon.
Now that Jade Helm is set to end without incident, Chuck Norris is free to focus on even bigger threats to the American public than the military. Threats like Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, two like-minded despots who, as you might have heard, recently struck a deal that will soon see Tehran obtain enough nuclear firepower to wipe out a continent - or something.
Anyway, we learned last week that Obama likely has the support he needs to sustain a veto of a GOP challenge to the Iran Nuclear Deal which means that unless Republican lawmakers can figure out some manner of legislative ruse, the world is about to get a lot more dangerous - and in a hurry.
Of course keeping America safe in an insanely dangerous world means calling on an insanely dangerous man for help and on that note, we bring you the following message from Chuck Norris, in which America's favorite Texas Ranger suggests that if he were allowed to speak for and act on behalf of the entire international community (and what a world that would be), the Bahamas will never obtain a nuclear weapon, Iranian drug dealers will never be given a 90-day heads up to hide their stash, and most importantly, Iranian nuclear ambitions will be "sniffed" out and "pre-emptive strikes" will be launched.
* * *
Via Chuck Norris
Let me highlight six Obama statements about the Iran nuclear agreement that are complete exaggerations.
1) President Obama said, “I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.”
“Not even close”?
He just said Friday, “the vast majority of experts on nuclear proliferation have endorsed this deal. The world is more or less united …”
But 200 retired generals and admirals completely disagreed as they sent a letter to Congress last week urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they said “would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States.”
Are we to assume that most of them are not in any respect “experts on nuclear proliferation”? And are we gullible enough to believe that the commander in chief knows more about military strategy and American security than 200 retired generals and admirals?
2) President Obama said, “Because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly – with the exception of the Israeli government – has expressed support.”
But the Wall Street Journal reported that “Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – are just as distraught” as Israel about the Iran nuclear deal.
Obama’s “with the exception of the Israeli government” comment is not only a ginormous snub to our greatest ally in the Middle East but an affront to the fact that Israel has been threatened repeatedly with genocide by Iranian leaders.
Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran, which is roughly the distance between Washington, D.C., and the islands of the Bahamas – just 50 miles off the Florida coast. If the Bahamas were a hostile state to Washington with a long history of threatening to eradicate the U.S. capital from the planet, do you think anyone in Washington would concede to give the Bahamas nuclear power?
3) The president initially said International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, inspectors would be allowed to “access any suspicious location” in Iran. He then backpedaled and limited it, saying, “Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access, even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice.”
But the truth is, Obama’s “anytime, anywhere” inspections is a bunch of smoke-and-mirror sales pitches to get the American public and legislators to buy the agreement.
First, even the president confessed: “And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.”
However, the Wall Street Journal did an investigation into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration and it “reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.”
Now, imagine what a drug dealer could do with a warning 90 days before a law-enforcement raid.
The White House noted: “Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years.”
Ten years?! That’s two-and-a-half presidential terms or cycles. And we expect the No. 1 terrorist-recruiting Islamic nation in the world to comply and not play a shell game with centrifuges over that 10-year period?
And if you think the preceding sounds bogus, consider that the Associated Press just discovered a “secret agreement” between the IAEA and the United Nations and reported this about the discovery: “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work.”
And, to add injury to insult, guess who will pay for those Iran inspectors to investigate their own nuclear facilities? You guessed: the American taxpayers have to pay more than $10 million a year.
Imagine: Washington agreeing to force American taxpayers to pay for a rogue and terrorist-funding Islamic republic to inspect its own nuclear facilities while ignorantly hoping it doesn’t develop a nuclear bomb behind our backs.
We really have forgotten Sept. 11.
Over the last week, I discovered two more exaggerations for a total of eight I want to address.
Here are two more significant exaggerations:
Obama says his critics are exclusively Republican and warmongers: “a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. … By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.”
First, what Americans need to know is that many of those who have formerly backed the president are reneging their support when it comes to the nuclear deal with Iran. And even though the president may boast that he has enough votes to prevent a veto override by Congress, opponents are within one vote of securing enough votes to overcome any filibuster, and five Democrats’ votes are still unknown.
What is it saying for a Democrat president when key Democrats largely from more liberal coastal states are even opposing his nuclear deal?
Obama cited critics, “They warned that sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. The critics were wrong.”
No, Obama is wrong, and this point may prove just how clueless he really is.
Here’s one of the craziest facts about the U.S. deal: Even if Congress rejects it, Iran will be rewarded with at least $40 billion and up to $150 billion that were previously frozen through international sanctions. These are funds that can and will be used to sponsor terrorism against the U.S. itself.
When fact-checking this claim, PolitiFact affirmed, “Even if Congress does not approve lifting the United States’ sanctions, Iran will likely be able to get a good chunk of the money it currently cannot access.”
PolitFact continued, “Iradian estimated that Iran would be able to access $40 billion of its currently inaccessible assets in that scenario, and the Iranian economy could get an even bigger boost if European companies decided to invest heavily in Iran.”
The more you open the sanction floodgates, the more money Iran will have to pour into its military and pro-terrorist sponsoring. And don’t forget that the Islamic regime will also start to sell its oil openly on the market. That will dump mega-amounts of money into its economy and military to fund terrorism around the region and world.
The worst part of this money being released is what prompted even Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., to call the whole deal “good, bad and ugly.” Win or lose the agreement, Iranians will “get their hands on $56 billion,” which he said they will use to “kill a lot of Sunni Muslims, some of who deserve it and many of whom do not, and what’s left over will go to kill Americans and Israelis.”
Does the White House have a cell left in its thinking cap? Who’s kidding whom? Is there anything right or sane about giving a terrorist nation the money to kill our own people and allies?
How about the option neither to give Iran nuclear abilities nor more pro-terrorist monies?
What about the international community regarding Iran for the terrorist-sponsoring Islamic regime it is and saying to its leaders, “We’re exhausted by your antics and empty promises. If we so much as sniff continued nuclear development, we are going to covertly and overtly stop you, even if that means military action and pre-emptive strikes on your nuclear facilities.”
Isn’t an international line in the sand a better option than either Iran developing a nuclear bomb behind our backs or funding more terror against the U.S. and possibly our next Sept. 11?
Congress, don’t be pressured to drink the nuclear Kool-Aid!
* * *