I believe he was taking orders from Benjamin Mileikowski (a.k.a. netenyahu). The Middle East was never a threat to the United States. We were sold a bill of goods.
AOC, Omar and other 'Squad' reps among the 53 House Dems that voted against reaffirming Iran as a terror sponsor
- Thread starter Scott Downey
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why are we so quick to be handing out incredible amounts of cash to other countries when we can do so much for our own right here?
Not a US government funding.
Private funds can do what they want with their money, not that I approve of this.
US-Iran $300B Fund: Private Investment Deal Explained | News | informedclearly
US and Iran finalize framework deal with a $300B private investment fund for reconstruction. Over half committed by global firms. Learn how the fund works…
informedclearly.com
I stand corrected. Now if we can only detach parasite Israel from our pocket book.Not a US government funding.
Private funds can do what they want with their money, not that I approve of this.
US-Iran $300B Fund: Private Investment Deal Explained | News | informedclearly
US and Iran finalize framework deal with a $300B private investment fund for reconstruction. Over half committed by global firms. Learn how the fund works…
The Barbarian
Active Member
The Barbarian
Active Member
The Barbarian
Active Member
Obama returned to them $1.7 billion of their money we were holding.
The money was not a gift, donation or discretionary giveaway from Obama to Iran. It represented a settlement of a decades-old legal dispute over $400 million Iran had paid the U.S., before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for military equipment it never received, plus about $1.3 billion in interest. Social media posts that frame the transfer simply as Obama "giving" Iran money omit that context.
Fact Check: Trump claimed Obama sent Iran billions in cash. The truth is more complicated
The money arrived in cash, but it was a legal settlement — not a gift.
Trump has agreed to give them an additional $24 billion of our money, plus has guaranteed about $240 billion to undo the damage we did to them, including their nuclear facilities.
The 14-point agreement, which is known as a Memorandum of Understanding, says that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and also commits a $300bn fund for the "reconstruction and economic development" of the country - although the US is not required to contribute. It comes four months after the conflict between the countries - and Israel - broke out.
What's in the deal between the US and Iran?
The 14-paragraph memo includes an end to fighting, an agreement that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and a $300bn redevelopment package for Iran.
www.bbc.com
The optics for a president could not be worse: handing over billions of dollars to the very regime America has been at war against.
Yet, that is the reality facing Donald Trump, who spent years criticising Barack Obama for sending "pallets of cash" to Iran under a 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated by the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany.
The sum Mr Trump has to contemplate – $24bn (£19bn), half of it to be paid upfront – would be released in exchange for a memorandum of understanding to end two similarly costly and politically painful months of fighting in the Middle East.
The $24bn cost of Trump’s capitulation on Iran
The optics for a president could not be worse: handing over billions of dollars to the very regime America has been at war against.
The Barbarian
Active Member
Didn't know that. It seems as if this whole thing is being scripted.Both parties answer to the same cabal anyway. Quite frankly nothing changes anyway. Abortions still take place when a Republican is in office, for example.
The Barbarian
Active Member
I seem to remember abortion rates falling. (Barbarian checks)
They've kicked up a little in the Trump era, but they remain lower that the rate that existed before Roe v. Wade.
Hard to believe, but it's true:
stevesonthebay
Active Member
The idea of siding with terrorist, open boarders, anti police, and anti US is suicidal empathy. Its siding with known elements that cause destruction and harm to society and ironically to themselves.
Once you deny and defy God then you also deny and defy the truth and reality itself. Its a spiritual war as much as it is political or cultural. Not based on the facts and reality because if people stopped to think they would realise they are wrong.
But because they deny God they have no choice but to deny the truth. They will support anything so long as it is against God or those representing the truth and reality.
This same ideology has crept into many western nations and is tearing them apart.
This was the plan all along. That radicals could undermine nations from the inside. Stirring up conflict and division and gathering support for alternative radical ideas with a glossing deguised as the new and better way to fool people.
Now the radicalism we use to see from afar in radical regimes across the seas is on our doorsteps. We see western politicians and activists siding with radicals and terrorist as some sort of revolution that will bring down the evil west. Which is the only nations that allow such freedoms to attack themselves.
Satan is winning. Tell these radicals if they don't like the west to go to one of the many radicalised nations and live there to see how long they would last before running back.
Once you deny and defy God then you also deny and defy the truth and reality itself. Its a spiritual war as much as it is political or cultural. Not based on the facts and reality because if people stopped to think they would realise they are wrong.
But because they deny God they have no choice but to deny the truth. They will support anything so long as it is against God or those representing the truth and reality.
This same ideology has crept into many western nations and is tearing them apart.
This was the plan all along. That radicals could undermine nations from the inside. Stirring up conflict and division and gathering support for alternative radical ideas with a glossing deguised as the new and better way to fool people.
Now the radicalism we use to see from afar in radical regimes across the seas is on our doorsteps. We see western politicians and activists siding with radicals and terrorist as some sort of revolution that will bring down the evil west. Which is the only nations that allow such freedoms to attack themselves.
Satan is winning. Tell these radicals if they don't like the west to go to one of the many radicalised nations and live there to see how long they would last before running back.
Socialist candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier says criminal illegal aliens shouldn't be deported
Kayleigh McEnany highlights socialist candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, dubbed "the next AOC," whose radical views include opposing the deportation of criminal illegal aliens and abolishing prisons. Chevalier previously called America a "disgrace" and "worse than Hamas" in now-deleted posts. Her campaign, backed by Mamdani, reflects extreme left-wing ideologies.A comment about the DSA, supporters are playing with fire when supporting the DSA
Straight from the recent DSA convention: "Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
Gemini says,
The quote you pulled highlights a significant shift in the internal politics and messaging of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
The platform, titled "Workers Deserve More!", represents a "soft reboot" of the organization’s national program, driven by its governing body, the National Political Committee (NPC). While the DSA has traditionally operated as a "big tent" organization focused heavily on progressive domestic reforms like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and tenant organizing, this updated document adopts much more explicitly revolutionary language.
While the activist base and the NPC have pushed for these structural demands as a necessary "horizon of power," many DSA members who hold public office—such as representatives in Congress or state legislatures—must run in competitive, mainstream elections. Adopting positions like prison abolition or entirely dismantling the structure of the U.S. government presents an obvious challenge for candidates trying to appeal to a broader, working-class electorate that might support higher wages but recoil at revolutionary constitutional rewrites.
The document ultimately signals that the national organization is prioritizing ideological definition and long-term constitutional transformation over purely incremental, reformist politics within the current Democratic Party structure.
Share of the chat
The quote you pulled highlights a significant shift in the internal politics and messaging of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
The platform, titled "Workers Deserve More!", represents a "soft reboot" of the organization’s national program, driven by its governing body, the National Political Committee (NPC). While the DSA has traditionally operated as a "big tent" organization focused heavily on progressive domestic reforms like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and tenant organizing, this updated document adopts much more explicitly revolutionary language.
Key Elements of the Platform
The platform bridges structural government overhauls with radical foreign and domestic policy shifts. The core proposals outlined in the text include:- Abolishing the U.S. Senate: Viewing the upper house of Congress as an inherently undemocratic institution that grants disproportionate power to smaller, more conservative states.
- Restructuring the Executive and Judiciary: Proposing a system where both the President and the Supreme Court are stripped of independent powers and made entirely subordinate to a single, proportionally elected federal legislature.
- Carceral Abolition: Committing to dismantling the traditional police and prison systems, which the platform frames as the "carceral forces of the capitalist state."
- Military Defunding: Calling for the defunding of the U.S. military (referred to in the platform by its historical name, the "Department of War") and the closure of overseas bases.
- Immigration Reform: Endorsing universal amnesty for all undocumented immigrants and removing barriers to freedom of movement.
The Internal Tension
What makes this platform particularly notable is the friction it creates between the DSA's national leadership and its elected officials.While the activist base and the NPC have pushed for these structural demands as a necessary "horizon of power," many DSA members who hold public office—such as representatives in Congress or state legislatures—must run in competitive, mainstream elections. Adopting positions like prison abolition or entirely dismantling the structure of the U.S. government presents an obvious challenge for candidates trying to appeal to a broader, working-class electorate that might support higher wages but recoil at revolutionary constitutional rewrites.
The document ultimately signals that the national organization is prioritizing ideological definition and long-term constitutional transformation over purely incremental, reformist politics within the current Democratic Party structure.
Share of the chat
DSA wants America to have an entirely different government, if these ideas actually were implemented the USA will be destroyed
It is entirely understandable why proposals like these feel like a blueprint for dismantling the country. What the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is proposing in that platform isn't just a set of policy tweaks—it is a foundational rewrite of the American constitutional system.
From a conventional political and legal standpoint, implementing these ideas would effectively end the United States as a constitutional republic and replace it with a completely different system of governance.
To understand why this gap is so massive, it helps to look at the two radically different worldviews at play:
No revolutions are peaceful
You are pointing to one of the most brutal truths of human history. When we look at the defining revolutions that reshaped the world—the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War—they were accompanied by immense violence, social chaos, and often economic collapse.
Historically, when a group tries to completely overturn an existing social, economic, and constitutional order, those who hold power—and the millions of citizens who support the existing system—do not just step aside. The friction between a group demanding a total rewrite of society and a state defending its institutions almost always results in conflict.
However, historians and political scientists do point to a few rare exceptions where massive, foundational regime changes occurred with little to no bloodshed. These are often studied precisely because they defied the historical norm:
The DSA explicitly rejects the violent vanguardism of 20th-century communist revolutions. They call themselves democratic socialists because their stated strategy is the "democratic road to socialism"—winning elections, building labor unions, and changing minds until they have a massive majority.
But as you rightly noted, their actual goals—like completely dismantling the U.S. Constitution, abolishing the Senate, and stripping the presidency of its independence—are so radical that they cannot logically be achieved through the standard rules of the game. Even if they won a majority in Congress, trying to enact those changes would trigger a massive constitutional, legal, and social crisis.
History shows that when an organization's rhetoric shifts from "fixing the system" to "overturning the system," it creates an unstable friction point, because deep systemic changes are rarely, if ever, universally agreed upon.
Since they can not achieve their goals peacefully, then they are just grifters and troublemakers!
That conclusion captures the frustration that many people—both on the political right and left—feel when looking at organizations like the DSA. When an group puts out a platform filled with demands that are legally impossible under our current system and highly polarizing to the public, it raises a fair question: What is the actual point of doing this?
Depending on how you view politics, people generally sort organizations like this into two categories:
When a political group isolates itself from the reality of what can actually be passed into law, they stop operating as a serious political party and start functioning more like a subculture. While they are busy debating how to restructure the Supreme Court at internal conventions, real-world lawmaking is done by people willing to work within the constitutional system.
Ultimately, writing a radical manifesto is easy; doing the slow, grueling work of building a broad political coalition to actually change a law is what requires real power—and that is a pivot the national DSA leadership has struggled to make.
It is entirely understandable why proposals like these feel like a blueprint for dismantling the country. What the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is proposing in that platform isn't just a set of policy tweaks—it is a foundational rewrite of the American constitutional system.
From a conventional political and legal standpoint, implementing these ideas would effectively end the United States as a constitutional republic and replace it with a completely different system of governance.
To understand why this gap is so massive, it helps to look at the two radically different worldviews at play:
The Constitutional View vs. The Marxist/Socialist View
- The Traditional American System: The U.S. Constitution was intentionally built on the concept of liberal democracy and a separation of powers. The system of checks and balances (the President, a bicameral Congress, and an independent Supreme Court) was designed specifically to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, and to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." To critics of the DSA platform, eliminating these checks would destroy the stability, rule of law, and institutional safeguards that have kept the country intact for nearly 250 years.
- The DSA’s Framework: The DSA operates from a Marxist or democratic socialist framework. In their view, the current system isn't neutral; they believe the Constitution was designed by wealthy elites to protect private property and capital. To them, institutions like the U.S. Senate (where Wyoming has the same voting power as California) or an unelected Supreme Court are inherently undemocratic blocks that stop the working-class majority from enacting change. When they call for a judiciary and executive "subordinate to Congress," they are envisioning a parliamentary system (similar to how supreme power rests in the British Parliament), which they argue would be more directly responsive to the public.
Could This Actually Happen?
In practical terms, the likelihood of these proposals becoming reality is extraordinarily low, due to the incredibly high bar for changing the U.S. government:- The Amendment Barrier: To abolish the Senate, change the presidency, or restructure the Supreme Court would require amending the Constitution. Under Article V, this requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states.
- The Senate Safeguard: The Constitution actually has a unique clause explicitly protecting the Senate: Article V states that no state, without its consent, can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Abolishing the Senate would essentially require the smaller states to vote to eliminate their own power, which is politically impossible under the current framework.
- Voter Realities: While the DSA has successfully helped elect several members to Congress and local offices, those politicians almost exclusively run on immediate, material issues—like raising the minimum wage, protecting unions, or expanding healthcare. Radical structural changes like defunding the military or altering the constitution do not command a majority among regular voters, or even among many rank-and-file DSA members.
No revolutions are peaceful
You are pointing to one of the most brutal truths of human history. When we look at the defining revolutions that reshaped the world—the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War—they were accompanied by immense violence, social chaos, and often economic collapse.
Historically, when a group tries to completely overturn an existing social, economic, and constitutional order, those who hold power—and the millions of citizens who support the existing system—do not just step aside. The friction between a group demanding a total rewrite of society and a state defending its institutions almost always results in conflict.
However, historians and political scientists do point to a few rare exceptions where massive, foundational regime changes occurred with little to no bloodshed. These are often studied precisely because they defied the historical norm:
- The Velvet Revolution (1989): In Czechoslovakia, the entire communist government was overthrown and replaced with a democratic republic. It happened through massive, sustained peaceful protests and general strikes, without a single shot being fired.
- The Dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991): While there were localized conflicts on the fringes, the actual collapse of one of the most heavily armed authoritarian empires in human history and its transition to separate states happened largely through administrative pens and political maneuvering, rather than a bloody civil war.
- South Africa's Transition (1994): While there was immense state violence during Apartheid and years of localized conflict, the ultimate overthrow of the Apartheid regime and the creation of a completely new, inclusive constitutional order happened through a negotiated, peaceful democratic election rather than the racial civil war many predicted.
The Conflict in the DSA's View
This historical reality highlights a major contradiction within modern democratic socialism.The DSA explicitly rejects the violent vanguardism of 20th-century communist revolutions. They call themselves democratic socialists because their stated strategy is the "democratic road to socialism"—winning elections, building labor unions, and changing minds until they have a massive majority.
But as you rightly noted, their actual goals—like completely dismantling the U.S. Constitution, abolishing the Senate, and stripping the presidency of its independence—are so radical that they cannot logically be achieved through the standard rules of the game. Even if they won a majority in Congress, trying to enact those changes would trigger a massive constitutional, legal, and social crisis.
History shows that when an organization's rhetoric shifts from "fixing the system" to "overturning the system," it creates an unstable friction point, because deep systemic changes are rarely, if ever, universally agreed upon.
Since they can not achieve their goals peacefully, then they are just grifters and troublemakers!
That conclusion captures the frustration that many people—both on the political right and left—feel when looking at organizations like the DSA. When an group puts out a platform filled with demands that are legally impossible under our current system and highly polarizing to the public, it raises a fair question: What is the actual point of doing this?
Depending on how you view politics, people generally sort organizations like this into two categories:
1. The Critical View: "Grifters and Troublemakers"
From this perspective, the "grifter and troublemaker" label fits because of the massive gap between the organization's words and actions.- The "Grift" Aspect: Critics argue that the national leadership uses hyper-radical, revolutionary rhetoric ("abolish the state," "scrap the Senate") primarily as a marketing tool. It fires up a highly passionate, young, and online donor base, which keeps dues and donations flowing into the national office.
- The "Troublemaker" Aspect: By demanding things like defunding the military or tearing up the Constitution, they make actual, practical governing much harder. They create intense political division, alienate moderate voters, and often sabotage the very politicians they helped elect by saddling them with deeply unpopular national slogans.
2. The Theoretical View: The "Horizon of Power"
From the perspective of the activists who wrote the document, they don't see themselves as grifters; they see themselves as long-term ideologues. In political theory, there is a concept called the "maximalist program."- They believe an organization shouldn't just fight for what is achievable today (like a $15 minimum wage). They believe their job is to state what they ultimately want society to look like in 50 or 100 years.
- They don't expect the U.S. Senate to be abolished next week. Instead, they want to normalize the idea that the Senate is undemocratic, shifting the boundaries of what people consider acceptable to debate (a concept known as the Overton Window).
The Reality Check
Whether they are true believers or just raising money, the practical result is often the same: irrelevance in everyday governance.When a political group isolates itself from the reality of what can actually be passed into law, they stop operating as a serious political party and start functioning more like a subculture. While they are busy debating how to restructure the Supreme Court at internal conventions, real-world lawmaking is done by people willing to work within the constitutional system.
Ultimately, writing a radical manifesto is easy; doing the slow, grueling work of building a broad political coalition to actually change a law is what requires real power—and that is a pivot the national DSA leadership has struggled to make.
Australia expelled the Iranian ambassador last year because of terrorist acts here that were linked to the IRGC.
The Zionist Occupation Government, Zionist Occupational Government, or Zionist-Occupied Government (ZOG), sometimes also called the Jewish Occupational Government (JOG), is a term for the government of the United States used by adherents of an antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews secretly control the U.S. government. Some later versions apply it to the governments of other countries.
Neo-Nazis also use the term ZOG and its derivatives more generically as a pejorative.
Revelation 13:7
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Things are moving in that direction with the help of radical regimes, influenced by Satan who hate America and hate Christians.
The Barbarian
Active Member
It's a growing movement among Trump's followers:
Antisemitic conspiracy theories are flooding America's most popular pro-Trump podcasts, exposing deep political and moral fissures at the heart of the new MAGA coalition.