Archive for September 2016

Congress Investigating State-Funded Campaign Against Israeli PM

September 16, 2016

Congress Investigating Obama Admin-Funded Campaign to Unseat Israeli PM State Department purged emails about $300,000 grant to anti-Netanyahu group.

BY:
September 16, 2016 1:07 pm

Source: Congress Investigating State-Funded Campaign Against Israeli PM

John Kerry / AP

Congress on Friday launched a wide-ranging probe into a secret Obama administration-funded campaign to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to information exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The probe comes on the heels of an internal government report determining that the State Department provided hundreds of thousands to an organization that plotted to unseat Netanyahu in the country’s 2015 election.

Obama administration officials were found to have deleted emails from State Department accounts containing information about its relationship with OneVoice, the non-profit group that led the effort.

OneVoice, which was awarded $465,000 in U.S. grants through 2014, has been under congressional investigation since 2015, when it was first accused of funneling some of that money to partisan political groups looking to unseat Netanyahu. This type of behavior by non-profit groups is prohibited under U.S. tax law.

A group of nine leading lawmakers led by Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) are now formally petitioning the State Department to come clean about the effort and provide answers about how U.S. taxpayer dollars were permitted to be spent on an organization working against the elected leader of America’s closest Middle East ally, according to a readout of the investigation obtained by the Free Beacon.

“State Department officials failed to properly vet the OneVoice grant proposal because they failed to properly conduct an analysis of risks in the pre-award phase,” the senators wrote in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. “Unfortunately, it seems that inconsistency and apathy toward oversight of such grants at the State Department is not new. Our aid dollars should be going toward solving real problems, not contributing to the destabilization of allied governments.”

The lawmakers—including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), Mike Lee (R., Utah), and Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) among others—wrote that the State Department turned a blind eye to OneVoice’s highly partisan activities and failed to perform proper oversight about how U.S. funds were being spent by the group.

“State Department officials utterly failed to follow established procedures and guidelines to properly identify, mitigate, or guard against any risk that OneVoice would misuse these funds before, during, and after the grant period,” the letter said. “As a direct result of these failures, OneVoice was able to use the more than $300,000 grant to build campaign infrastructure and resources which later were deployed in support of a negative campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Likud Party, and the democratically elected coalition government of Israel during the 2015 Israeli parliamentary election.”

State Department officials were aware of OneVoice’s partisan activities, but still permitted the grant money to be awarded, according to the senators, who are pushing for the administration to take disciplinary action against the officials involved.

“Despite knowledge of such activities, State Department officials failed to adequately document any assessment of the risk that OneVoice might continue obstructive efforts against a certain political party in the event of an election,” the letter stated.

“State Department grant policies and procedures are in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to fund U.S. government initiatives and further U.S. interests,” the letter said.

The senators require the State Department to answer a series of questions about the grant, including how it vetted OneVoice and why proper oversight methods were not employed.

They also are seeking to determine what “disciplinary action” is being taken against U.S. officials who knew about the plan to unseat Netanyahu but failed to take action to report this behavior.

What will Israel’s next war look like?

September 15, 2016

What will Israel’s next war look like? Could Israel be facing multi-front war with hundreds of thousands of rockets targeting Israeli cities? IDF presents war scenario to cabinet.

Uzi Baruch, 15/09/16 17:17

Source: What will Israel’s next war look like? – Defense/Security – News –

Patriot Missile Battery      IDF/Flash 90

Hundreds of thousands of rockets and missiles targeting Israel. More than 10,000 direct hits by rockets on buildings in Israeli towns. Three hundred and fifty people dead.

That is the scenario presented recently by the IDF to the Security Cabinet, highlighting the potential threats by Israel – and the army’s preparations to confront them.

According to IDF estimates, such a conflict could include attacks by Islamic terror groups from the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Syrian and Iranian militaries. In such a scenario, most of Israel – and most of Israel’s population – would be under direct threat from rocket and missile fire, though the majority of such weapons would likely hit open spaces.

In the scenario laid out in the IDF report, more than 230,000 rockets and missiles would be directed towards Israel, covering the country from the Haifa district in the north to the southern coast, leaving most of the population vulnerable.

While only 1% of rockets and missiles fired would be expected to cause damage in populated areas, given the large volume of projectiles, hundreds of casualties could result from the conflict.

Next week, Home Front Command will hold its annual emergency exercises. Beginning Sunday and continuing through Wednesday, this year’s exercises, code-names “Standing Firm”, will include emergency sirens in populated areas, to be sounded twice on Tuesday.

Residents are advised to plan a path to the nearest safe-room or bomb shelter as part of the exercises mock emergency sirens.

US issues travel advisory warning for the Golan Heights

September 15, 2016

US Embassy issues travel advisory warning for the Golan Heights following mortar fire Following the recent mortar fire into the Israeli controlled Golan Heights; the US Embassy has issued a travel advisory warning to the area. US federal employees are forbidden from traveling north of Route 87 and east of Route 918.

Sep 15, 2016, 3:50PM

Rachel Avraham

Source: US issues travel advisory warning for the Golan Heights – World News | JerusalemOnline

Photo Credit: Reuters/Channel 2 News

In the wake of mortars being constantly fired into the Israeli controlled Golan Heights due to the fighting in recent days between the Syrian Army and rebel forces in the town of Quneitra, the American Embassy “urges US citizens to carefully consider and possibly defer travel to that area until the situation stabilizes.” The US government has forbidden federal employees from traveling north of Route 87 and east of Route 918 in the “Israeli occupied Golan Heights.”

“The United States Embassy continues to closely monitor the security situation and advises US citizens to visit the website of the Government of Israel’s Home Front Command for further emergency preparedness guidelines,” the American Embassy stated in a recent press release. “Recent events underscore the importance of situational awareness. We remind you to be aware of your surroundings at all times, to monitor the media and to follow the directions of emergency responders.”

European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army

September 14, 2016

European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”

by Soeren Kern

September 14, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: European Leaders Discuss Plan for European Army

  • Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.
  • Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit, and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.
  • “Those of us who have always warned about Europe’s defense ambitions have always been told not to worry… We’re always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We’ve been too often conned before and we must not be conned again.” — Liam Fox, former British defense secretary.
  • “[C]reation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies.” — Geoffrey Van Orden, UK Conservative Party defense spokesman.

European leaders are discussing “far-reaching proposals” to build a pan-European military, according to a French defense ministry document leaked to the German newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The efforts are part of plans to relaunch the European Union at celebrations in Rome next March marking the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community.

The document confirms rumors that European officials are rushing ahead with defense integration now that Britain — the leading military power in Europe — will be exiting the 28-member European Union.

British leaders have repeatedly blocked efforts to create a European army because of concerns that it would undermine the NATO alliance, the primary defense structure in Europe since 1949.

Proponents of European defense integration argue that it is needed to counter growing security threats and would save billions of euros in duplication between countries.

Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal (see Appendix below) of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.

Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit — the June 23 decision by British voters to leave the EU — and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that it had obtained a copy of a six-page position paper, jointly written by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen. The document calls for the establishment of a “common and permanent” European military headquarters, as well as the creation of EU military structures, including an EU Logistics Command and an EU Medical Command.

The document calls on EU member states to integrate logistics and procurement, coordinate military R&D and synchronize policies in matters of financing and military planning. EU intelligence gathering would be improved through the use of European satellites; a common EU military academy would “promote a common esprit de corps.”

According to the newspaper, the document will be distributed to European leaders at an informal summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on September 16. France and Germany will ask the leaders of the other EU member states not only to approve the measures, but also to “discuss a fast implementation.”

Specifically, France and Germany will for the first time activate Article 44 of the Lisbon Treaty (also known as the European Constitution). This clause allows certain EU member states “which are willing and have the necessary capability” to proceed with the “task” of defense integration, even if other EU member states disapprove.

According to Süddeutsche Zeitung:

“In the wake of the British referendum to leave the European Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have decided to demonstrate the EU’s strength and to push the remaining member states to show more unity. Especially in defense policy, many projects were put on hold because Britain vetoed them. Without London, the two EU founding states, France and Germany, hope for swift decisions.”

On September 8, Defense News reported that the creation of a European army was the central focus of an August 22 meeting between the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in Naples, where the three declared “the beginning of a new Europe.” That meeting was followed by a meeting of defense ministers from the three countries in Paris on September 5.

According to Defense News, Italy is lobbying France and Germany to “back a plan for European tax breaks and financing for joint European defense procurement and development programs, as part of a bid to build a European army.”

A confidential draft document circulated by Italy calls for “fiscal and financial incentives to support new EU cooperative programs for development and joint purchases of equipment and infrastructure supporting the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy.”

In a September 8 interview with La Repubblica, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called for the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters in Brussels that would manage all current and future EU military operations. “This could become the nucleus around which a common European defense structure could be built,” she said.

Mogherini insisted that “we are not talking about a European army but about European defense: something we can really do, concretely, starting now.” She also stressed that EU defense policy would remain under the control of European governments rather than the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the EU.

On September 7, however, The Times reported that Mogherini will present EU leaders attending the summit in Bratislava with a “road map” and a “timetable” for creating EU military structures, which are “the foundation of a European army.” According to newspaper, her plans for military structures able “to act autonomously” from NATO have led to fears that “the EU is seeking to rival the transatlantic alliance.”

The Times quoted Mogherini as saying she was taking advantage of the “political space” opened by the Brexit vote:

“It might sound a bit dramatic but we are at this turning point. We could relaunch our European project and make it more functional and powerful for our citizens and the rest of the world. Or we could diminish its intensity and power. We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years.”

On May 27, the Sunday Times reported that steps towards creating a European army were being kept secret from British voters until the day after the June 23 referendum:

“In an effort to avoid derailing the Prime Minister’s ‘Remain’ campaign, the policy plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote. Until then, only a small group of EU political and security committee ambassadors, who must leave their electronic devices outside a sealed room, can read the proposal.”

On June 28, just days after the British referendum, Mogherini presented European leaders attending an EU summit in Brussels with the “EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy.” The document explicitly calls for European defense integration, and implicitly calls for the creation of a European army.

According to the document, the EU strategy “nurtures the ambition of strategic autonomy for the European Union.” It adds: “Gradual synchronization and mutual adaptation of national defense planning cycles and capability development can enhance strategic convergence between member states.”

In an interview with The Telegraph, Liam Fox, a former defense secretary who served under former Prime Minister David Cameron, said:

“Those of us who have always warned about Europe’s defense ambitions have always been told not to worry, but step-by-step that ever closer union is becoming a reality. We cannot afford to be conned in this referendum as we were conned in 1975.

“The best way to protect ourselves is to stay close to the US. The US defense budget is bigger than the next 11 countries in the world put together. Europe’s defense intentions are a dangerous fantasy and risk cutting us off from our closest and most powerful ally.

“We’re always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We’ve been too often conned before and we must not be conned again.”

The Conservative Party’s defense spokesman, Geoffrey Van Orden, said the implications of the EU’s defense ambitions are worrying:

“We can all see that the EU might play a useful role in conflict prevention and in some civil aspects of crisis management. But its ambitions go beyond that. The EU motive is not to create additional military capability but to achieve defense integration as a key step on the road to a federal EU state.

“The US and indeed the UK are being misled if they imagine that such moves will enhance NATO — the key guarantor of our collective defense. On the contrary, creation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies.”

Mike Hookem, the defense spokesman of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), said his party had been warning about the dangers posed by the EU army concept for years:

“I’m pleased to see people are finally waking up. An EU army is not some Eurosceptic fantasy, there are many in Brussels hell-bent on making it happen.”

Soldiers from the Eurocorps on parade in Strasbourg, France, on January 31, 2013. Eurocorps is an intergovernmental military unit of approximately 1,000 soldiers from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, stationed in Strasbourg. (Image: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Appendix

Select quotes regarding a European army

European federalists have been calling for the creation of a European army in one form or another since 1950. Although a European army is still a long way away from becoming reality, the ultimate goal of European federalists is full defense integration leading to a European military under supranational control.

Since the Lisbon Treaty, which forms the constitutional basis of the European Union, entered into force in December 2009, the political momentum toward European defense integration has picked up steam. The drive toward European defense integration has accelerated during the Obama administration, which has often appeared indifferent to Europe and transatlantic relations. Another important obstacle to European defense integration was removed when Britons voted in June 2016 to exit the European Union.

What follows is a collection of quotes from senior European officials regarding a European army and integrated defense.

September 9. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said:

“I believe a window of opportunity has been opened to give life to a European defense. I wanted to send the message that, despite the British exit, Europe can and must move forward with the process of integration. The prospect of Brexit offered an opportunity not to be slowed by the country that was always most determinedly opposed to the idea of pooling the instruments of defense.”

August 26. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a staunch critic of the EU’s migration policies, said a joint European army was needed to keep migrants out. At a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw, Orbán said: “We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army.”

August 22. Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka called for greater European military integration:

“Our experiences with the last migration wave have shown the importance of Europe’s internal borders. In the face of uncontrolled mass migration, even states in the center of Europe have realized that internal borders must be better controlled. Aside from better coordinated foreign and security policy, I also believe that in the long term, we will be unable to do without a joint European army.”

July 23. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said:

“The withdrawal of the British from the EU has led to a significant reduction in the continent’s military strength, and from a military policy perspective we must not remain in this defenseless position… A European army must protect the continent from two sides, from the East and from the South, in terms of protecting against terrorism and migration. Europe cannot even continue to exist without an alliance — a joint EU army.”

July 13. The German Defense Ministry released a white paper outlining the country’s future defense and security policies. The document calls for steps leading to the creation of an EU army, such as the integration of military capabilities and defense industries. “We are aiming to establish a permanent European civil-military operational headquarters in the medium term,” it says. The white paper also says that citizens of other EU countries could be allowed to serve in the German army. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:

“Britain has paralyzed the European Union on the issues of foreign and security policy. This cannot mean that the rest of Europe remain inactive, but rather we need to move forward on these big issues.”

June 28. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier released a joint document titled “A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties.” It states:

“The security of EU member states is deeply interconnected, as these threats now affect the continent as a whole: any threat to one member state is also a threat to others. We therefore regard our security as one and indivisible. We consider the European Union and the European security order to be part of our core interests and will safeguard them in any circumstances.

“In this context, France and Germany recommit to a shared vision of Europe as a security union, based on solidarity and mutual assistance between member states in support of common security and defense policy. Providing security for Europe as well as contributing to peace and stability globally is at the heart of the European project.

“France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent and global actor able to leverage its unique array of expertise and tools, civilian and military, in order to defend and promote the interests of its citizens. France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.

“The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations. Within the framework of the EU, member states willing to establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense or to push ahead to launch operations should be able to do so in a flexible manner. If needed, EU member states should consider establishing standing maritime forces or acquiring EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”

June 26. In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok, called for the immediate creation of a joint military headquarters and for the eventual establishment of an EU army:

“We need a common military headquarters and a coalition of the willing in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. An EU army could eventually arise from such a group. This could help to strengthen the role of Europeans in the security and defense policy, together better fulfill the responsibility of Europe in the world and also to achieve more synergies in defense spending.”

June 24. French President François Hollande said:

“Europe needs to be a sovereign power deciding its own future and promoting its model. France will therefore be leading efforts to ensure Europe focuses on the most important issues: the security and defense of our continent, to protect our borders and preserve peace in the face of threats.”

May 29. British Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt said: “A centrally controlled army would be a massive step to the EU’s goal of full political integration, but it would be a very dangerous move.”

February 4. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen confirmed an agreement to integrate some 800 German soldiers into the Dutch navy. While in Amsterdam, where she met with the Dutch Defense Minister, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, von der Leyen called the plan a “prime example for the building of a European defense union.”

December 15, 2015. The European Commission proposed creating a European Border and Coast Guard. The proposal, which was put forward in response to the ongoing European migrant crisis, called for a rapid reaction force of 1,500 officers who would be able to deploy even if a member state did not ask for its help.

October 15, 2015. The president of the European People’s Party (EPP), Joseph Daul, said: “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”

September 12, 2015. An unpublished position paper drawn up by Europe and Defence policy committees of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was leaked to The Telegraph. The document sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.” It adds:

“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.

“In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterized by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.”

June 15, 2015. Michel Barnier, Special Adviser on European Defence and Security Policy to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, wrote:

“Member States are slow to accept that they need to go beyond a model where defense is a matter of strict national sovereignty…. It is time for a reckoning: traditional methods of cooperation have reached their limits and proved insufficient. European defense needs a paradigm change in line with the exponential increase in global threats and the volatility of our neighborhood. The past has shown that European defense does move ahead if and when there is political will.”

March 9, 2015. In an interview with Die Welt, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU should establish its own army to show Russia it is serious about defending European values:

“Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy too, we are not taken seriously. A common European army would show the world that there will never again be war between EU countries. Such an army would help us to build a common foreign and security policy and allow Europe to meet its responsibilities in the world. With its own army, Europe could respond credibly to a threat to peace in a member country or in a neighboring country of the European Union.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said they support Juncker’s proposal for a European army. In an interview with Tagesspiegel, Steinmeier added:

“The long-term goal of a European army is a major policy objective and has been part of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) party program for many years. Given the new risks and threats to peace in Europe we now need, as a first step, a rapid adaptation and updating of the common European security strategy.”

March 8, 2015. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:

“I think that the German army is ready, under certain circumstances, to be subordinated to the control of another nation. That is the goal, that in the European Union we step by step more firmly establish our cooperation, especially in security policy. This intertwining of armies with a view to having a European army is the future.”

May 15, 2014. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European People’s Party lead candidate for president of the next European Commission, wrote:

“I believe that we need to work on a stronger Europe when it comes to security and defense matters. Yes, Europe is chiefly a ‘soft power.’ But even the strongest soft powers cannot make do in the long run without at least some integrated defense capacities. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the possibility, for those Member States who want to do so, to pool their defense capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation.”

December 19, 2013. The speaker of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, called for the creation of a European army: “If we wish to defend our values and interests, if we wish to maintain the security of our citizens, then a majority of MEPs consider that we need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops.”

November 15, 2009. In an interview with The Times, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said it is a “necessary objective to have a European army.” He added:

“Every country duplicates its forces, each of us puts armored cars, men, tanks, planes, into Afghanistan. If there were a European army, Italy could send planes, France could send tanks, Britain could send armored cars, and in this way we would optimize the use of our resources. Perhaps we won’t get there immediately, but that is the idea of a European army.”

May 6, 2008. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for the establishment of the European army “as soon as possible.” He said he had been in talks with his French counterpart to discuss “future structures” of a European army.

December 10-11, 1999. European officials meeting in Helsinki agreed to develop a European Rapid Reaction Force. Also known as the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states pledged that by 2003 they would be able to deploy a European military force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and for a period of potentially one year. This goal has never been met.

December 3-4, 1988. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac met at the French port city of Saint-Malo to discuss future EU defense integration. The summit declaration, which laid the political foundation for a common European defense policy, stated:

“The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage… The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises.”

October 24, 1950. The Pleven Plan, named after French Prime Minister René Pleven, was the first plan to create a unified European army. It proposed the “immediate creation of a European army tied to the political institutions of a united Europe.” It stated:

“A European army cannot be created simply by placing national military units side by side, since, in practice, this would merely mask a coalition of the old sort. Tasks that can be tackled only in common must be matched by common institutions. A united European army, made up of forces from the various European nations must, as far as possible, pool all of its human and material components under a single political and military European authority.”

The Pleven Plan was rejected by the French Parliament because it infringed on France’s national sovereignty.

Director of National Intelligence: Climate Change (Not Sharia) Leads to Jihad

September 13, 2016

Director of National Intelligence: Climate Change (Not Sharia) Leads to Jihad, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, September 13, 2016

It’s ridiculous when an elite university like MIT promotes bogus lectures such as Is Islamophobia Accelerating Global Warming? However, one can argue that it’s even worse when our top U.S. government leaders advocate for similar bogus theories such as linking climate change to terrorism.

This is what happened recently at the annual Intelligence & National Security Summit in Washington, D.C., when DNI’s James Clapper suggested a connection between environmental issues and terrorism.

The political left has been trying to establish a linkage between the two topics to provide a way to divert attention away from the actual radical Islamic ideology that is at the heart of modern day terrorism.

For example, in Paris a couple weeks after the horrific November 2015 attacks, U.S. President Obama had the audacity to insinuate a connection between climate change and terrorism. It’s bad enough that some leftists continue to push the narrative that humans are the main reason for climate change – now we have to hear our government officials promote a political agenda that basically says if we don’t go “green” we can expect terrorism to continue. Defense One reveals Clapper’s rationale behind this climate change and terrorism connection stating:

…Increased competition for “ever-diminishing food and water resources” will amplify socio-economically motivated armed conflicts, countries’ difficulties controlling their borders, and instability more generally, he said.

“I think climate change is going to be an underpinning for a lot of national security issues,” Clapper said. It affects “so many things: the availability of basics like water and food and other resources which are continually going to become matters of conflict, and already are, between and among countries.”

Defense One goes on to add:

The Pentagon has been getting increasingly serious about preparing for it, warning that warming global temperaturesand extreme weather events would act as a “threat multiplier” and foster terrorism. Earlier this year, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work ordered the military to adapt current and future operations to address climate change.

Clapper echoed this warning. Climate change-driven instability and other factors mean that “after ISIL is gone, you can expect some other terrorist entity to arise, and the cycle of extremism [to] continue for the foreseeable future.”

It seems like the line of logic is as follows: Humans (implied) -> climate change -> diminished resources -> struggle for resources -> “extremism”/terrorism

To say that climate change is causing a depletion of our resources like food and water–which then causes conflict that leads to terrorism is a massive stretch of the imagination. Of course, this didn’t stop President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry from linking climate change to the Syrian civil war.

Even left-leaning national security analyst Peter Brookes debunked this in an article last year, writing that, “there seems to be no strong quantitative (i.e., empirical) evidence to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between changes in the climate and conflict.”

It’s one thing to say that natural resources like fresh water are a security concern in arid regions like areas in the Middle East and Africa, and enter into countries’ national security policy. That much is true– and also obvious. However, to say Islamic jihad is a result from supposed conflict caused by a lack of resources is ludicrous.

Jihadists are driven by motives such as Sharia law and bringing back the Caliphate, not by frustration over the contention of scarce food and water supplies. This type of linkage is even weaker than the belief that terrorists are essentially joining the cause of jihad because of a lack of jobs/economic opportunities. ISIS could be living on the most resource-replete land and they still wouldn’t be satisfied until they bring the world under Islamic rule.

Regardless of their differences, there is a commonality between those who are hyper-ideological; a link between those who are so obsessed with their worldview that they believe it explains literally everything: In Paris last year, Obama said, “climate change — affects all trends”; the totalitarian Islamist thinks implementing Sharia law globally is the answer to solving the world’s problems.

Of course, Obama wants to see the establishment of liberal-progressive values, while the Islamist wants everything Islamic; however, both groups need each other politically at least temporarily in order to build up a powerful enough coalition to launch their respective agendas on the world stage.

Leftist politicians tend to dismiss or ignore the worldwide jihadist movement and seek to combat what they call “extremism” with vague solutions that furthers their political agenda.

Anyone with common sense realizes that hardcore jihadists like ISIS are not going to put down the sword of jihad through diplomacy and random acts of global kindness. The West needs to militarily wipe jihadists like those involved with ISIS off of the face of the earth, but also seek ways in countering their Sharia ideology that is reaching our next generation’s youth.

FULL MEASURE September 11, 2016: S2E1 (P1)

September 13, 2016

FULL MEASURE September 11, 2016: S2E1 (P1) — 9/11 and the continuing impact on America

Islamic Movement in U.S. Preparing for Battle

September 13, 2016

Islamic Movement in U.S. Preparing for Battle, Understanding the Threat, September 13, 2016

As UTT has continually reported, there exists in the United States a significant jihadi movement led primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood whose organizations include the most prominent and influential Islamic groups in America.

weapons-684623

weapons2-300x225

The Islamic Movement in the U.S. continues their daily work of preparing for the coming battle at all levels of the society.  From a military standpoint, the leaders of the American Muslim community are coalescing their forces and preparing strategically, operationally, and logistically for war.

Strategic Overlay

Going back to the early 1980’s, the jihadis set up an elaborate network of jihadi centers known in the U.S. as the Al Kifah Refugee Centers to recruit jihadis for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Some of these over three dozen offices were operated by only a couple jihadis with a phone or fax machine, and some had a more sizable presence in the community.  Nevertheless, they created nodes across the United States for jihadis in many American cities, and became centers for possible Al Qaeda recruitment in the future.

For the last few decades the Pakistani terrorist organization known as Jamaat al Fuqra has been establishing jihaditraining camps in the United States primarily among black Muslims, many of whom were recruited in prison.  Known in the U.S. as “Muslims of America” or “MOA,” approximately two dozen of the three dozen known camps appear to be operational today.

In the early 1990’s the Chief Investigator for the state of Colorado, with support from the Governor and Attorney General, launched a multi-jurisdictional raid of an MOA compound near Buena Vista (CO) and discovered weapons, explosives, lists of people to be assassinated, evidence that military/national guard bases had been under surveillance, and the like.

In one of the gems discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of a senior Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader, a recording of a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader speaking to a group of Muslim Brothers in Missouri revealed the MB has numerous training camps inside America and conducted regular firearms training.

To be clear, they are not planning on conducting violent actions in the immediate future, but are planning for “Zero Hour” – their term for when the violent jihad will begin when the time is right.  They may wait until an outside influence from a foreign power or a major event initiates conflict, and then the Islamic Movement can begin the jihad and act independently or as an ally for a hostile foreign power such as Iran or China.

In the MB’s 5-Phase “World Underground Movement Plan” – discovered at the 2004 FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia – the Brotherhood states (Phase 2) they must “Establish a government (secret) within the government.”  The purpose of this is to have jihadis on the inside of our government who will serve as the leadership for the Islamic Movement when they seize power in the United States.  Until then, their role is to (1) gather intelligence and (2) conduct influence operations at all levels of the society, especially within the decision-making process.

As has previously been discussed, this is much more a counterintelligence and espionage issue than it is a “terrorism” matter.  The enemy is preparing the battlefield now for the eventual battle to come.

The U.S. Network

The evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008) reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of a massive jihadi network whose stated objective is to wage “Civilization Jihad” to destroy our system of government and establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia here.  The evidence also reveals the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers/Mosques are the places at which jihadi train for battle and from which the jihad will be launched.

All of the mosques our military entered during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and mosques that European authorities have raided in the last two years have had weapons in them.  The mosque is what Mohammad used a mosque for, and the launch point for jihad is one of those purposes.

There are over 2400 Islamic Centers/Mosques in America, most of which are a part of the MB’s jihadi network.

In the United States the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) whose subsidiary Islamic Societies number approximately 170.  The Muslim Students Associations (MSA) serve as a recruiting arm for jihadis, and there are over 700 chapters on nearly every major college campus in America.

Reports from around the country from civilian and law enforcement sources reveal:  Mosques and Islamic organizations are being built in strategic locations – near key infrastructure facilities, military bases, or some other key position in the community; taxi cab drivers at the largest airports in the U.S. are Muslim; and there is a noticeable increase in sharia-compliant Muslim TSA officers, baggage handlers and airline/airport employees at U.S. airports.

Additionally:  Muslims are purchasing hotels, quick marts, and 7-11 type stores with gas stations, and  a majority of major hotels in cities across the U.S. have a manager or assistant manager who is a Muslim, which is statistically impossible unless this activity is intentional.

Quick marts and gas stations provide their Movement with a logistics train that will be needed in a battle. Having people in leadership positions at major hotels in major cities, where law enforcement and intelligence groups and others hold conferences, serve as excellent intelligence gathering nodes.

Jihadis have penetrated U.S. federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies giving them access to sensitive intelligence systems, while simultaneously they have shut down real threat-based training inside these same agencies under the guise factual/truth-based training is “offensive to Muslims.”

Jihadis have themselves penetrated senior levels of the government (eg Suhail Khan working for two successive Secretaries of Transportation with access to classified critical infrastructure details), and have recruited senior U.S. government officials to promote and protect their interests which are hostile to the U.S. (most recent example – Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson promoting and defending leading MB organization ISNA and speaking at their annual convention expressly to open the door to more Cabinet officials to do the same).

Key jihadi organizations, like Hamas (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations/CAIR) work on Capitol Hill and inside government agencies to keep truthful discussions about the Islamic threat from ever happening, while plotting to work with Al Qaeda (as evidenced by UTT’s Chris Gaubatz discovery of a CAIR document dated 3/08/04 at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. stating, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates”).

muslims-1

Now, the U.S. government is bringing tens of thousands of sharia adherent Muslims into our nation.  From the Islamic perspective, these people are Muhajaroun – those who make the hijra into the non-Muslim lands in preparation for the “Final Stage,” which is armed conflict with the host country.  This is all a part of their strategy, and is consistent with core Islamic doctrine.

Finally, we are currently observing the Marxist/Socialist Movement in the U.S. working directly with the Islamic Movement at the ground and strategic levels.  Both have publicly declared their support for one another, they are both receiving funding from hard-left Marxists/socialists (eg George Soros) and foreign powers, and both are openly pushing for confrontation with and the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Islamic Movement in the United States is deeply embedded in the U.S. decision-making process, has thousands of organizations and allies, possesses a logistics train of fuel and supplies, conducts weapons training programs, has access to U.S. intelligence systems, is well funded (primarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc), has strategic plans for North America (An Explanatory Memorandum) and has a plan to implement the strategy (Implementation Manual) which they are following.

The U.S. response is to say “Islam is a religion of peace” and work with the very Muslim leaders who are driving this hostile network.

Victory is not possible with this recipe.

Each year there are between 70 and 120 new Islamic non-profits being created in America, most of which appear to be working directly in line with the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to wage civilization jihad until “Zero Hour” when the war goes hot.

Until then, they continue to prep the battlefield because they are really at war with us because they are following sharia – core Islamic doctrine – as their blueprint for what they are doing.

“The Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker: “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech”

September 13, 2016

“The Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker: “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech” Jihad Watch

“I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” Nakoula told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.”

The forlorn cry of a man beaten into submission by the fallout he faced because he dared to challenge Islam, thinking he was safe under democratic freedoms. What Nakoula Basseley Nakoula — the Coptic Christian whose video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially blamed by the Obama administration for the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya – really means is that he does not believe in the so-called keepers of our democracy, in which the freedom of speech is supposed to be a core principle. What this man suffered in scapegoated and jailed, and now living in poverty, was a selling-out of our foundation principles by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

What Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has suffered is the mere tip of iceberg when it comes to Sharia subjugation.

nakoula

“Blamed for Benghazi: Filmmaker jailed after attack now lives in poverty, fear”, by Hollie McKay, Fox News, September 12, 2016:

Four Americans died in the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, and those who survived saw their stories of heroism told in a Hollywood movie, but the filmmaker whose work was wrongly blamed for touching off the event lives in obscurity, poverty and fear, FoxNews.com has learned.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian whose short video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially faulted for sparking the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya, is now living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He has served time in prison, been shamed publicly by the White House and threatened with death.

“I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” Nakoula told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.”

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seized on the anti-Islamist film as the cause of a spontaneous protest that turned violent. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when armed terrorists laid siege to the compound and set it ablaze.

The story was told in the Michael Bay-directed film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” which starred John Krasinski.

Nakoula’s video trailer, posted online and credited to “Sam Bacile,” mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammad – depicting him as everything from a bozo and womanizer to predator and homosexual. Although Obama and Clinton were later forced to acknowledge that the attack was an organized assault by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, Nakoula was soon charged with eight counts of probation violation, jailed without bail and deemed a “danger to the community.”

Nakoula had previously been convicted of charges relating to bank and credit fraud, and federal prosecutors found his use of the Internet to post the video violated his terms of probation.

Nakoula, who is in his late fifties and has been in the U.S since 1984, declined to elaborate on his post-jail experiences, but said he plans to write a book about his ordeal.

For now, he deferred queries to the Rev. Wiley S. Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church. In August 2013, Nakoula was relocated from prison to a halfway house – a kind of house arrest although it’s a government facility – to serve out the remainder of his time, and a year later was released into Drake’s custody. For the past three years, Nakoula has been living at the homeless shelter on church grounds.

Drake, an Arkansas native who ran as an independent for the Presidential nomination in 2008 and again for 2016, said he sought out the controversial filmmaker in 2013 because he had grave concerns for the future of democracy in the United States.

“I wanted to find out what was really going on,” Drake told FoxNews.com. “They accused Nakoula of causing Benghazi, but it could not have been further from the truth.”

According to Drake, the federal government was concerned about the potential threats at the halfway house due to Nakoula’s presence, and agreed to release him to the church. Amid the hoopla sparked by his film and the finger-pointing, Nakoula indeed became a hot target for Islamic fatwas. In 2012, an Egyptian court sentenced him – in absentia – to death for defaming the religion and a Pakistani minister issued a $100,000 reward to have him killed.

Drake said that they have received a few anonymous phone threats – the last being about a year ago – but he refuses to back down.

“I have purposely not hidden that Nakoula is here,” he continued. “I’m not afraid of anything.”

Steven Davis, director of security management at the church, stressed that they take Nakoula’s precarious position as a “high value target” very seriously and said the church has well-trained personnel should any external threats arise.

“I talk to him on a regular basis, check he isn’t being followed,” Davis said. “It is hard to know how far the enemy – radical Islam – will push things.”

Nakoula remains under the supervision of the federal government, so he will likely be at the Church for at least another year. The average stay at the shelter is a few months, enough time for most to “get back on their feet,” said Drake.

Kenneth Timmerman, author of “Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed For Benghazi,” asserts that Nakoula was ultimately “the first victim of Islamic Sharia blasphemy laws in the United States.”

“He was collateral damage, as were the actors and actresses who became subject to death threats and fatwas,” Timmerman said. “Nakoula takes the fatwas seriously because he understands they are still active and cannot be rescinded.”

Drake also noted that from time to time he receives phone calls from different people at the State Department checking in on how Nakoula is faring, and while Drake typically gives a vanilla answer, he is concerned for his future. Nakoula has worked various part-time jobs at a pizza parlor and more recently driving for Uber, but as soon as people make the connection between him and Benghazi, work dries up.

“So we have put him to work here,” Drake said. “And he has transportation now so he can go and visit his family nearby, but he wants to keep them safe and out of the spotlight.”

It was revealed in last year’s House Select Committee hearings on Benghazi that, despite public proclamations otherwise, Clinton was well aware that the attacks were well-crafted and not spurred by “The Innocence of Muslims.”…

Sources close to Nakoula say he was indeed “proud” of the film’s content, and has no reservations in continuing his outspoken stance against the Islamic religion when the timing is right. Drake however, noted that Nakoula has expressed some regret – not for the film’s controversial content – but for the trouble and stress it ultimately caused.

“If I could go back, I would do it again,” he told FoxNews.com three years ago from prison. “Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it.”….

body double

September 13, 2016

body double PHOTOS: HILLARY CLINTON’S ‘BODY DOUBLE’ CONTROVERSY AFTER HER 9/11 COLLAPSE – FACT OR FICTION? YOU LOOK, YOU JUDGE AND YOU DECIDE!..TERESA BARNWELL, IS THAT YOU? DID SHE HAVE A SEIZURE AGAIN?

Posted on September 12, 2016 Updated on September 13, 2016

Source: body double « 70news

This is crazy! HILLARY CLINTON HAS A BODY DOUBLE? For real? I get the 9/11 fainting or collapse of Hillary Clinton because obviously she is a very sick woman – unless you are a non-thinking Democrat or puppet media who stick to the memo and gag order that Hillary is fine and just suffering from weird allergies or whatever.

Below are pictures posted on twitter and I will let you people of America decide. If this is a case,  you are the jury and you give the verdict on this new case – the case of Hillary Clinton Body Double, is it fact or fiction.

According to Hillary’s Body Double watchdog ( the alt-right @ Twitter and Facebook ), the Hillary who emerged from Chelsea’s apartment may sound like her but surely cannot be her because of the following:

  1. The Hillary Body Double weigh less than Hillary – it’s impossible to lose that much weight in just a couple of hours. I noticed the hips and thighs are different.
  2.  The Hillary Body Double looks ten years younger than the one who collapsed earlier at 9/11 ceremony.
  3. The finger and nose controversy – they just don’t match they said.
  4.  Hillary hardly carry her own purse – yep, the Democrat Madam sure don’t! And the picture that surfaced shows the new Hillary carrying her purse different shoulder. NOTE! Women don’t switch shoulders when it comes to their purse. I was forced to switch to the right only after I injured my left shoulder and the habit stayed.
  5.  Her famous handler, medic team and Secret Service entourage missing when she reemerged. If she was rushed to a hospital because she was in critical condition, that’s where they would be – not at Chelsea Clinton’s apartment.

 

THIS VIDEO SHOWS HOW BAD HER FALL WAS: LOOKS LIKE A SEIZURE, HER LEGS WERE STIFF, SHE COULDN’T TAKE A STEP FORWARD, THEY HAVE TO LIFT HER AS HER FEET DRAGGED ON THE GROUND.

 

WHAT ELSE DOESN’T MAKE SENSE?

  1. They claimed Hillary was NOT taken to a hospital after she collapsed yesterday where she was thrown into the back seat like a ‘side of beef’, a senior law enforcement told the  Daily Beast .
  2. Why would you take a sick person who just collapsed to her daughter’s apartment when you should be taking her STRAIGHT to the hospital?
  3. Why would you ALLOW someone sick and who just collapsed to REEMERGE in public on a street ‘FULLY RECOVERED’ two hours after her medical episode when she should be in a complete bed rest. If she has ‘pneumonia’ as her doctor said, why did they let her talk to a little girl who could get infected with her virus.
  4. Why did they allow her to leave WITHOUT her famous handler, her usual medic team and Secret Service?
  5. If Hillary FULLY recovered two hours after she collapsed, why announce later she is recovering in her NY house and has to cancel her California fundraising?
  6. If Hillary Clinton’s medical issue is just another case of pneumonia, there is NO NEED for the Democrat Party Committee to have a meeting and consider a replacement for her in the event her health forces her out of the race. They would only consider replacing Hillary if they know she has a very serious health condition.

 

THIS IS THE VIDEO OF A ‘FULLY RECOVERED’ HILLARY TWO HOURS LATER. WHERE’S HER FAMOUS HANDLER, MEDIC TEAM AND SECRET SERVICE?

STAGED? Secret Service agents won’t allow ANYBODY – even if it’s a crawling one day old baby – to get near Hillary unless they were first inspected and passed the inspection. It means this little girl walking up to Hillary to greet her is no random act of cuteness, especially after her famous 9/11 collapse this morning and you don’t see her agents and her mysterious handler around her, the picture looks suspicious.

HARDLY LOOKS LIKE HILLARY! EVEN BILL CLINTON WILL SAY NO TO THIS PICTURE!

STAGED?

NOTICE THE SHOULDER? AND THE WALK? TOTALLY DIFFERENT! HMMMM!

IS THIS HILLARY CLINTON’S PERSONAL PHYSICIAN, DR. LISA BARDACK? IS THIS HILLARY’S MEDIC TEAM?
 
ANOTHER ANGLE: FRONT VIEW AND SIDE VIEW!
TALKING OF BODY DOUBLE SUSPECT, IS IT TERESA BARNWELL?
There is only one famous impersonator of Hillary Clinton and that’s Teresa Barnwell. Is she the body double? Who knows? With the Clintons, mysteries and scandals are nothing but normal.  Teresa actually joined Lip Sync Battle Live today as Hillary impersonator. BUT, she posted a twitter today where she said she’s in new York and the creepy part the picture on her tweet is similar to Chelsea’s apartment building where Hillary reemerged ‘fine and dandy’. Then later she posted on her twitter that she’s just messing up with everybody. The thing is, after Hillary collapsed the expected thing to do is to take her to hospital, NOT to Chelsea’s apartment. Notice the Hillary who reemerged did not have the mysterious handler and the usual Secret Service entourage? What a day!
THEN
NOW!
 TERESA BARNWELL? ARE YOU FACT OR FICTION IN THIS BODY DOUBLE CONTROVERSY?
HILLARY CLINTON’S HEALTH IS BECOMING THE WORLD’S MOST WATCHED REALITY TV SHOW! THIS IS NO CONSPIRACY! UNSCRIPTED AND FULL OF SURPRISES! STAY TUNED!

 

Shurat HaDin: Obama Secretly Transferred $1.7 Billion to Iran to Keep It Out of Terror Victims’ Reach

September 13, 2016

Transferred $1.7 Billion to Iran to Keep It Out of Terror Victims’ Reach By: JNi.Media Published: September 13th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Shurat HaDin: Obama Secretly Transferred $1.7 Billion to Iran to Keep It Out of Terror Victims’ Reach

Administration witnesses before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Committee on Financial Services) hearing on “Fueling Terror: The Dangers of Ransom Payments to Iran,” Sept. 8, 2016. / Screenshot

Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, representing American the families of terror victims who have won US court judgments against the government of Iran for its support of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, on Tuesday released a letter it sent US Congress members alleging that the Obama Administration kept secret the details of the $1.7 billion in cash payments to Tehran in January 2016 in order to evade efforts by their clients to recover those funds to satisfy outstanding court awards.

In the past, American terror victims have been successful in seizing Iranian bank accounts when those had been located.

The letter, sent by attorneys Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Tel-Aviv and Robert Tolchin of New York, recalls that on January 17, 2016, President Obama announced the settlement of a legal dispute between the United States and Iran over $400 million held by the US in a Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”) program account since 1979. The Obama Administration agreed to pay the $400 million it finally conceded it owed Iran, plus payment of an additional $1.3 million in interest on that amount.

Then, “in recent weeks, the $1.7 billion which was secretly paid out in cash has come under severe scrutiny because the timing and circumstances of the payments appear to confirm the Iranian claim that the White House agreed to pay the money as ransom to Tehran for the release of American hostages.”

However, in light of the recent revelations in a Congressional subcommittee hearing held on Thursday, September 8, 2016, Shurat HaDin is asserting that “it is now clear that the Administration has deliberately kept numerous payments to Iran secret in order to shield Iran from having to forfeit those funds to pay terror victims amounts Iran owes under outstanding US judgments.”

The Shurat HaDin letter cites a “suspicious revelation at the Congressional subcommittee hearing that the United States and Iran did not draft a written settlement agreement or any other formal documentation of the cash transfers, and that Iran specifically directed the Iran-US Tribunal at the Hague, where the claim was to be resolved through arbitration, that it should not record the settlement of the claim for the parties.”

Shurat HaDin asserts that under a legislation passed in 2000, the US was legally entitled to apply the $400 million in the FSM account to satisfy terror victims’ judgments, and this way eliminating the $400 million balance and nearly 16 years of interest claimed by Iran.

Shurat HaDin President Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said in a statement: “We believe that the secrecy in which these cash payments were made was part of an effort by the White House to conceal these payments from the terror victims and to hide the fact that it was effectively canceling Iran’s debt for its terror-related activity. This is a horrible fraud against the terror victims. It appears the secret cash transfers were specifically done as an end run around the ability of the families to attach the money and enforce their federal court judgments.”

Why didn’t the Treasury ever tell the families they were holding these funds?” Darshan-Leitner demanded to know.

Had either the settlement or an award against the United States at the Iran-US Tribunal been entered on the books, and Iran had sought to have the settlement or award confirmed in US court, then terror-victims with judgments against Iran could have legally “attached” any judgment affirming the settlement or award, so that the amount could be applied to satisfy their terror-compensation judgments, Shurat HaDin contends, explaining that “instead, the Administration went to great lengths to ensure that the $1.7 billion purported settlement was shrouded in secrecy, was never reduced to writing or even recorded with the Tribunal in Hague, and was paid to Iran in cash as quickly and directly as possible in order to head off any chance that Iran would be forced to forfeit any amount to pay legal judgments it owes to American terror victims.”

Shurat HaDin urged Congress to continue to investigate these issues, and to take action to guarantee that further payments to Iran do not take place as long as Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism and a threat to its neighbors, “and until it has paid every judgment it owes to American victims of terror.”

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner addressed her letter to Senator Marco Rubio and Representatives Mike Pompeo and Ed Royce, who have each introduced legislation in response to the $1.7 billion payment to Iran, and to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Sean P. Duffy, whose subcommittee held a special hearing on the $1.7 billion payments last Thursday, September 8, 2016.