Posted tagged ‘USA’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

March 10, 2016

Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

William Reynolds

3 days ago

Source: Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks — Medium

Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails is the content of the original leak that started the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal and leaked to Russia Today four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton.

For those who haven’t been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial capacity sent many “intelligence memos” to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans font on a pink background with the letter “G” clumsily drawn as a watermark, no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in 2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with the e-mails the State Department released to the public.

The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as “useful insight” and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan. The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.

This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by “Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.” This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, it’s unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.

Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but it’s much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn’t Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasn’t her job to follow up on it.

So let’s forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn’t have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn’t it be relevant? Shouldn’t this be information she volunteers? And why didn’t the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?

Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn’t want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.

Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing

Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject “H: Libya security latest. Sid” is missing from the State Department e-mails.

This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:

  1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton’s private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
  2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically “unclassified” information from his AOL account to Clinton’s official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal’s e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal’s e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn’t be deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony. In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.

Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened

After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February 29th, it has been reported in the last week that:

  • Clinton’s IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan Pagliano, has been given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
  • The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary extradition order to the United States granted by a Romanian court, despite being indicted by the US back in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.

This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign in the general election. If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It’s time for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing. If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can’t wait until it’s too late.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Biden urged Israel: “accept the US aid package proposal”

March 9, 2016

Obama’s administration is determined to send billions of dollars to Israel A key goal of the US Vice President was exerting pressure on the Israeli government following the impasse of negotiations on a package of security assistance. The Vice President urged Israel to receive less money than it demands.

Mar 9, 2016, 8:45PM Idan Cohen

Source: Biden urged Israel: “accept the US aid package proposal” | JerusalemOnline.com

Photo Credit: Channel 2 News

Biden gave a speech today (Wednesday) in which he claimed that “We helped bolster Israel’s security more than any other administration in History. We have raised our security cooperation in military intelligence fields to unprecedented levels. We have insured Israel has the most advanced weapons including one of the most effective missile defense system in the world. At the same time, we are struggling to increase our missile defense capabilities because of the threat from North Korea.”

“It does not mean we do not disagree, but you never need to doubt that the US has Israel’s back. We are committed to making sure that Israel can defend itself against all serious threats and maintain its qualitative edge with a quantity sufficient to maintain that. It’s critical because Israel lives in a very tough and changing neighborhood,” Biden Added.

Biden has also referred to Iran: “if they will break the deal, we will act.” Regarding the Islamic State terrorist organization, Biden said that “they are losing ground every day.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

U.S. Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program

March 9, 2016

U.S. Reverses Position, Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program Obama administration repeats concern that Iran already violating nuke deal

BY:
March 9, 2016 1:45 pm

Source: U.S. Demands Greater Oversight on Iran Nuke Program

Read also :

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

The Obama administration shifted its stance on Iran’s contested nuclear program Wednesday, writing in a letter to the United Nations that it is concerned the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization is not fully reporting on potential Iranian violations of the nuclear deal.

The administration also renewed concerns about Iran having violated its international commitments by stockpiling too much nuclear-related material. The renewed concerns come after Iran repeatedly test fired ballistic missiles in violation of current U.N. resolutions.

Yukiya Amano, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, said earlier this week that the agency is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

The revelation prompted criticism from outside nuclear experts, including a former IAEA deputy director general. The limited reporting could prevent the international community from detecting potential nuclear violations by Tehran, according to these observers.

However, the Obama administration initially dismissed these concerns, with officials telling the Washington Free Beacon and other news outlets that “there isn’t less stringent monitoring or reporting on Iran’s nuclear program.”

One State Department official who spoke to the Free Beacon  Tuesday said it is “a distortion to say that if there is less detail” in the reports, then there is “less stringent monitoring or less insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”

By Wednesday morning, this rhetoric had shifted. The administration now says that the reports on Iran should be more “robust and detailed,” according to a letter submitted by U.S. Ambassador Henry S. Ensher to the IAEA’s board of governors.

“It is vital that the [IAEA] director general continues to provide robust and detailed reporting on Iran’s implementation of its commitments,” Ensher wrote, according to a copy of the letter. “Sufficiently comprehensive information in reports avoids misunderstandings.”

The level of reporting “is essential to ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful,” Ensher wrote. “Full implementation will assure the international community that Iran’s potential pathways to obtaining a nuclear weapon have been firmly closed off.”

Ensher said the nuclear agreement still permits the IAEA to fully investigate potential Iranian infractions, though it remains unclear how much of this information will be made public going forward.

“It is important to note that the IAEA retains its full authorities to investigate any new concerns that may arise in Iran, including any new concern regarding weaponization-related activities,” he wrote.

Ensher also disclosed U.S. concerns that Iran is currently violating the deal by stockpiling too much heavy water, which is used in a nuclear reactor.

“We note with serious concern Iran’s temporary accumulation of heavy water in excess of its agreed stockpile limit, and welcome the quick actions taken to remedy this inconsistency with Iran’s commitments,” Ensher wrote.

Foreign policy insiders say that the Obama administration’s shift on the issue is emblematic of its dealings with Iran.

“This reversal is the latest in a seemingly unending stream of Iranian illegality and sanctions violations that the administration initially tried to ignore, then tries to justify, and then, finally, promises to deal with,” said one senior foreign policy consultant who has worked closely with Congress on the Iran issue.

Meanwhile, Iran for a second day in a row test-fired ballistic missiles, which is a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The Obama administration implemented new sanctions on Iran in January for similar behavior.

Wednesday’s launch included missiles that were marked with rhetoric advocating the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) called the second missile test “a direct threat to Israel on the same day Vice President Joe Biden is actually visiting Jerusalem.”

“Since the enactment of the flawed nuclear deal, the U.S. has under-enforced current sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program,” Kirk said. “Today is another example of this administration’s policy of they are ‘not supposed to be doing that.’ Instead, we should send the president bills to stop Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as the Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Iran Breaks With Arab States in Backing Hezbollah

March 9, 2016

Iran Breaks With Arab States, Continues Backing Hezbollah Iran blames Jews for forcing Arab states to designate Hezbollah as terrorist group

BY:
March 9, 2016 11:40 am

Source: Iran Breaks With Arab States in Backing Hezbollah

Read also :

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

Iranian leaders publicly broke ranks this week with major Arab Gulf nations in a series of statements criticizing these regional powers for formally designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, a regional governing coalition comprised of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain, announced last week that it is formally designating the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

The GCC joins the United States, Israel, Canada, and a host of other nations in labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization. These nations, including Saudi Arabia, have already taken steps to blacklist organizations and individuals associated with Hezbollah.

The decision by the coalition of Arab states to go after Hezbollah has sparked outrage in Iranian government, which is now claiming that “Zionists” secretly orchestrated the GCC’s effort.

Regional experts view Iran’s pushback as a sign that Tehran’s ongoing support for extremist groups has made it a pariah among other Arab nations, which have expressed concern Iran will spend the billions of dollars it received as part of the recent nuclear agreement to fund Hezbollah’s terror activities.

“No doubt the move was made upon an order by the Zionists and the sworn enemies of Islam and Great Prophet Mohammad,” said Major Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the Iranian Armed Forces chief of staff, according to Iran’s state-controlled press.

Iranian leaders vowed to continue its support for Hezbollah, which is responsible for killing Israelis and Americans in terror attacks.

“Despite efforts by the House of Saud [Saudi Arabia] and its regional and trans-regional allies, Hezbollah’s deep-seated position will remain intact,” Firouzabadi said. “It will not shift the balance of power in the region. It will not help the Zionists extend their grip on the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary system, also blamed Jewish interests for the GCC’s latest move.

“The resistance movement of Hezbollah in Lebanon protects the integrity of Arabs and Muslims against the Zionist regime,” Larijani said Monday.

Iran’s foreign ministry also took aim at the GCC, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has had poor relations with Iran since its embassy in Tehran was burned down in January. Jaberi Ansari, the spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, accused the Arab states of aligning with “the occupiers of Palestine.”

“Certain Arab countries are against the Hezbollah resistance movement,” Ansari said. “The movement represents the efforts and ideals of Muslim nations for independence, freedom, justice, and integrity. Hezbollah stands against the Israeli oppression, occupation, racism, and terrorism.”

“Those who are behind the move are knowingly or unknowingly undermining the interests of the Muslim nations,” Ansari claimed.

Regional experts described the verbal conflict between Iran and the GCC as a sign that Hezbollah is becoming increasingly toxic on the international stage.

“It’s getting harder for Iran to defend Hezbollah on the world stage,” Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, told the Washington Free Beacon. “The United States, Israel, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, the EU and Australia have all designated the group, in some form, as a terrorist organization—and it’s increasingly clear that their concerns have increasingly less to do with Hezbollah’s terrorist activities against Israel, and more to do with the group’s global footprint.”

The nuclear deal helped to fuel the GCC’s designation of Hezbollah, according to Schanzer, who serves as vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“Ironically, had Iran not signed the nuclear deal, it’s unclear whether the recent terrorist designations would have taken place,” Schanzer said. “But with Iran set to receive $100 billion in sanctions relief, one major concern is that Hezbollah will receive a significant portion of those funds for the purpose of terrorist attacks and other activities that would further destabilize the Middle East.”

“With Iran no longer under sanctions, the world is more alarmed about the activities of this Iranian proxy than ever before,” he said.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah also slammed the GCC over the weekend, saying in a video message that Saudi Arabia and its allies in the coalition are losing credibility.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Ralph Peters on US-Iran Relations: ‘I Hate To Say This, But We’ve Lost This One’

March 9, 2016

Ralph Peters on US-Iran Relations: ‘I Hate To Say This, But We’ve Lost This One’

BY:
March 9, 2016 11:33 am

Source: Ralph Peters | Iran

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters responded Wednesday to the Iranian launch of a ballistic missile that had ‘Israel must be wiped out’ written on it, saying that the Obama administration has positioned America as the perpetual loser in U.S.-Iran relations.

“Our president and the secretary of state have painted themselves into a very dangerous corner in which whatever we do or fail to do, we’re the losers,” Peters said.

Iranian hardliners who launched the missile are out to prove that they hold power both inside Iran post-parliamentary elections and on the global stage post-nuclear agreement, he said.

“This is the Revolutionary Guards and hardliners showing everybody who is still in charge, because, elections not withstanding, the people who hold the guns hold the power,” Peters said.

He said that the launch violates a U.N. Security Council resolution and shows that Iran is “rubbing it in” America’s face that they can “do whatever they want” after the nuclear deal because of the Obama administration’s weakness. As an example, Peters referenced the detention and “torment” of 10 U.S. sailors by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, after which Secretary of State John Kerry thanked the Iranians for their cooperation.

“They can do whatever they want now because this terribly flawed nuclear deal was front-loaded with benefits for Iran, and the benefits we get, if we get them, are spread out over the long-term,” Peters said.

He said that the economic ties Iran is now forging are difficult to sanction even if Obama wanted to punish Iran for the missile launch.

“Even if President Obama decided to abrogate that bad nuclear deal and resurrect sanctions against Iran, it wouldn’t work because Iran has been flooded with European and global corporations signing contracts right and left,” Peters said.

In all, he said, the outlook for a strong U.S. role in relations with Iran is dim.

“I hate to say this about my country, but we’ve lost this one,” Peters said.

Peters is known for his blunt assessments of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. In the past, he has called Obama a “total pussy” on live television.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Revolutionary Guards: ‘Iran has 10 times more missiles than Hezbollah’s 100,000’

March 9, 2016

Revolutionary Guards: ‘Iran has 10 times more missiles than Hezbollah’s 100,000’

Source: Revolutionary Guards: ‘Iran has 10 times more missiles than Hezbollah’s 100,000’ – Middle East – Jerusalem Post

IRGC aerospace commander: Missiles belong to Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi nations, as well as all the oppressed people of the world.

A MILITARY truck carrying a missile and a picture of Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei drives in a parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war in Tehran. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday that Israel’s “collapse” was near and that it had ten times more missiles than Hezbollah’s 100,000.

“The Zionist regime will collapse in the near future. When Hezbollah has stockpiled over 100,000 missiles, it means Iran has tens of times more than that. Iran is in possession of different classes of missiles, and this power is unstoppable,” said Brigadier General Hossein Salami, Fars News Agency reported.

“We have a large stockpile of ballistic missiles in different ranges. They are ready to hit enemies and targets from different parts of the country,” he said on the second day of IRGC missile tests.

Salami asserted that international sanctions on the country boosted the domestic production of missiles.

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC’s aerospace division, said on Wednesday that the country’s missiles fired during drills are “Iran-made and belong to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi nations, as well as all the oppressed people of the world.”

Separately, the spokesman for Iran’s atomic energy agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, said the country needs nine nuclear power plants in the next 10 years for its energy needs, the official IRNA news agency reported.

He estimated that between 8 to 12 percent of the country’s electricity should be generated by nuclear power and there is a good possibility for the construction of two new power plants.

In the post-sanction era the idea has been warmly received, noting that there are a number of countries competing for the opportunity, asserted the Iranian official.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

March 9, 2016

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

By Michael Snyder, on March 8th, 2016

Source: Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering drastic measures to reboot the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Among those measures is a UN Security Council resolution that would set the parameters for a two state solution and that would recognize East Jerusalem as the official capital of a Palestinian state.  If Barack Obama makes this move, it will almost certainly be before the election in November.  I had previously reported that France was ready to introduce a similar UN Security Council resolution back in September, but at that time the French backed off because they did not have full support from the Obama administration.  But now that Obama is approaching the end of his term, he suddenly seems more willing to make a bold move.

Remember, this is not just some Internet rumor.  This comes directly from an article that was just published in the Wall Street Journal that claims to have top White House officials as the source of this information.  According to those anonymous officials, the Obama administration is now ready to potentially move forward with the kind of UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned above…

The strongest element on the list of options under consideration would be U.S. support for a Security Council resolution calling on both sides to compromise on key issues, something Israel had opposed and Washington has repeatedly vetoed in the past.

The article goes on to say that the parameters of an agreement for a two state solution would be based on the 1949 armistice line but would allow for land swaps so that many Jewish settlements that have been built since 1967 would not be swallowed up by the new Palestinian state.

The Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and East Jerusalem would receive full UN Security Council recognition as the capital of a new Palestinian state.  This is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that he would never agree to.

But Barack Obama appears to be completely fed up with Netanyahu at this point, and that is why the White House is now strongly considering moving forward with a UN Security Council resolution.  Needless to say, this would represent a dramatic change in policy from previous administrations.  Here is more from the Wall Street Journal…

Mounting a push for a Security Council resolution would be a significant shift in U.S. policy and one the Israeli government has feared could marshal international sentiment in a way that could make it harder to resist making concessions. Such a move could further strain already tense relations between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed over U.S. diplomacy with Iran and the administration’s past attempts to forge a Middle East peace agreement.

Last year, the White House threatened to allow action at the U.N. to proceed without objection from the U.S. after Mr. Netanyahu said during his re-election campaign that he wouldn’t support a two-state solution. The Israeli leader subsequently walked back his statement, and the White House didn’t follow through with its threat.

Right now, 136 nations already formally recognize a Palestinian state.  But a Palestinian state has never had full UN Security Council recognition because the United States has always blocked efforts in that direction.

Many people don’t realize this, but if Obama throws his support behind such a resolution, it would be considered binding upon both the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The following comes from Israel National News…

A Security Council resolution would be binding upon all parties, unlike General Assembly measures which are non-obligatory recommendations. Such a resolution would remain in force even after the president leaves office next January, effectively shaping the future of American policy in the region for Mr. Obama’s successors.

The resolution would require Israel cease construction over the Green Line and would force Israel to recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be absolutely furious if the Obama administration pushes forward with a UN Security Council resolution that would attempt to dictate a solution to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Perhaps this explains why Netanyahu just cancelled a meeting with Barack Obama at the White House later this month…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declined an offer to meet President Barack Obama at the White House later this month and canceled his trip to Washington, the White House said on Monday, citing Israeli news reports.

Netanyahu’s decision to nix his U.S. visit marked the latest episode in a fraught relationship with Obama that has yet to recover from their deep differences over last year’s U.S.-led international nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s arch-foe.

Of course there are lots of reasons why Netanyahu would potentially be upset with Obama.  In addition to the ridiculously bad Iran deal, we should also remember that Obama tried to help defeat Netanyahu during the last Israeli election, and the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Obama administration has been actively spying on Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders.

Barack Obama has stabbed Israel in the back over and over again, and so it would be absolutely no surprise if he decided to push for a UN Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, such a move would have very serious implications for all of us.  By dividing the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, Obama would be cursing our nation, and that is not something that any of us should want.

If Obama is going to do this, it will almost certainly happen before the election in November.

That means that we are looking at roughly an eight month time period.

Personally, because of how the UN schedule works, I would say that the most likely time for such a resolution to be introduced would be in September or October.  But it is definitely possible that it could come sooner than that.

For a long time, Barack Obama has expressed a desire to see the establishment of a Palestinian state before he leaves office.  Netanyahu has always been his nemesis in this regard, but now Obama seems determined to try to make something happen at the United Nations while he still has the power to do so.

Let us pray that he is not successful.

March 8th, 2016 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Category: Politics, World

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

5 Reasons Why Trump Would be a Better President than You Thought

March 8, 2016

5 Reasons Why Trump Would be a Better President than You Thought

by Brion McClanahan

7 Mar 2016

Source: 5 Reasons Why Trump Would be a Better President than You Thought – Breitbart

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College, Friday, March 4, 2016, in Warren, Mich.

AP/Carlos Osorio

Would President Trump be that bad?

The establishment would have you thinking that.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%

repeated the same platitudes and half-truths several times following his embarrassing performance on Super Tuesday—Trump is a racist, Trump is not a conservative, Trump isn’t electable, etc. The reaction? Everyone laughed.Nothing changed at the Thursday night debate. Many of the attacks leveled at Trump seemed to be made up by a junior high school focus group. Those that actually had substance—and there were a few great barbs by both the candidates and the moderators—questioned not only Trump’s honesty and integrity, but also his “conservative credentials.”

Trump, the establishment says (along with the anti-Trump crowd), is all image and no substance, a “reality TV star” who doesn’t understand the Constitution or American government. His “debate” performance seemed to solidify this critique. After all, Trump does not give concrete answers to policy questions and maybe spends too much time on the size of his hands.

But let us consider five reasons why the establishment and the anti-Trump crowd may be wrong about a President Trump:

1.) “I’ll look into it”: A President Trump who will “look into” a particular situation is not the same as a president who will unconstitutionally legislate from the Oval Office. We have seen that Trump has good advisors, particularly

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80%

of Alabama, a man whom no one would confuse with a weak-kneed liberal. Sessions has been the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration in the Senate. Does anyone think that his influence would lead to a Gang of Eight scenario and compromise from President Trump? “Looking into it” might produce a push for even more stringent immigration policies from Congress. If Trump says he will support it, Congress would be foolish not to act.

 

2.) Trump won’t start WWIII: Among the remaining candidates (including the Democrats), Trump has been the most vocal opponent of military adventurism. He has suggested he will take the fight to ISIS, but Trump has been insistent in his belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, that American blood has been shed in a misguided attempt to restructure the Middle East, and that a real conservative American foreign policy would place American interests first, ahead of those of foreign nations. Trump’s foreign policy would be closest to the founding generation’s desire for peaceful neutrality. As a businessman, Trump understands that peace produces prosperity, both for the American federal republic and the people who reside here.

3.) We may get Judge Napolitano: No, not Janet Napolitano, but Judge Andrew Napolitano for the Supreme Court. Critics have charged that Trump would likely appoint a rabid leftist for the bench, perhaps his sister, but in a recent interview, Trump advisor Roger Stone hinted that Andrew Napolitano might be Trump’s first choice to take Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench. It would make sense. Napolitano has a high profile in the media and is rock solid on civil liberties. And though he appears regularly on Fox News, he is not an establishment favorite, nor would he be an establishment choice. It would be as unconventional as a Trump presidency. That is good for America. Who needs another Harvard lawyer on the Supreme Court bench? We have a clear example of how a Harvard Law grad has screwed up America. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Hillary Clinton thought he would make a good Supreme Court justice.

4.) Trump brings back the Reagan coalition: It wasn’t that long ago that people used to salivate over the 1980s Reagan coalition of blue-collar Democrats and white-collar Republicans. Trump has that kind of appeal. This is why his message resonates across the political spectrum and why many Americans are supporting him. If the Republican Party is serious about a “big tent” philosophy, Trump is their guy. Most conservatives vote Republican because they lack real alternatives. It is better, they think, to hold their nose and pull the lever for Mitt Romney than vote for Barack Obama. This hasn’t worked, and American knows it. Trump represents real America, what Glenn Beck recently derided as the “bubba effect,” and real America is ready to kick the establishment to the curb. They want jobs, security, and someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the cultural Marxism of the establishment, both Left and Right. Reagan would agree. He nailed the “bubba” vote as well. That worked out ok.

5.) Trump cleans up corruption: Trump has made clear that he intends to prosecute Hillary Clinton if elected president. That is a good start, and candidate Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against the verbal onslaught Trump would bring to a Trump v. Clinton campaign. She has never encountered someone like Trump as a candidate. He is not awe struck by the Clinton machine. But more than that, Trump prides himself on efficiency. Grover Cleveland, the last good Democrat elected to the executive office, rode a wave of anti-corruption into the executive mansion and proceeded to remove as much of the cancer from Washington as possible. It would not be hard to image a similar great purge of establishment corruption from D.C. should Trump be elected. It would be like shining lights on cockroaches. Clinton would be the first target, but other vestiges of Washington corruption would be getting a Trump scrubbing. Who wouldn’t want that?

At the end of the day, Americans should ask, “Do we want a chief legislator, a dictator in chief who already has an agenda and like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama etc., will force Congress into submission?” We have already seen how that screwed up America. Think the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society. Making America great again will take a different kind of leadership, one in which “I’ll look into it” is preferable to “I’ll act even if it’s unconstitutional.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

DONALD TRUMP has the strongest Jewish ties of any Republican candidate

March 8, 2016

DONALD TRUMP has the strongest Jewish ties of any Republican candidate Even among the early expansive field of Republican presidential candidates, Donald Trump has always been the most closely connected to the Jewish people.

Source: DONALD TRUMP has the strongest Jewish ties of any Republican candidate

Naturally, this won’t make a bit of difference to leftist/liberal Jews, about 70% of the Jewish population in America, many of whom are not supporters of Israel either.

3b9a8938dbdca97638db0bbc40734b4d3ea233227feec657071cae9b02f6a104_1

Forward  Trump is from New York, works in professions saturated with Jews and long has been a vocal supporter of Israel. His daughter and two grandchildren are Jewish, the executive vice president of his organization is Jewish — and Trump certainly has chutzpah.

Given his myriad Jewish associations, Trump is not an unfamiliar face in Jewish circles. He has served as a grand marshal at New York’s annual Salute to Israel Parade. After Hurricane Katrina, he was among a group of celebrities who decorated Jewish federation tzedakah boxes to be auctioned off to support hurricane disaster relief. And in February, he was honored with an award at the annual gala for the Algemeiner, a Jewish news organization.

Before the 2013 Israeli election, Trump recorded a video message endorsing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What’s more, Trump has made clear he believes President Barack Obama is bad for Israel and has questioned how American Jews could support the president.

Trump’s closest Jewish association is with his daughter Ivanka’s family. Ivanka Trump, a fashion designer and celebrity in her own right, converted to Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, the son of New York Jewish real estate developer Charles Kushner. She studied for her Orthodox conversion with Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Manhattan’s Kehilath Jeshurun synagogue and the Ramaz School, and Lookstein officiated at her wedding. Trump and Kushner are members of Lookstein’s Orthodox synagogue and are Shabbat observant. They have two children with a third on the way.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Former UK Ambassador To Syria: US/UK Foreign Policy Is Doomed, Even Corrupt

March 6, 2016

Former UK Ambassador To Syria: US/UK Foreign Policy Is Doomed, Even Corrupt Tyler Durden’s picture

by Tyler Durden on 03/04/2016 22:25 -0500

Source: Former UK Ambassador To Syria: US/UK Foreign Policy Is Doomed, Even Corrupt | Zero Hedge

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

Peter Ford, who was the UK’s Ambassador in Syria during 2003-2006, was asked by the BBC in their “The Big Questions” interview on February 14th, whether the current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would have to be a part of the solution in that country after the war is over, and Ambassador Ford said:

“I think sadly, but inevitably, he is. Realistically, Assad is not going to be overthrown. This becomes more clear with every day that passes. Western analysts have been indulging in wishful thinking for 5 years; it’s time to get real, we owe it to the Syrian people to be much more realistic and hard headed about this. The West has to stop propping up the so-called ‘moderate opposition’, which is not moderate at all.”

This was quoted by Almasdar News on February 18th, which went on to note that,

“The frustrated interviewer asked Mr. Ford about ‘what we should have done,’ and he responded that ‘we should have backed off, we should have not tried to overthrow the regime.’ Mr. Ford eloquently added that this policy has been ‘like a dog returning to vomit.’”

The video of the interview below showed him making that statement in this context:

The interviewer was clearly anti-Assad, and Ford responded with evident anger by noting (starting at 2:55 on the video) the shocking fact that:

“In Aghanistan, Iraq, Libya, like a dog returning to vomit, we go back to [and the audience already was started to clap here], we never saw a secular Arab regime that we didn’t want to overthrow.”

He was saying there that we support only non-secular regimes, sectarian regimes, in Arabia, this meaning fundamentalist Sunni governments — especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, the very same regimes that even the U.S. Secretary of State acknowledged in a 2009 cable that was wikileaked, are the chief regimes that are funding Al Qaeda, ISIS and other jihadist groups. Ford was noting that the United States and UK strive to keep in power those governments, the ones that are led by royal families that supply the bulk of funding for jihadist groups — jihadists who perpetrate terrorism in the United States and Europe. “We never saw a secular  Arab regime that we didn’t want to overthrow”: Ambassdor Ford was so bold as to imply that our governments are supporting, under the table, the very same ruling families that they know to be funding (as that cable only vaguely referred to them) “Sunni terrorist groups worldwide” (which includes in Western countries, too).

The BBC’s interviewer ignored that statement; he wasn’t struck by it, such as to ask: “Why are we supporting the chief funders of Islamic jihad? Why are we overthrowing (or in Syria are trying to overthrow) a secular regime, against which we join foreign jihadist groups in order to overthrow that non-sectarian regime; why are these dogs, as you call the U.S. and UK, returning time and again to that vomit?”

This was a live interview program, and so the BBC censors weren’t able to eliminate Ambassador Ford’s responses from the interview; but, instead, the interviewer did his best to interrupt and to talk over Ford’s shocking — and shockingly truthful — assertions about the government (ours) that supposedly represent our  interests (and not the interests of Western oil companies etc.). Ford will probably not be invited again to be on live television in the West to air his views about Syria.

Ford’s evident anger at what’s going on, and at the media’s resistance to letting the public know about the reality, appeared to reach near to the edge of his blurting out that ulterior motives have to be behind this addiction to “vomit” — but he was a professional diplomat, and so he was able to restrain himself there.

The U.S. Secretary of State who had specifically requested the fundamentalist-Islamic Arab ‘allies’ to stop funding terrorism was Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate now contending for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. Here she was, expressing her current view regarding Syria, in a recent debate against her Democratic Party opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders:

QUESTIONER: In respect to when you take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Right now or do you wait? Do you tackle ISIS first? You have said, Secretary Clinton, that you come to the conclusion that we have to proceed on both fronts at once. We heard from the senator just this week that we must put aside the issue of how quickly we get rid of Assad and come together with countries, including Russia and Iran, to destroy ISIS first. Is he wrong?

 

CLINTON: I think we’re missing the point here. We are doing both at the same time.

 

QUESTIONER: But that’s what he’s saying, we should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.

 

CLINTON: Well, I don’t agree with that.

She’s still (now after five years, and even though she knows  that we’re supporting jihadist-backing Arabic royal families and their Shariah-law regimes) comes back to that “vomit”: that “we never saw a secular Arab regime that we didn’t want to overthrow.” She’s an example of this addiction, to that “vomit.”

She does this even though, in October 2014, the man who had collected the mega-donations to Al Qaeda (all of which had been in cash) had detailed, under oath, in a U.S. court proceeding, that the Saud family were the main people who paid the “salaries” of the 9/11 terrorists. The Saud family are now the chief backers of the overthrow-Assad campaign. Do politicians such as Clinton actually represent the Sauds? It’s not only the Bush family who do.

What’s exhibited here is a double-scandal: first, that a person such as that would even be a Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Presidency (and Jeb Bush shares Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy prescriptions, though he’s virtually certain not  to win the Republican Presidential nomination); and, second, that the Western press try to avoid, as much as possible, to expose the fact that this is, indeed, “vomit,” and avoid to explain to their audience the very corrupt governmental and news-media system that enables people such as Ms. Clinton to become and remain a leading Presidential candidate in the United States. Clearly, a person like that isn’t qualified to be in government at all; she’s corrupt, or else incredibly stupid. And no one thinks she’s that stupid. But lots of people accuse her of being corrupt.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »