Leftist Treason Update: A ‘Staggering Betrayal’ Simmering In The Senate Over Vote On Iran Deal

A ‘Staggering Betrayal’ Simmering In The Senate Over Vote On Iran Deal – Seth Lipsky

.

.
A “staggering betrayal” is how one pro-Israel activist in Washington describes any use by the Democrats of a filibuster to prevent the Iran deal from getting a full vote next month in the Senate.

That is emerging as the goal of the backers of President Obama’s contract with the mullahs. They want to block the measure from getting a vote in the Senate at all, which would leave Obama with a free hand to release billions to the Tehran regime.

The activist, Omri Ceren, who is The Israel Project’s managing director and has been working the story for months, says that would be a “stab in the face.” He notes that “Americans by a 2-1 margin want Congress to reject the bad Iran deal.”

The pro-Israel community, he says, has “worked in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to give the president breathing room for negotiations while protecting legislative prerogatives.” He thinks the Senate Democrats therefore owe Americans an up-or-down vote.

As this drama drags on, however, it’s not all that clear that we’ll see that vote. For it to take place, 60 senators must agree to cloture. At the moment, the Washington Post counts only 57 senators against or leaning against the deal.

This could change, of course. Only 33 senators are for or leaning for the deal. That leaves 10 undecided. If it does go to a vote, and the Senate votes to reject the pact, the president could veto it. At that point, even more votes against the deal would be needed to override. So it’s none too soon to think about what happens after.

One possibility is a round of recriminations among supporters of the Jewish state. Did Prime Minister Netanyahu misplay his hand? Did the American Israel Public Affairs Committee blunder by announcing a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign?

Already some are complaining that such a boast energized Iran’s supporters. For my part, I wouldn’t waste a New York nanosecond on that kind of handwringing. No opponent of this deal – least of all Israel’s elected leadership – is going to owe anyone an apology.

Moreover, if Obama fails to win a simple majority of either the Senate or the House or both, a startling situation is going to emerge. The administration is going to have to implement a pact that voters couldn’t block but still oppose.

That would be a ghastly situation for the Democrats – worse even than what happened after SALT II, the arms pact President Carter inked at Vienna with the Soviet party boss, Leonid Brezhnev, whom the American president kissed at the signing.

Mr. Carter ended up withdrawing the treaty from consideration in the Senate, where it stood no chance of ratification. SALT II was one of the reasons Mr. Carter lost the next election to Ronald Reagan (who honored the treaty only until the Kremlin violated it).

The Iran accord is different from SALT II, in that the Iran pact is not being submitted as a treaty. The whole constitutional setup, which is supposed to put the burden of proof on the president submitting the treaty, has been turned on its head.

In this deal, not only the Senate but the House must muster the votes to block the deal or it goes through automatically. If a resolution of disapproval is then vetoed by Obama, the deal still goes through.

But if Obama is left with a deal that is opposed by a majority of either the Senate or the House, the Democrats will be stuck with it. They will then be on the defensive with every hostile move Iran makes with the $150 billion the mullahs are going to get.

No doubt they’re going to try to skate through it. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has reported an amazing lack of reaction by the Obama administration and others to rocket attacks from Syria that last week struck northern Israel and that were initiated by Iran.

Those rockets are but a wake-up call to what lies ahead, just in time for a presidential election. That’s the next big fight if this deal goes through, defeating the candidate of the Democratic Party that appeased Iran. Staggering betrayal, indeed.

.

.

Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group

Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group – Walid Shoebat

Obama’s $500 million plan to combat Bashar Al-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria created an elite force called “Regiment-30”. While Fox News revealed the program only gained 54 applicants, new evidence reveals that there were “thousands of outside forces” who joined Regiment-30, who are now also joining Al-Nusra terror front in Syria. The U.S-appointed Regiment-30’s main leader, as ironclad evidence reveals, is one code-named Abu Iskandar and he has now sent out an official appeal, including airing an explosive T.V interview, confirming they joined the notorious terrorist Al-Nusra Front which carried out massacres against Christians in Adra and Maaloula in Syria. Here is how the story goes:

As soon as the U.S-backed Regiment-30 was dispatched, their commander Nadim Al Hassan and his deputy Farhan Al Jassem, along with 18 others (this would be third of the U.S. trained regiment), were “abducted” and re-educated by the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. Al-Nusra was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization and are known for massacring Christians.

The Pentagon denied the claim of the abduction of a third of this U.S.-appointed regiment. This complete lie by the Pentagon was not only flatly refuted by Reuters [1], but one official document, including an interview with the main leader of the U.S.-backed Regimen-30, First Lieutenant Abu Iskandar, reveals receiving the best of training and declares his appeal to Al-Nusra, reminding the group of its unity agreement with Al-Nusra to join forces:

.

.
The pertinent part of the plea states:


“The leadership in Regiment-30 is calling upon (and for the second time) our brothers in Al-Nusra to stop these exercises [abducting Regiment 30 operatives] and stop the bloodshed and to keep our unity [agreement] intact“.

.

.
This plea to keep a “previous unity agreement”, cemented between Regiment-30 and Al-Nusra, was also exposed from sources coming directly from the Middle East. Jenan Moussa, an Arab journalist, who was able to penetrate the headquarters of the top ranking official in the U.S. appointed Regiment-30, Lieutenant commander Abu Iskandar, reveals an amazing tale showing how this U.S. appointed team was again begging Al-Nusra terror front to keep its previous arrangements and promises in preserving the unity coalition agreement that the two had made. The clear evidence from the U.S. appointed commander spilling the beans on everything, his intentions to only use the U.S. and his previous agreement to join forces with Al-Nusra and more can be watched here. Shoebat.com translated most of the interview showing the pertinent lines.

.

.
Jenan first introduces the scene by stating:

”…they were showing me all the weapons provided by the U.S…. it is the first time that a journalist was able to get to the headquarters [of Regiment-30] which is located in Northern Aleppo”.

Abu Iskandar speaks of when Al-Nusra had attacked and abducted ten from Regiment-30 operatives on July 12, 2015 adding that: (see 1:50)

“we had arranged previously with Al-Nusra and agreed never to combat each other and we would never give any information to the allies about Al-Nusra. We are not the arm of the U.S. in Syria and we are not against Al-Nusra Front, the opposite is the truth, they [Al-Nusra] are our brothers and we personally know them… they might accuse us of being agents of the West but we are agents for our country… we are both the same sons and both sides Al-Nusra and ours who were killed are [Jihadi] martyrs…”

Jenan then asks about the detail for the collaboration and arrangements between Regiment-30 and the terrorist group Al-Nusra Front (begin at 4:17). Abu Iskandar replies:

“We are forced to make arrangements with all other fighting groups [including Al-Nusra] and we say that before we came here a week ago that we met with Al-Nusra, and four months ago we met Al-Nusra, which in turn expressed admiration for the [U.S.-led Regiment 30] program. In fact they welcomed us… our arrangements with Al-Nusra is to collaborate militarily. We are not only 54, we are thousands… We were then shocked why they kidnapped Nadim, our leader… we are not 54, we are thousands, we have ground troops on land helping us.”

The “thousands” revealed by Abu Iskandar are “defensive forces” added in by the leadership of Regiment-30. “Al-Nusra released four already” says Abu Iskandar, emphasizing that the broken unity between Al-Nusra and Regiment-30 was simply a skirmish and that both sides mended their differences.

Jenan then asks to reveal what type of weaponry Regiment-30 is using, adding that “information has been revealed that some of your weapons [provided by the allies] are now in the hands of Al-Nusra. What did they [U.S] provide you?” Abu Iskandar denied that any weapons fell in the hands of Al-Nusra and that Al-Nusra released all whom they kidnapped.

Jenan then asks (at 8:11) “Don’t you think that the Americans just dumped you here to die?” Abu Iskandar smiles, and Jenan adds “what can 54 do against all these huge numbers of the other extremist sides, especially that you are agents of the U.S. you have been already honed in on.”

Abu Iskandar replies (see 8:30):

“The Americans, you in the media keep talking about them, the Americans are only part of this alliance. They did give us aid and lots of services, but the bigger enemy [besides the U.S.] is Bashar who is defunct politically”.

Al-Nusra is known to behead Christians.

SOURCES

[1] Patrick Poole, PJMedia reported “From the Reuters report: The al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has abducted the leader of a U.S.-backed rebel group in north Syria, opposition sources and a monitoring group said, in a blow to Washington’s efforts to train and equip fighters to combat Islamic State. A statement issued in the name of the group, “Division 30″, accused the Nusra Front of abducting Nadim al-Hassan and a number of his companions in a rural area north of Aleppo. It urged Nusra to release them. A Syrian activist and a second opposition source said most of the 54 fighters who have so far completed a U.S.-led train and equip programmed in neighboring Turkey were from Division 30. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group that reports on the war, said the men were abducted while returning from a meeting in Azaz, north of Aleppo, to coordinate efforts with other factions. The opposition source said they were abducted on Tuesday night. The Telegraph is also reporting: Al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists kidnapped the commanders of a US-trained rebel faction operating in northern Syria on Wednesday, sources said, in another blow for the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program for Syrian rebels. A statement issued Wednesday by the Division 30 Infantry group accused the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, of taking the Division’s commander, Colonel Nadim Al-Hassan, and his companions in the northern countryside of Aleppo province. “[The Division] demands that the brothers in the Nusra Front release the colonel… and his companions with the utmost speed so as to preserve the blood of the Muslims and… so as not to weaken the frontlines with side disputes between the brothers of one side,” said the statement, which was released on Division 30′s official page on social media.

.

.

Former Gay Porn Kingpin, Accused Child Molester And Obama Bundler To Host VIP Democrat Party Fundraiser

Accused Child Molester And Obama Bundler To Host VIP Democratic Party Fundraiser – Gateway Pundit

Terry Bean, a former ‘gay porn kingpin’, revered gay rights pioneer and bundler for the 2012 reelection campaign of President Barack Obama, is scheduled to host a “VIP” fundraiser for the Multnomah County, Oregon Democratic Party next month – nine days after the start of his September 1 trial for having sex with a fifteen-year-old boy. Bean faces charges of two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one misdemeanor count of sexual abuse in the third degree. Prosecutors have alleged in court that Bean has a “history of abusing young boys.”

A VIP Party will take place on Thursday night, Sept. 10th at 6:30 at the home of Mr. Terry Bean, address to be provided. The Golf Tournament will tee off on Friday morning, Sept. 11th followed by the Banquet and Awards, at Riverside Country Club, NE 33rd, Portland.”

.

Gay activist and accused child molester Terry Bean with President Barack Obama.

.

Terry Bean and Kiah Lawson, photos Mutlnomah County Sheriff via KOIN-TV.

.
The announcement of the fundraiser came just days after it was reported that Bean, who usually does not donate to the county party, gave $5,000 to the Multnomah Democrats.

Democratic Party officials are standing by Bean in comments made to Portland media.

Willamette Week:

“Multnomah County Dems spokeswoman Sue Hagmeier says the party is comfortable accepting Bean’s money and hospitality. “He’s a friend of the party,” Hagmeier says. “He’s been accused of something that is a lurid crime, but he’s only been accused, not convicted. If he were convicted, we’d take another look.””

The Oregonian:

“Sue Hagmeier, the county party’s spokeswoman and a former Portland School Board member, defended accepting Bean’s help while he is under indictment.

“”He is an old friend, and that makes it kind of hard to pile on when he is accused of something – but only accused,” she said.”

Bean, 66, and his former boyfriend Kiah Lawson, 25, were charged last November with having sex with the then fifteen-year-old boy at a Eugene, Oregon motel in 2013.

According to Willamette Week, Bean and the boyfriend arranged the sexual abuse of the boy through the gay hook-up app Grinder.

“According to prosecutors, Bean and Lawson traveled to Eugene for a University of Oregon Ducks football game against California on Sept. 28, 2013. The night before, according to court records, Bean and Lawson contacted the 15-year-old via Grindr, a gay male hookup app.

“Bean and Lawson, prosecutors allege, met the minor at a west Eugene 7-Eleven and then drove him in Bean’s Mercedes to the Valley River Inn, where they had sex with him before calling him a cab and giving him $40.”

Bean blamed the charges on an extortion ring allegedly led by Lawson. Bean reportedly tried to buy off Lawson with a $40,000 payment for not disclosing Bean’s “alleged illicit sexual activities” and returning images of Bean engaged in sex. The investigation in to Bean’s activities began after reports Bean had surreptitiously videotaped sexual encounters with Lawson and other males with hidden cameras in Bean’s Portland home.

At the time of Bean and Lawson’s arrest, Lawson’s mother told KOIN-TV that Lawson was used by Bean to groom and ‘get young kids’ for sex and that as part of the grooming Bean plied Lawson with alcohol and Viagra. The alleged victim’s attorney told KOIN that the boy was “traumatized” and that the two adults needed to be held to account.

The case has taken several bizarre turns recently. In July Bean petitioned the court to dismiss the charges and allow him to pay off the boy with an undisclosed amount. The court rejected Bean’s request. Soon after that the boy disappeared with the help of his mother. Authorities have spent weeks trying to track the boy down from San Diego, California to Eugene, Oregon.

Bean’s attorney Derek Ashton contradicted the alleged victim’s attorney’s statement from November that the boy was traumatized with his statement in court last month that the boy now downplays the incident.

“…Ashton said the 15-year-old, now living in California, did not want to see Bean stand trial.

“”What he is saying is the events leading up to the indictment were not meaningful in his life,” Ashton said. “He wants the case to end now.””

Prosecutors reportedly have filed evidence in court demonstrating Bean’s sexual abuse of underage boys dates back to the 1979 when Bean would have been 30 years old.

“In court records filed July 8, prosecutors introduced evidence dating back to 1979. They say Bean, then 30, engaged in sex with a teenager, providing the 16-year-old with alcohol and drugs. The court documents allege Bean and his adult partner at the time both had sex with the teenager. The alleged victim later tried to kill himself after Bean broke off the relationship, court records say.

“The alleged victim is now a 52-year-old doctor in California who says he stepped forward because he wanted to help make sure Bean did not “keep on abusing young boys.” In court documents, he expressed concern Bean had the money to escape criminal charges with “minimal damage.””

Bean’s attorney Ashton denied the allegation, saying the only other witness was Bean’s then boyfriend who died form AIDS twenty-five years ago.

““Since Mr. Bean’s partner died of AIDS 25 years ago, there is no other witness to deny this scurrilous charge, and the prosecutor knows this,” Ashton said in a statement about the prosecutors’ July 8 filing.”

Prosecutors also alleged in court on July 16 that Bean has a history of preying on local young boys:

“”According to our investigation, our belief is that this man has a history of abusing young boys right here in Lane County,” said Clackamas County Deputy District Attorney Scott Healy. “Our biggest concern is the ongoing public safety. The defendant travels a lot and has access to young boys.”

Willamette Week has done in depth reporting on Bean’s problems and his use of his money and power in getting one of his lawyers to “represent six young men who know Bean” and employing Hilary Rosen of SKDKnickerbocker to manage media relations.

Willamette Week also raised the question of how the Secret Service allowed Bean to bring Lawson to a White House function and to a fundraiser where he was photographed meeting President Obama despite Lawson having a criminal background of assault, theft and driving on a suspended license and having several restraining orders filed against him by former male lovers.

Got News captured and reported on a 2007 tribute video to Bean by Basic Rights Oregon that featured photos of Bean with former President Bill Clinton and other prominent Democratic Party officials. Former Vice President Al Gore recorded a spoken tribute to Bean for the video. Former Republican Senator for Oregon Gordon Smith, whom Bean contributed to, also was featured in the video.

.

.
Bean’s Wikipedia page entry intro reads:

“Terrence Patrick “Terry” Bean is an American political fundraiser, a civil rights activist, and a pioneer of the LGBT rights movement. He is known for co-founding several national LGBT rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and the National Gay Games. As of 2012, he is the CEO and President of Bean Investment Real Estate and resides in Portland, Oregon. In 2014 he was arrested on charges of sexual abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy.”

.

.
The Washington Times reported Bean was appointed in 2009 to be a member of the Democratic National Committee and was appointed in 2013 to the DNC’s budget and finance committee. The Times also reported Bean has hosted Obama, Bill Clinton and Al Gore for fundraisers at his Portland home and that Bean’s access to Obama has included a trip on Air Force One and numerous visits to the White House.

.

.

Leftist Incompetence Update: Russia And Iran ‘Already Violating’ Nuclear Deal

Royce: Russia And Iran ‘Already Violating’ Nuclear Deal – CNS

.

Qods Force chief Qassem Soleimani attends a meeting of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders in Tehran on September 17, 2013. (AP Photo/Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, File)

.
The U.S. must call both Russia and Iran to account for “already violating” the nuclear agreement, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said Thursday. He was responding to a reported trip to Moscow by Iran’s Qods force commander, who is subject to U.N. travel sanctions.

“[Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani] is the chief commander for Iranian foreign forces outside of Iran who carry out their assassinations and carry out their attacks,” Royce told CNN.

“And the fact that he would violate the sanctions prior to it being lifted upon him, by jumping the gun – this gives us the opportunity to call the Russians to account, and the Iranians to account, for already violating this agreement,” he said. “And we should do so.”

As a P5+1 partner, Russia – a U.N. Security Council permanent member – is supposed to help enforce the nuclear agreement which the six powers negotiated with Tehran.

Following reports that Soleimani traveled to Moscow last month and met with President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Iran deal critics are asking: If Russia gets away with hosting him, what does that say about its likely response to any future Iranian cheating on the nuclear agreement?

Although the Obama administration agreed as part of the nuclear deal that U.N. sanctions against Soleimani and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force will be lifted, it says that will only happen in “phase two” of the agreement’s implementation – in about eight years’ time.

Any travel abroad by him ahead of that point would be in violation of the U.N. travel ban, under which all member states are required to deny him entry.

In a letter to President Obama, Royce has requested “a determination of whether the travel of Soleimani took place, its purpose, and whether it was in violation of United Nations sanctions.”

“Since the Iran agreement was signed, senior administration officials have testified that there would be no relaxing of sanctions against Iran for terrorist activity,” he wrote. “The reported free travel of Qassem Soleimani and the continuing arming of Iranian proxies throughout the Middle East is a direct challenge to that commitment.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby told a press briefing Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry in a phone conversation with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “raised concerns about the travel to Moscow by IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani.”

Later in the briefing, however, Kirby revised his wording, saying he could not independently confirm that the visit had indeed taken place, but that Kerry “has seen the reports of the travel and expressed his concerns [to Lavrov] about those reports.”

Fox News first reported on the alleged visit last week, citing unnamed Western intelligence sources.

Then Reuters reported that an “Iranian official, who declined to be identified,” confirmed that the trip had taken place, saying Soleimani had discussed “regional and bilateral issues and the delivery to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.”

Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, however, quoted a Kremlin spokesman as denying the claim (although the report’s wording left open the possibility that the denial was specifically in relation to a Soleimani-Putin meeting, rather than about whether the visit took place at all.)

Soleimani’s name appears on a list of Iranian individuals and entities in line for sanctions relief, annexed to the nuclear agreement.

Hours after the deal was announced in Vienna on July 14, a senior administration official, briefing reporters on background, was asked about Soleimani’s inclusion.

“IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani will not be delisted at the United Nations at phase one; he will be delisted at the U.N. at phase two when the underlying designation authority terminates,” the official said.

That would only occur “after eight years into the deal, so sanctions are not being lifted early on Qassem Soleimani,” the official said.

Since then, Kerry has stressed that U.S. sanctions – as opposed to U.N. ones – against Soleimani will “never” be lifted.

Soleimani is accused of directing Shi’ite militias that carried out deadly attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq during the war there. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford, he was responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

.

.

Obama Regime Intervenes In Landmark Legal Case, Attempts To Block Restitution For U.S. Victims Of Muslim Terror

Obama Admin Moves To Block Restitution For U.S. Terror Victims – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The Obama administration has intervened in a landmark legal case brought by the American victims of Palestinian terrorists, urging the court to limit restitution for the victims out of fear that a sizable payout could collapse the Palestinian government, according to a copy of the court filing.

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken argued in a filing to a New York City court that a hefty payout to the victims of Palestinian terror crimes could burden the Palestinian Authority (PA) and interfere in Obama administration efforts to foster peace in the region.

The victims are entitled to as much as $655 million from the PA following the conclusion of a decade-long lawsuit that exposed the Palestinian government’s role in supporting and paying for terror attacks in Israel.

The administration’s intervention in the case has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers and some of those affected by the decision.

While the administration supports the right of terror victims to sue in U.S. courts, it remains particularly concerned about the PA’s solvency.

“The United States respectfully urges the Court to carefully consider the impact of its decision on the continued viability of the PA in light of the evidence about its financial situation,” Blinken writes in his “statement of interest.” “An event that deprives the PA of a significant portion of its revenues would likely severely compromise the PA’s ability to operate as a governmental authority.”

Blinken goes on to warn that the case could impact U.S. security interests and its role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“A PA insolvency and collapse would harm current and future U.S.-led efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Blinken writes.

Representatives to the PA had been lobbying the Justice and State Departments to get involved in the case for some time. The PA maintains that it does not have enough funds to pay a bond requirement and has petitioned the judge in the case to drop it.

However, a lawyer representing the victims argues that if the Palestinian government can continue paying terrorists currently imprisoned in Israeli jails, it can pay the victims of these terror acts.

“We are gratified that the Department of Justice supports the rights of survivors of international terrorism to enforce their rights and collect the judgment, but disappointed that the State Department failed to take any stand against the PLO and PA’s policy of putting convicted terrorists on their payroll as soon as they are jailed,” lawyer Kent Yalowitz was quoted as saying in a statement. “If the PA has enough money to pay convicted terrorists, it has enough to pay the judgment in this case.”

Ron Gould, a plaintiff in the case, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview that there was no reason for the Obama administration to intervene.

“There was really no reason for them to even get involved,” said Gould, whose daughter Shayna was shot in the chest and nearly killed by Palestinian terrorists. “For the Obama administration to stick their fingers where they don’t belong is unconscionable.”

The PA “still seems to have the money to pay the families of the terrorists on an ongoing basis,” Gould said. “They do have the money to pay the piper for losing the court case.”

Shayna Gould welcomed the administration’s filing in the case, saying it reaffirms the rights of terror victims to have a fair day in court.

However, she called the argument that the PA could be bankrupted as a result of the suit “ironic, considering they pay terrorists on a monthly basis.”

Shayna Gould said the PA had been hinting that the U.S. government would get involved for quite some time

“It was a fear. It was a huge fear,” she said, adding that the PA should be forced to finally pay up.

“They, with pride, give money and rank of the highest honor to terrorists and people who commit murder,” Gould said. “Does that sound like clipping coupons and saving pennies?”

“I have to deal with [the impact of their violence] in my life on a constant basis,” Gould added, explaining that she deals with physical pain on a daily basis since the attack. “There is no limit to our suffering.”

Jewish human rights group B’nai B’rith was also critical of the administration’s intervention.

“There needs to be a price paid for committing acts of terror and the means available to prosecute those responsible,” the group said in a release. “While the victims’ families cannot bring their loved ones back, they can go to the courts to achieve redress.”

.

.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Claims Obama Allowed ISIS To Form So It Would Overthrow Syrian Government

Former DIA Director Gen Flynn Says Obama Created ISIS, Supposedly To Overthrow Syrian Government – Universal Free Press

.

.
Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, the former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is accusing the Obama regime of lying about the rise of ISIS and the assertion that they were somehow caught off guard. He says that far from being surprised by ISIS, the Obama regime allowed them to form in a deliberate act intended to unite Sunni Muslims against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria.

According to a report in WND, the circumstances surrounding the rise of ISIS are similar to those claimed by Iran and other Arab nations, which state that it was the United States government that created ISIS. They sponsored, which means at a minimum organized and funded and most probably trained as well, radical jihadists who later became the Jabhad al-Nusra and ISIS, supposedly as forces to be used in fighting the Syrian government.

Flynn also verified the authenticity of a 2012 DIA document that was recently obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request which had previously been classified with no foreign access but was now declassified in a heavily redacted form. WND quoted that text as stating, “This is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Interviewed by Al Jazeera, Flynn left no room for doubt, stating, “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”

In support of the General’s claims, Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA analyst who is now the director of the Congressional Advisory Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, describe Flynn, saying, “Gen. Michael Flynn is very honorable and honest, indeed, courageous; so I credit what he says.” In other words, he’s everything that Hussein Obama is not, so who are you going to believe?

“The Obama administration should not have been surprised by the rapid rise of ISIS, since it was anticipated by DIA.” Pry attributed whatever surprise may have existed as being the result of Obama’s Ego, arrogance, stubbornness, and possibly anti-Americanism, saying, “Incompetence and ideology probably account for why the administration was surprised. This will not be the first time the administration has ignored the advice of military and intelligence professionals.”

According to the WND article, the report actually detailed the anticipated actions of what would later be called ISIS in Iraq. It stated that ISIS, at the time called the opposition forces, “will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring [Syrian] refugees.

It also stated, “If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). Those supporting powers included and were most prominently the United States.”

It further predicted the development of ISIS, stating, “This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters.

As if looking into a crystal ball, the document continued, “ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

General Flynn’s version of events explains the public “confusion” and failure to recognize the threat posed by ISIS and to a large degree the unwillingness of the Obama regime to engage the terrorist organization in any meaningful way. It also explains how John McCain happened to end up mugging in photographs with known ISIS affiliated terrorists prior to the group self-identifying as the Islamic State. They could have been called McCain’s Army or Johnny’s jihadists.

Could this have been what Hussein Obama was talking about when he said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” The devil lies in knowing the details of just what those national security objectives were.

There’s no reason to believe that Obama would actively be attempting to destroy American in every other manner imaginable, as we have witnessed, but would work to enhance our national security in this one specific area. His national security objectives clearly must also be to weaken and destroy the United States. Creating ISIS and then importing them into the United States as Syrian refugees or across our now porous southern border would be a logical and efficient way of achieving that goal.

ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful, they’ve got Iraqi oil so they’re well-funded, and they’re well armed with American equipment that was supposedly abandoned by the Iraqi Army after the first shot was fired.

It would also help to explain why we deposed Saddam Hussein in spite of the fact that he had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11. Chaos had to be fomented to create a terrorist breeding and training ground. Maybe Saddam had to go to make way for ISIS.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Regime Siding With Muslim Terrorists Against American Citizens In Court


.

.

President Asshat Claims Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners

Obama’s Terrible Iran Speech: My Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners – Hot Air

.

.
The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency – so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

————————————————————————————————————————–
David Harsanyi
@davidharsanyi

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

12:50 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is – and always disingenuously – when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

In fact, that’s basically an Iranian talking point coming out of the president’s mouth, that some elements of the U.S. government are stone-cold fanatics who’ll accept nothing short of war with Iran. You hear a lot of Iranian talking points coming from the White House lately, curiously enough: Ed wrote this morning about John Kerry warning his former colleagues in Congress not to “screw” the country’s lunatic supreme leader by torpedoing a deal he kinda sorta supports. Here’s another choice bit from the same interview when Kerry was asked why we would agree to advanced enrichment 10 years from now by a country that’s sworn it’ll destroy Israel:

Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis – and by many Americans – that Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel, mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know…” Here I interjected: “Wipe it off the map.” Kerry continued: “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me – they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”

That’s some fine PR for the mullahs: They haven’t tried to destroy Israel yet, and as far as what the future holds, who knows? And yet it’s the GOP, according to this guy’s boss, that’s making common cause with Iranian lunatics, not the White House. Over to you, Michael Weiss:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Michael Weiss
@michaeldweiss

Please posit these two news stories, conveniently placed side by side.

2:03 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Two clips for you here, one about “common cause” and the other of Obama acknowledging that, sure, some of the money Iran gets after sanctions are lifted will go towards funding terror. This too he defends as if his deal was the only possible outcome of the negotiations: Sanctions relief was always going to be part of a nuclear agreement, he notes, so if you oppose that, you oppose diplomacy altogether. That would be a fair point if the agreement had produced something more meaningful for the U.S., like a permanent end to Iranian nuclearization. If the program had been “dismantled” rather than simply slowed down for 10 years, even Netanyahu could have gone along with it; the benefit would have been worth the cost of some extra cash in Iran’s terror treasury. Instead they got the money and we got nothing more than a 10-year respite from having to decide what to do about a fanatic Shiite regime with nuclear “breakout” capacity. And you know what the weirdest part of all of this is? For all their demagoguery and desperation in pushing this deal, Obama and Kerry don’t need to sell it at all. There’s nothing the GOP can do to stop it. The purchase has already been made in Congress. Obama and Kerry are getting nasty here not because they think it’s essential to getting Democrats to buy in but because, I think, they simply resent having their diplomatic master work criticized so sharply. It’s personal.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Barack Obama’s Lowest Moment Yet? – John Hinderaker

Today President Obama gave a speech at American University, urging acceptance of his nuclear deal with Iran. It was the usual exercise in deception and demagoguery, and he skated up to the edge of accusing opponents of the deal – a majority of Americans, apparently – of treason.

After some initial reminiscence about the Cold War, Obama leaped right into misrepresenting the agreement’s terms:

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The “prohibition” consists of a pious declaration by Iran which it can repudiate at any time. The agreement contains no provisions that will permanently impede Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons. The provisions that (if adhered to) would materially impede Iran’s nuclear weapons program expire in no more than 15 years.

Next, the president offered up a revisionist history of the war in Iraq–a topic of dubious relevance at best:

[M]any of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Whereas others who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case in favor of the Iran deal–Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example. So what? Next comes a breathtaking series of lies:

I said that America didn’t just have to end that war – we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

No American administration has ever preferred war to diplomacy. The war in Iraq was anything but unilateral, as more than 20 countries participated in the U.S.-led coalition. And the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs was not exaggerated, as we know from the now-public October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. (Nor, as we now know, was that intelligence entirely wrong.)

Obama recites Iraq’s recent history, but leaves out a key point:

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Obama neglects to mention his own role: in 2011 he prematurely withdrew all American troops from Iraq, crowing that Iraq was then “sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” a fact that Vice-President Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements.” Iraq was sovereign and stable but not, as military leaders warned, entirely self-reliant. It was Obama’s needless withdrawal of the last American troops that allowed Iraq to spiral toward chaos and permitted ISIS – the Islamic State in Syria – to move into Iraq. But Obama has never once in his life taken responsibility for anything.

Who is to blame for Iran’s nuclear program? Why, President Bush, of course!

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges – the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb – that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges…

IAEA reports indicate that Iran’s Natanz facility had around 5,500 centrifuges when Obama took office, and over 15,000 by May 2015. With the Fordow facility, Iran now has around 19,000 centrifuges operating. But it’s all Bush’s fault!

As always, Obama misrepresented the terms of the agreement. These are issues we have written about many times, so I won’t address those misrepresentations in detail. But here are a couple:

If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own.

Sheer fantasy. Much of the sanctions relief that Iran most craves can never be taken back–most notably, the $100 billion to $150 billion in frozen funds that will soon flow to Tehran. Further, all commercial deals that are entered into during the period of sanctions relief are excepted from future sanctions.

Even with those huge loopholes, the “snap back” is a fiction. Even U.S. sanctions will not “snap back” automatically; they will have to be reimposed by Congress and implemented over a period of time. We will have no control over whether the E.U. reimposes sanctions. The supposed “snap back” mechanism is limited to U.N. sanctions, and, as I wrote here, it is doubtful whether paragraph 37 of the agreement, the purported snap back provision, would actually cause U.N. sanctions to be reimposed based on the vote of one member of the Security Council.

It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money – revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

This is a very recent and highly dubious talking point. Until the last week or two, as I wrote here, every source I am aware of has long estimated Iran’s frozen assets at $100 billon to $150 billion. In fact, the Treasury Department, which John Kerry cited as the source for the administration’s new number, pegged the frozen assets at “approximately $100 billion” in sworn testimony before a Congressional committee in January of this year. And that is just a down payment on the economic benefit that Iran’s mullahs will receive from the end of sanctions.

No doubt the worst portion of Obama’s speech is the one that has gotten the most attention. Note how Obama walks right up to the line of accusing Republicans in Congress of treason:

Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)

No, but it is what Iran’s rulers believe. Iran’s Supreme Leader frequently leads mobs in chants of “Death to America.” Does Obama think he is kidding?

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)

If Obama had said that the Republican caucus is making common cause with Iran’s hardliners, it would have been an unambiguous accusation of treason. By phrasing it the other way around–the hardliners are making common cause with Republicans–Obama gives himself a slight margin of deniability. But either way, it is a disgusting slander.

It is also delusional. Iran’s hardliners are the regime in power. The mullahs are not aligning themselves with Republicans; on the contrary, they are trumpeting the fact that they got everything they wanted in their negotiations with John Kerry and Barack Obama. But Obama can’t, and won’t, confront that reality. He will just go on slandering his political opponents and lying to the American people.

Barack Obama is a terrible president, but he is a worse man.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
State Department Unaware Of Reports Iran Is Sanitizing Nuclear Sites – Washington Free Beacon

State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said he was unaware of reports that claim Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear site on Wednesday.

Bloomberg reported that Congress has received evidence from the intelligence community that Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear military site at Parchin.

Toner was asked if the State Department has seen the report.

“The U.S. intelligence community has informed of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin in broad daylight days after agreeing to the nuclear deal with world powers,” the reporter said. “The new evidence, which is classified, satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery.”

“I’ve not seen those reports until you just spoke to them,” Toner said. “But, you know, we’ve been very clear that the joint agreement that we plan that you can’t hide nuclear activity. There are traces that remain.”

Toner clarified, saying that he could not elaborate.

“But I can’t speak to that specific instance you’re talking about,” Toner said.

Skeptics of the nuclear agreement have concerns about confidential side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that detail the inspection procedures into Iran’s suspected nuclear sites like Parchin.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.
U.S. SENATE HEARING ON THE OBAMA REGIME’S IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT


……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.

Leftist Psychopath Update: Obama Condemns Body Parts Harvesting… In Africa

Obama Condemns ‘Body Parts Harvesting’… In Africa – Tammy Bruce

.

.
POTUS met with young African leaders today, and spoke forcefully against the killing of others to harvest body parts in Africa.

But speaking out against Planned Parenthood’s selling of baby body parts in the U.S.A.?

Not so much…

Via CNS News:

President Barack Obama told a group of young African leaders on Monday that killing others to harvest body parts was a “foolish tradition.”

At the Young African Leaders Initiative summit in Washington D.C., President Obama was asked about the killing of Albinos in Africa and the harvesting of their body parts for ritual purposes…

Obama condemned the practice as “foolish traditions.”

“When I was in Africa, I said, there are important traditions and folkways that need to be respected that’s part of who each culture is – each country is – but there’s also foolish traditions and old ways of doing business,” Obama said…

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Fifth Undercover Planned Parenthood Video Released: ‘This Patient Was Like 18 Weeks’ – The Blaze

A pro-life, medical ethics group has released the fifth video in its ongoing undercover series that allegedly shows Planned Parenthood doctors and staffers discussing the sale of aborted fetal body parts.

The latest footage, which was captured on April 9, 2015, features Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, Texas, who proclaims that her organization has been “doing research for many, many years.”

Farrell also allegedly tells two actors posing as tissue buyers that Planned Parenthood can “get creative about when and where, and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue procurement needs.”

At one point, the buyers speak with her about “financial gain” over a meal, and at another point they are seen with medical staff observing fetal remains in a pathology lab — an incredibly graphic scene that is reminiscent of what unfolded at a different clinic in the fourth video.

“This patient was at, like, 18 weeks, I think,” one medical staffer says, while sifting through fetal remains.

The clip also features the faux tissue buyers presumably asking if abortion procedures can be changed and adjusted to account for specific organ and tissue needs, including fully intact fetuses – to which Farrell seemingly responds affirmatively.

“So, if we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” she said. “I mean that’s – it’s all just a matter of line items.”

Watch the shocking footage below (caution: graphic):

.

.
The footage seemingly repeatedly shows Farrell discussing how specific needs are taken into account.

“We’ve had studies in which the company, or in the case of the investigator, has a specific need, for a certain portion of the products of conception and we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that,” she said.

Farrell did mention in the heavily edited clip that input would be required from the doctors who perform the abortions.

“In the cases of when it’s mattered, you know, physicians also need an intact specimen, they can make it happen,” she added.

This follows a fourth video that featured Dr. Savita Ginde, vice-president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly discussing payment per organ that is extracted from aborted fetuses.

.

.

New Obama Regulations Will Close Hundreds Of Coal Plants, Block New Ones, Increase Electricity Costs 80%

EPA Regs Will Close Hundreds Of Coal Plants, Block New Ones, Increase Costs 80% – Independent Sentinel

.

.
Obama is to fossil fuels what locusts are to crops.

The administration is coming up with Draconian regulations on coal plants Monday and they are worse than originally planned.

A government official promised on Tuesday that regulations will cost taxpayers as much as 80% more for electricity but the New York Times said the “administration argues that the rules will save the average American family $85 annually in electricity costs and bring additional health benefits.” You read that correctly.

This is the government engineered unFree Market at work. Read on.

We were promised a savings of $2500 a year in our health insurance premiums but they are skyrocketing. This energy debacle appears to be going down the same road. All of this is to control us. Coal is not bad enough to warrant this overreaction but the president wants his ideology in place.

On Tuesday, Julio Friedmann, deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the Department of Energy, told members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight board that regulations for new coal plants would increase electricity prices by as much as 80%, as reported by the Washington Examiner.

“The precise number will vary, but for first generation we project $70 to $90 per ton [on the wholesale price of electricity],” Friedmann said. “For second generation, it will be more like a $40 to $50 per ton price. Second generation of demonstrations will begin in a few years, but won’t be until middle of the next decade that we will have lessons learned and cost savings.”

In other words, prices are anticipated to go up, then come down as the technology develops but they will never be inexpensive as they were.

The problem is mainly that the CCS technology they are forcing on the coal plants is not ready for prime time and the people will have to shoulder the costs of the premature regulations and the immature technology. The lowered future costs are reliant on their betting on the technology they admit is not ready for use.

Friedman said coal plants would not install the CCS technology without the mandate and the government will subsidize them. That’s another cost to taxpayers so the government can force the technology through quickly.

If the technology is not ready for use, how can it be mandated and how do we know it will work?

Laura Sheehan, senior vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity accused the Obama administration of trying to drive up energy costs and put Americans out of work.

“Today’s hearing shed further light on how grossly underdeveloped CCS remains and revealed the staggering cost increases American consumers and manufacturers will face if future power plants are forced to operate under EPA’s inane regulations,” Sheehan said. “DOE and EPA are wasting valuable taxpayer dollars by pursuing policies that will do nothing to build economic confidence and create jobs but everything to drive up energy costs and put hardworking Americans out of work.”

The government and their environmental group partners refused to listen to requests for more realistic cost ranges.

The New York Times reported that on Monday, EPA head Gina McCarthy will announce the toughest Obama regulations to date, regulations which will possibly shut down hundreds of coal-fired plants and freeze construction of new coal plants. This is part of the administration’s fundamental transformation of the energy sector which he has basically seized via the EPA.

He is fighting global warming which he sees as an existential threat though many believe his nationalization of every U.S. sector is more of an existential threat.

The NY Times reports, “the most aggressive of the regulations requires the nation’s existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation.”

They added, “That new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. While the proposed rule would have allowed states to lower emissions by transitioning from plants fired by coal to plants fired by natural gas, which produces about half the carbon pollution of coal, the final rule is intended to push electric utilities to invest more quickly in renewable sources, raising to 28 percent from 22 percent the share of generating capacity that would come from such sources.”

The administration could not get a cap and trade bill passed so the president took out his pen and phone and is putting through a cap and trade bill that will probably negatively impact the lives of the middle class Americans he purports to help. If the president wins in court, it will force every state to implement his cap and trade.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell comes from a coal state and has told governors to refuse to follow the mandates.

The NY Times added that “experts”, who were left unnamed in the article, say that emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. They are referring to the global warming that is in its 21st year of not warming.

Taxpayers can take small solace in the fact that this is for Mr. Obama’s legacy and he’s ramping up in time for his term’s end.

The administration says this will save the average taxpayer $85 a year but they might be using Common Core math because that’s not what Mr. Friedman said on Tuesday.

Leftist think tanks like ThinkProgress predict lower energy bills but that is not what Barack Obama promised in January 2008.

.

.

.

Leftist Nightmare Update: 22 Of 23 Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare Co-Ops Lost Money In 2014

22 Of 23 Taxpayer-Backed Obamacare Co-Ops Lost Money In 2014, Audit Finds – Daily Signal

.

.
A new report from a government watchdog examining the success of taxpayer-funded Obamacare co-ops found that the vast majority lost money last year and struggled to enroll consumers, throwing their ability to repay the taxpayer-funded loans into question.

According to the audit from the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general, 22 of the 23 co-ops created under the Affordable Care Act experienced net losses through the end of 2014. Additionally, 13 of the 23 nonprofit insurers enrolled significantly less people than projected.

Co-ops, or consumer-oriented and operated plans, are nonprofit insurance companies created under Obamacare. Co-ops exist in a variety of capacities, and lawmakers hoped the entities would foster competition in areas where few insurance options were available.

The co-ops received $2 billion in loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to assist in their launch and solvency. However, the government watchdog warned that repayment may not be possible.

“The low enrollment and net losses might limit the ability of some co-ops to repay startup and solvency loans and to remain viable and sustainable,” the report said.

Andy Slavitt, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, attributed the co-ops’ financial losses to the difficulties of moving into a new market.

“The co-ops enter the health insurance market with a number of challenges, [from] building a provider network to pricing premiums that will sustain the business for the long term,” he said. “As with any new set of business ventures, it is expected that some co-ops will be more successful than others.”

Roughly half of the nonprofit co-ops struggled to enroll consumers, and the vast majority experienced significant losses in 2014.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general report, Arizona’s co-op, Meritus Health Partners, saw the lowest enrollment when compared with its projections. Through the end of 2014, the insurer enrolled just 869 Arizona consumers, compared with its projected enrollment of 23,998.

By contrast, New York far surpassed its enrollment projections. As of Dec. 31, Health Republic Insurance of New York signed up 155,402 people. It expected to enroll 30,864.

Additionally, 22 of the 23 co-ops experienced net losses as of Dec. 31, with the exception of Maine Community Health Options, which was profitable.

Just two insurance companies, including the co-op, offered plans on the federal exchange in Maine. Maine Community Health Options offered the lowest-priced coverage and enrolled 80 percent of marketplace consumers in the state, according to the inspector general.

In South Carolina, Consumers’ Choice Health Insurance Company exceeded profitability projections as of the end of 2014. However, the co-op still incurred net losses of $3.8 million. It expected a net income loss of $8.1 million.

Information regarding income for the co-op serving Iowa and Nebraska, CoOportunity, was not available, as the insurer was liquidated in March. CoOportunity received $145.3 million from the federal government in startup and solvency loans.

The report from the Department of Health and Human Services watchdog came after Louisiana’s co-op, Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc., announced last week it would be discontinuing operations at the end of the year. The nonprofit insurer projected to enroll 28,106 Louisiana consumers in 2014 but signed up just 9,980 through the federal marketplace.

Additionally, Louisiana Health Cooperative incurred $20.6 million in net losses as of Dec. 31.

Similarly, Tennessee’s co-op, Community Health Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, froze enrollment during Obamacare’s second open enrollment period, which began in October. The co-op cited its financial conditions as a reason for its enrollment freeze.

According to the inspector general’s report, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services placed four co-ops on “enhanced oversight and corrective action plans.” Two were put on notice for low enrollment.

.

.

Obamanomics Update: President Asshat Owns Worst Economic Numbers Since 1932

Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers In 80 Years, Since 1932 – Gateway Pundit

.

.
Thanks to Obamanomics the US economy is plodding through the worst recovery in decades.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

The economic expansion – already the worst on record since World War II – is weaker than previously thought, according to newly revised data.

From 2012 through 2014, the economy grew at an all-too-familiar rate of 2% annually, according to three years of revised figures the Commerce Department released Thursday. That’s a 0.3 percentage point downgrade from prior estimates.

The revisions were released concurrently with the government’s first estimate of second-quarter output.

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has advanced at a 2.2% annual pace through the end of last year. That’s more than a half-percentage point worse than the next-weakest expansion of the past 70 years, the one from 2001 through 2007. While there have been highs and lows in individual quarters, overall the economy has failed to break out of its roughly 2% pattern for six years.

It’s even worse than we thought.

Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932 – over 80 years.

The Daily Caller reported:

Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office. This slow growth should not be a surprise in light of the policies this administration has pursued.

An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.

.

.

Intel Assessment: Obama Regime’s Incompetent Response To Cyber Attacks Encouraging More Of Them

Intel Assessment: Weak Response To Breaches Will Lead To More Cyber Attacks – Washington Free beacon

.

.
The United States will continue to suffer increasingly damaging cyber attacks against both government and private sector networks as long as there is no significant response, according to a recent U.S. intelligence community assessment.

Disclosure of the intelligence assessment, an analytical consensus of 16 U.S. spy agencies, comes as the Obama administration is debating how to respond to a major cyber attack against the Office of Personnel Management. Sensitive records on 22.1 million federal workers, including millions cleared for access to secrets, were stolen by hackers linked to China’s government.

U.S. officials familiar with the classified cyber assessment discussed its central conclusion but did not provide details.

Spokesmen for the White House and office of the director of national intelligence declined to comment.

Recent comments by President Obama and senior military and security officials, however, reflect the intelligence assessment.

Obama said during a summit in Germany June 8 that he would not disclose who conducted the OPM hack. But he said such attacks would continue.

“We have known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities and that these vulnerabilities are gonna accelerate as time goes by, both in systems within government and within the private sector,” the president said.

Last week, Adm. Mike Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, said the increase in state-sponsored cyber attacks is partly the result of a perception that “there’s not a significant price to pay” for such attacks.

Privately, administration officials said the assessment appears to be an indirect criticism of the administration’s approach to cyber attacks that has emphasized diplomatic and law enforcement measures instead of counter-cyber attacks.

“The administration is expecting more attacks because they’re unwilling to do anything,” said one official. “They’re preparing for more attacks because we’re failing to deter and defend against them.”

Intelligence and cyber security experts agreed with the assessment that weak U.S. responses are encouraging more cyber attacks.

“Until we redefine warfare in the age of information, we will continue to be viciously and dangerously attacked with no consequences for those attackers,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former Defense Intelligence Agency director.

“The extraordinary intellectual theft ongoing across the U.S.’s cyber critical infrastructure has the potential to shut down massive components of our nation’s capabilities, such as health care, energy and communications systems. This alone should scare the heck out of everyone.”

James Lewis, a cyber security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed. Lewis said the defensive approach that emphasizes closing vulnerabilities to cyber attacks is not working.

“Unless we punch back, we will continue to get hit,” Lewis said.

Lewis says that conducting retaliatory cyber strikes without starting a war is difficult but not impossible.

“There are a lot of ways to do this – leaking some party leader’s bank account could be a good start,” Lewis said. “Many people think a cyber response is the best way to signal where the lines are the other side should not cross.”

“We’re all coming to the same place – that a defensive orientation doesn’t work,” he added.

Rogers, the Cyber Command chief who has stated in the past that he favors more aggressive U.S. responses, acknowledged that the U.S. response to the OPM hack has been muted compared to the government’s highly-public response to North Korea’s damaging cyber attack in November against Sony Pictures Entertainment. The Sony hack was a failed bid by the North Koreans to derail the release of a comedy film critical of dictator Kim Jong Un.

Major incidents in recent months include the Sony attack; cyber attacks against the health care provider Anthem that compromised the records of some 80 million people; attacks against State Department and White House networks from suspected Russian government-linked hackers; the OPM hacking; and an Iranian-backed cyber attack against the Sands casino in Las Vegas.

Asked about the increase in state-sponsored attacks, Rogers said during a security conference in Colorado that one factor has been a lack of response.

Rogers earlier in congressional testimony has suggested a more muscular cyber policy that would include demonstrations and threats of retaliatory cyber attacks against hackers in a bid to create deterrence similar to the Cold War-era strategic nuclear deterrence.

In addition to more capable hackers, “you’ve got a perception, I believe, that to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors,” Rogers aid.

“Whether it’s stealing intellectual property; whether it’s getting in and destroying things as we saw in the Sony attack; whether it’s going after large masses of data – OPM being the most recent but go back to the summer of ’14 and we saw a successful penetration of a large health insurance company and the extraction of most of the medical records and personal data information that they had.”

Nation states are only one part of the threat. Criminal groups also are conducting large-scale cyber attacks, Rogers said.

In November, Rogers said he argued for going public in naming North Korea’s communist regime for the Sony hack and having the president make a public statement that Pyongyang would pay a price.

Rogers said some officials in the administration favored a less public response to the Sony case.

“So one of my concerns was this time it was a movie,” Rogers said. “What if next time a nation state, a group, an individual, an actor decides I don’t like the U.S. policy, I don’t like a U.S. product, I don’t agree with this particular position taken by a company, or taken by an individual. If we start down this road, this is not a good one for us as a nation.”

Rogers said he argued strongly that “we cannot pretend that this did not happen,” and that the attack had to be linked to North Korea directly.

“My concern was if we do nothing, then one of the potential unintended consequences of this could be does this send a signal to other nation states, other groups, other actors that this kind of behavior [is okay] and that you can do this without generating any kind of response,” Rogers said.

On not naming the Chinese for the OPM hack, Rogers appears to have lost out during the administration’s debate on naming the Chinese.

“OPM is an ongoing issue,” Rogers said, adding that he would not discuss the specifics of internal discussions.

“But I would acknowledge, hey, to date the response to OPM, there’s a thought process and I’m the first to acknowledge to date we have to take a different approach.”

Asked if he agreed with doing nothing about the OPM response, Rogers suggested some action might be forthcoming.

“Just because you’re not reading something in the media does not mean that there’s not things ongoing,” he said. “So I would argue, let’s step back and see how this plays out a little bit.”

He defended the more public U.S. response to the Sony hack that included limited sanctions against North Korean agencies and officials, by noting that to date no similar cyber attacks by Pyongyang have been conducted.

.

.

President Asshat Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting With Kurds Against ISIS

Obama Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting ISIS – Gateway Pundit

Forty to fifty Americans are fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS –

.

.
Retired U.S. Marine Jordan Matson joined the YPG Kurdish fighters to fight ISIS in September 2014.

Jordan told Greta Van Susteren in February that there are 40-50 Americans fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS.

He also said the Kurds are very hospitable to Christians and Yazidis.

.

.
British ex-soldiers are also fighting with Kurdish forces against the Islamic State.

.

.
James Hughes, 26, and Jamie Read, 24, are fighting alongside other foreign volunteers with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units.

This week Obama gave a green light to Turkey to bomb the Kurds.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

Msg. to the American people and the US gov. : Is this a penalty because we fought against ISIS instead of the world ?

10:45 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Turkish jets struck camps belonging to Kurdish militants in northern Iraq this weekend. This was Turkey’s first strike on the Kurds since a 2013 peace deal.

Americans and British soldiers are fighting with Kurds against ISIS.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

After the nuclear deal between Iran and US
Kurds= terrorists
Shiite militias (#PMF) = Forces to protect human rights.

9:40 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————–
Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

No Friends but the Mountains: The Fate of the Kurds
White House calls Kurdish force a terrorist group.
#PKK #Turkey
https://twitter.com/kurdistan_army/status/625118478639349760

5:19 AM – 26 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

Obama Crime Syndicate Update: Regime Violates Executive Amnesty Injunction… AGAIN!

‘OOPS!’ Feds Violate Executive Amnesty Injunction… Again! – Breitbart

.

.
The government has once again violated a federal court’s injunction prohibiting the implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty plan. The action comes right before high-ranking federal government officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have been ordered to appear in an August hearing to show why they should not be held in contempt for prior failures to comply with the injunction.

The litigation began in December 2014 when the state of Texas and 25 other states filed a federal lawsuit to halt President Obama’s amnesty plan.

A federal judge in Brownsville, Judge Andrew Hanen, issued an injunction in early February temporarily stopping the implementation of the executive amnesty plan.

In April, Judge Hanen issued a scathing rebuke directed at government lawyers and the DHS for misrepresentations made in the case, ordered the government to produce related documents, and warned the government against destroying any of this evidence, as reported by Breitbart Texas.

On July 7th, Judge Hanen ordered top Obama administration officials to personally appear in his court.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and all other federal defendants, were ordered to attend a hearing on August 19th at 10 a.m. to show why the judge should not hold them in contempt of court.

Other defendant top officials ordered to appear include: R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Sarah R Saldana, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border of Protection.

The judge said he would cancel the hearing if a report ordered filed on July 31st satisfied him that the situation had been remedied. “Otherwise, the Court intends to utilize all available powers to compel compliance.”

The government’s latest report, and supplemental report, were filed just a few weeks before the July 31st compliance date.

Lawyers for the federal government have been working on the reports, called an “advisory,” to update the judge.

When compiling the report, the government found yet another failure by the federal government to follow the federal judge’s orders. The government has had to scurry in an attempt to avoid further wrath by the judge.

A government contractor mailed approximately 500 cards extending work and stay authorizations.

The executive amnesty plan would expand from two to three years, work authorizations and stays in the U.S.

The cards had been mailed prior to the injunction but were returned because of a problem with the addresses. The contractor updated the addresses and then mailed them out again – this time after the court’s injunction.

The government assures the Court that it is taking immediate actions to address the new violations.

The government says they have attempted to remedy this new problem by sending letters to these individuals demanding that they return the cards.

In his July order, Judge Hanen warned the government if violations which had been committed as of that time had not been corrected, and corrected by the end of the month, “the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful orders.”

He continued, “Neither side should interpret this Court’s personal preference to not sanction lawyers or parties as an indication that it will merely acquiesce to a party’s unlawful conduct.”

The judge noted in his July 7th order that there had been “approximately 2,000 individuals that were given various benefits in violation of this Court’s order after the injunction was issued.”

He wrote, “The Court was first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions – violations which have not been fixed.”

The judge warned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and federal officials that “no reasonable person could possibly consider a direct violation of an injunction a side issue.”

He also wrote, “the Court is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regards to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation.”

He noted that the situation had not been corrected six weeks after the government admitted it had violated the orders on May 7th and promised it would mend the situation.

In ordering federal officials to the August 19th hearing in Brownsville, he also ordered that “the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as the Court will not continue this matter to a later date.”

At that time, the Court stated that the administration “has not remediated its own violative behavior,” despite the passage of two months. The judge wrote, “That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional.”

Judge Hanen warned, “To be clear, this Court expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Compliance as to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance.”

It is unknown how the Court will take yet another violation of its orders.

.

.

Nuclear Iran Update: Obama Regime Claims Two Secret Side Deals Are Not Secret Side Deals

WH Says 2 Secret Side Deals Are Not ‘Secret Side Deals’ – Sweetness & Light

.

.
These deals are literally secret and they are certainly on the side from the main agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations. So what else is the White House lying to us about?

From The Hill:

White House: Iran-IAEA pacts are not ‘side deals’

By Jordan Fabian | July 23, 2015

Agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not secret “side deals” to the main nuclear pact between Tehran and six world powers, the White House said Thursday. “This does not represent some sort of side deal,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

They are separate deals from the agreement between the P5+1 nations and they are secret. So they are secret side deals. Why try to lie about it? And if the White House is willing to lie to us about this, what else are they about?]

Republicans have seized on the existence of what they call “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA to build support against the deal in Congress…

It’s not just Republicans. Several Democrats have also expressed concerns about these secret side deals. Including Democrat Senator Ben Cardin (Md.), who, along with Senator Corker, sent a letter to Kerry demanding the text of these two side deals.

Earnest dismissed those concerns, saying lawmakers have all the information necessary to judge the deal, which limits Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“I know there has been a suggestion by some Republicans [sic] that there are some agreements that were cut off to the side,” Earnest said. “The fact is, this is a critical part of the agreement.”…

So Earnest admits these deals are a critical part of the Iran agreement. Even though they were not negotiated by the US. And, in fact, the US will not eve be allowed to see the deals between the IAEA and Iran.

Earnest acknowledged that information regarding the Iran-IAEA pacts was not provided to lawmakers Wednesday during classified briefings for House and Senate members held by Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

And never mind that on Wednesday Susan Rice has specifically promised that Congress would be given that information at that classified briefing. From The Hill: “Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill.”

But Earnest pledged that lawmakers will receive classified briefings on the bilateral pacts. “Our negotiators will, in a classified setting, have a conversation with those members of Congress about what exactly the IAEA is seeking,” he said.

Some day.

.

.

*VIDEO* Allen West Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat During Times Square Anti-Iran Rally


.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Sets Smarmy Obama Lackey Straight On Criminal Illegal Alien Stats


.

.

*VIDEO* Elderly Veteran Gang-Tackled During Obama VFW Speech For Holding Benghazi Sign


.

.

President Asshat Lied: There Are No Ballistic Missile Restrictions In Iran Deal

Obama Lied: There Are No Ballistic Missile Restrictions In Iran Deal – Big Government

.

.
President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a “non-nuclear” issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama’s brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no effective ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely “called upon” to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.

The old text of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), reads:

…Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities…

The Iran deal, as formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), reads:

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

In his press conference last week, President Obama claimed that he had insisted, and won, an eight-year concession from the Iranians:

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran’s activities, let’s press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is closer to the truth than what President Obama has been telling the American people and the world.

.

.