Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Here's Why Obama Will Rat Out The Saudis For 9/11!

From here:

One more casualty of the 9/11 farce; the petrodollar
It’s been about 15 years now since passenger planes struck the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, and we are still suffering the consequences of that day, though perhaps not in the ways many Americans might believe.

The 9/11 attacks were billed by the Bush Administration as a “wake-up call” for the U.S., and neocons called it the new Pearl Harbor. But instead of it being an awaking, the American public was led further into blind ignorance. The event launched wars throughout the Middle East, energized by a strike-first doctrine which was supposed to bring unprecedented “democracy” to the region. Instead, the Middle East has now become as unstable as it was during WWII.

The penchant for Western governments to fund and train terrorist groups is now verifiable mainstream fact rather than being considered “conspiracy theory” as was the common accusation back in 2001. Pentagon papers outlining support for the formation of ISIS are available for anyone to read. The only disconnect that the public still seems to suffer from is that orthodox Republicans fail to recognize that the support for Islamic terrorism has been just as prevalent under Republican presidents (al-Qaeda) as it has been under Barack Obama. And, Democrats refuse to recognize that Barack Obama has been guilty of all the same criminal foreign policies they used to protest under George W. Bush.

There have been substantial economic consequences as well. The Iraq War alone is estimated to have cost around $2 trillion, with billions more in veteran benefits forthcoming. These numbers, of course, stop accounting for costs after 2010, when the war was deemed officially “over.” Costs continue to this day as the U.S. maintains its military presence in the region along with thousands of private contractors we rarely ever hear about.

The U.S. official national debt in 2001 was around $6 trillion. Today, the national debt has grown to more than $19 trillion. This astonishing debt accumulation is only partially due to combat operations in the Middle East; however, one must also consider the amount of interest owed on debts accrued.
There have also been numerous socio-political consequences post-9/11, including an ever expanding police state mentality which is reaching critical mass. The inevitable outcome will be open totalitarianism in the name of security, and rebellion in response.

Clearly, after 15 years of disastrous policy, it is time to admit that the U.S. response to 9/11 has damaged us far more than the actual attacks ever could.

Many of us in the liberty movement have studied the circumstances surrounding 9/11 extensively, including evidence indicating either government complicity in the attacks, or outright participation.

Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this particular article, but I highly recommend anyone skeptical of U.S. government involvement in 9/11 look into the scientific data collected by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and see if your assumptions are not rattled.

Interestingly, the 9/11 truth movement may be partially vindicated in the near term as debate rages over the release of redacted and classified documents tied to the original government led investigation into 9/11. The problem is, the release of these documents is just as calculated as the original cover-up.

The fact that the involvement of the Saudi Arabian government in the events of 9/11 has suddenly hit the mainstream media this year is probably not a coincidence.

As I outlined in my article “The global economic reset has begun,” the U.S. economy has been protected since the credit crisis of 2008 by three pillars, and each of these pillars is now being systematically demolished.

The first pillar was fiat stimulus and quantitative easing. This pillar was removed through the Federal Reserve’s taper program.

The second pillar was the use of near-zero interest rates to funnel cheap or free money through overnight loans to banks and corporations which they then used in a long cycle of stock buybacks.
This pillar is now being removed through interest rate hikes by the Fed, and stock buybacks will be dead before 2016 is over.

The third and final pillar holding up the U.S. economy is the dollar’s world reserve status — the dominance of the dollar around the world as the primary currency used in international trade.
World reserve status allows America to maintain extreme levels of debt creation and protects us partially from fiat hyperinflation. Because so many dollars are needed by overseas governments and corporations for international trade, the Federal Reserve has been able to perpetuate massive stimulus programs without all the money created immediately burying the U.S. system as what happened in Wiemar, Germany. The problem is, if the dollar ever loses world reserve status, the unknown amounts of dollars created by the Fed and held overseas will come flooding back to destroy the illusion of our currency’s value.

The dollar’s world reserve status is highly dependent on the fact that it is the petrocurrency; the vast majority of oil purchases around the planet are made only in dollars. In fact, most oil producing nations will not sell their stock unless dollars are used.

The dollar has enjoyed this awesome advantage primarily because of the relationship between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia.

For now, Saudi Arabia is still the largest holder of oil production market share in the world. This market share has been declining somewhat recently due to falling global demand and more specifically falling U.S. demand, which has led to more vicious competition from other producing nations, including Russia and Iran.

Falling U.S. demand by itself has perhaps led OPEC nations to question the continued validity of the dollar as the petrocurrency. In November of 2015, the Saudi government hinted at the possibility that they might depeg from the U.S. currency entirely. This act alone would essentially destroy the dollar’s petro-status. The conundrum facing the Saudis was increasingly low and unstable oil prices to which the petrodollar adds a level of uncertainty. Mainstream analysts argued that Saudi Arabia may be forced to choose – either cut production to increase prices, or end the dollar peg and stabilize prices, by switching to a basket of currencies instead (Special Drawing Rights, anyone?!).

Obviously, after the engineered absurdity at the Doha meeting this month, there is absolutely no chance in hell that Saudi Arabia will commit to any substantial cuts in oil production. In fact, the Saudis have just announced that they may expand oil fields in order to increase production to even greater historical levels.

So, oil prices are going to remain low for now, and will probably fall exponentially if a battle for market share between Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, as I have predicted. This would suggest that the Saudis will end the peg to the dollar within the next couple of years.

As I wrote in my article “Economic crisis goes mainstream; what happens next?,” an oil price panic could lead to conflict between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. and disrupt the petrodollar. And, this would precipitate the fall of the dollar’s world reserve status; meaning, the globalists would get exactly what they want — the death of dollar dominance and the rise of the SDR system under the IMF as a prelude to global currency and global economic governance. However, another catalyst from left field may be needed. A sort of black swan event… enter the 28-page “secret chapter” of the 9/11 congressional inquiry.

Supposedly, the documents are a bombshell linking the Saudi government directly to the 9/11 hijackers and exposing their aid to said terrorists. Despite Obama’s supposed peace offerings to the Saudis, the White House is still said to be “poised” to release these documents to the public in the near term.

The Saudi’s have responded with extreme anger, and have openly threatened to dump their $750 billion in U.S. treasury holdings if the documents ever see the light of day. This would invariably end the Saudi peg to the dollar and thus end the dollar’s petrostatus, which would then expedite the end of the dollar’s world reserve status. It would be a catastrophe.

The set-up is perfect. The liberty movement gets some vindication that there was indeed a conspiracy surrounding 9/11, but the true scope of that conspiracy remains hidden as the Saudis take the brunt of the blame. The Saudis get an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter to kill the dollar peg, an action they have been planning for quite some time anyway. The U.S. government then becomes partly responsible (in the public eye) for opening the door to the destruction of the dollar, a process which the globalists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Federal Reserve have been planning for decades. Then the IMF can swoop in post-crisis with the SDR basket system to replace the dollar’s world reserve structure.

We then have immense global economic change triggered by a 28-page document, but predicated on years of careful staging, planning and choreography. Once again, the globalists have conjured a theatrical circus which they may use to end the American economy as we know it.

We will have to wait and see if the 9/11 documents are released, and if the Saudis follow through with their threats. Such a move would certainly serve the interests of international elites in the long run.

— Brandon Smith

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Let’s Create a Real Palestinian State

From Daniel Greenfield, here and here:

A Palestinian state has never existed during any period in human history. Let’s change that.
The United States has spent billions of dollars trying to create a Palestinian state. It’s time that we finally got our money’s worth. We’ve been putting money in the broken Palestinian slot machine in the metaphorical Palestinian casino (the real one was shot up when terrorists turned it into a base) for decades. It’s time to finally get our Palestinian jackpot. But to make it happen, we need to be realistic.
Forget the peace process. Forget negotiations. They’ve never worked before. They’re not going to now.
And there’s nothing to negotiate anyway.
There are almost a million Jews living on territory claimed by the PLO. Removing them would be the single greatest act of ethnic cleansing against an indigenous population today. It would also be impossible. But the same people who insist that the United States, a country of 318 million, can’t deport 11 million illegal aliens, think that Israel will somehow deport 1/8th of its own population if they just chant loudly enough about “occupation” outside Jewish businesses in London or San Francisco.
Ethnically cleansing 8,000 Jews from Gaza/Gush Katif led to nationwide civil disobedience, riots and, eventually, the fall of a political party and three straight terms for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Now imagine trying to deport 800,000 people from their homes simply because they’re Jewish.
And it wouldn’t just be the Jews alone being rounded up into trucks, buses and maybe boxcars.
52 percent of Arabs in East Jerusalem would rather be Israeli citizens than live under the PLO. Are we supposed to deport 100,000 Arabs from Jerusalem to make way for this imaginary “Palestinian” state?
How much ethnic cleansing do we have to do to make the Islamic colonial fantasy of Palestine real?
It’s not going to happen.
Let’s create a real Palestinian state instead. And I don’t mean the PLO’s President for Life Mahmoud Abbas going down to the UN to give another speech. Abbas is on his 11th year of a 4-year term.  The US spent $4.5 billion promoting “Palestinian democracy” and the last PLO election was ten years ago.
Hamas won. It would win today all over again.
Current polling shows that 2/3 of “Palestinians” want Abbas to resign. Abbas has no political authority to form a Palestinian state, a Palestinian shawarma stand or a Palestinian anything.
If there’s going to be a Palestinian state, it has to be based on the will of the people. That means it will be a Hamas state. A Palestinian state that is not based on the will of its people has no legitimacy. The only legitimate Palestinian state is therefore a Hamas terror state.
And that’s the only kind of state you can have when 2/3 of “Palestinians” support stabbing Israeli civilians, 89% want to live under an Islamic State run by Sharia law, 84% want to stone adulterers to death and 66% support killing any Muslim who leaves Islam.
Only an Islamic terror state can truly represent the homicidal aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Is this some sort of sick joke? Yes it is. But it’s not my sick joke. It’s the sick joke that is Palestine. Now let’s begin the process of turning this sick twisted joke into its own state.
The first thing to do is dismantle the UNRWA, a UN agency specifically dedicated to catering to “Palestinians”. The UNRWA is one of the key elements of the Palestinian welfare state. And the US kicks in around $300 million to the organization which fulfills many of the functions of a state. But a state doesn’t need its own refugee agency. And a Hamas terror state doesn’t need a further $350 million dollars in US foreign aid to promote “democracy” and improve its infrastructure and institutions.
This is going to be a problem because the imaginary Palestinian state also has a fantasy economy. The largest employer in the Palestinian Authority is the Palestinian Authority. Most of its money comes from America, Europe, Israel and, for some inconceivable reason, Japan.
The terror state gets its electricity from Israel. It gets its water and internet through Israel.
So let’s get a clear look at what a real Palestinian state would look like. It would be Gaza writ large. But without the UNRWA and the rest of the NGOs lining up to provide jobs and social services. It would be an “open air prison”, as anti-Israel activists screech of Gaza, but a prison created and maintained by the inmates. It would be constantly at war with Israel and the rest of the world. The way it is now.
The economy will be a thinly disguised feudal system of Islamists with engineering degrees in mansions paying starvation wages to laborers to harvest olives to be shipped to China. There will be shopping malls for some and little shacks on the edges full of smugglers, drug labs and brothels for everyone else.
That’s the Islamist dream.
Palestine’s political system will consist of Hamas and more Hamas. Or maybe once the Hamas alliance with ISIS in the Sinai lapses, there will finally be a democratic election between Hamas and ISIS to decide just how horrible of a place the misshapen slices of Gaza and the West Bank under terrorist occupation will become. Nothing will function except the religious police and the gallows in the dusty squares.
There will be wars every two years. That will be just long enough to rebuild the hospitals, mosques and schools that were being used as launch sites in the last wars. In between the big wars, the terrorist groups, Hamas factions, ISIS, Islamic Jihad and anybody else, will fight each other in the streets.
It will be glorious.
Imagine the last few decades of terror, bombings, missile strikes, firefights, corruption, thievery and utter dysfunction made into a permanent state of affairs. That’s Palestine. That’s the two-state solution. Just don’t ask what it solves except the Middle East’s severe shortage of terrorist states and terrorists.
If you will it, it is no dream. This nightmare already exists and it can be a real country. It already has an anthem, a flag, no elections and no reason to exist except killing everyone else. It’s a foreign aid funded ISIS with more olive harvests and a more robust campus presence.
Everyone talks about creating a Palestinian state, but no one actually wants to do it.
It’s time for Palestine to stop being a pipe dream full of pipe bombs that we spend billions of dollars on. Just pull out a seat at the UN, hold democratic elections and then step away from the explosions.
A real two-state solution is just that simple. And it can happen tomorrow.
Let’s stop fantasizing about peace. Peace and Palestine go together like oil and water. This is what a real Palestinian state would look like. And the moment it comes into being, any possibility of peace dies.

Read more at http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262498/lets-create-real-palestinian-state-daniel-greenfield#VthXDObW6ZIkZrfg.99

Monday, April 4, 2016

Is There a Batterer in the US Senate?

Sure, this is old news, but since it's never really been reported, it's still "new"s!

by Glenn J. Sacks

There is a batterer in the United States Senate.

This abuser's spouse has suffered repeated violent attacks, yet there has been no condemnation of this Senator's violence. Ironically, this Senator, who is one of the most controversial people in American public life today, has somehow escaped reproach for the one thing that both detractors and admirers should agree is genuinely inexcusable--domestic violence.

Who is this perpetrator of domestic violence? New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

The evidence against Ms. Clinton is strong. According to Hillary's admiring biographer Gail Sheehy, author of Hillary's Choice, one of the domestic assaults upon Bill Clinton occurred in 1993, when Hillary slashed Bill Clinton's face with her long fingernails, leaving a "mean claw mark along his jawline."

The incident was first explained as a "shaving accident" and a subsequent attempt was made to pin the blame on Socks the cat. Because of the gouge's size, neither explanation was accepted by observers. Dee Dee Myers, the White House spokeswoman at the time, later explained to Sheehy that it had been singer Barbara Streisand's visit to the White House that had sparked Hillary's jealous, violent rage.

According to Christopher Andersen, author of Bill and Hillary, Hillary also assaulted Bill on August 13, 1999, after the Monica Lewinsky revelations. Andersen writes:

"...the President...weeping, begged her forgiveness. Much of what transpired next between Bill and Hillary Clinton was plainly audible to Secret Service agents and household staff members down the hall. In the past, Hillary had thrown books and an ashtray at the President -- both hitting their mark...Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face -- hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room.

" 'You stupid, stupid, stupid bastard,' Hillary shouted. Her words, delivered at the shrill, earsplitting level that had become familiar to White House personnel over the years, ricocheted down the corridor."

Sheehy's account of the incident is similar, adding that Hillary's friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomasen, who was staying with her husband in the private quarters nearby, "thought it was great that Hillary 'smacked him upside the head.' "

The US Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime classifies these types of attacks--scratching, slapping, hitting, throwing objects, and inflicting bruises or lacerations--as "physical abuse" and domestic violence.

Bill Clinton handled the incidents in a manner eerily reminiscent of the way many female victims of domestic violence did in the pre-feminist era. Ashamed, he tried to cover the incidents up, even ordering his representatives to publicly alibi his wife's violence. He probably blamed himself for "provoking" her, as if marital infidelity warrants physical assault. And he almost certainly never considered calling the police or formally charging his abuser.

The public's reaction has been of the "what did he do to set her off?" variety--a "blame the victim" mentality that would immediately be recognized and condemned were the genders of the perpetrator and victim reversed. Media coverage of the incidents has almost entirely consisted of jokes on late night TV and talk radio. In narrating these assaults, neither Sheehy nor Andersen mention 'domestic violence' or even write disapprovingly of Hillary's attacks. Needless to say, the reaction would be quite different were it the president's wife who appeared in public with lacerations on her face.

Nor were the incidents mentioned during Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign. In fact, it was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who was publicly pilloried as a bad spouse for his failing marriage, while the fact that his electoral opponent was a known abuser merited little or no mention.

The Clinton incidents demonstrate that, despite the overwhelming body of research which shows that men and women initiate and engage in domestic violence equally, the public still largely holds the outdated and discredited view that domestic violence is synonymous with wife-beating.
Ironically, Senator Clinton herself has spoken out on domestic violence on many occasions, and has supported the Family Violence Prevention Fund's $100 million anti-Domestic Violence campaign. The campaign's slogan is "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence."
What's Senator Clinton's excuse?

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Full Extent of Germany Migrant Sex Attacks Revealed – Incidents in 75 Per Cent Of The Country

From HERE:

Cologne-style sex attacks by migrant gangs occurred in 12 of Germany’s 16 states, or 75 per cent, on New Year’s Eve, as revealed by German police. Although localised reports of attacks emerged almost immediately via social media, the full scale of the phenomenon is only now becoming clear – and it’s having a devastating effect on German society.

Some 1,049 men and women were victimised in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, subject to a litany of crimes ranging from pickpocketing to gang rape at the hands of migrants and asylum seekers.
It was by far the most widespread example of migrant crime on New Years Eve, but a report by the German Judicial Police (BKA), obtained by news daily Sueddeutsche Zeitungand the NDR and WDR television stations, reveals that it was far from unique, the Localhas reported.
A state by state breakdown shows that almost all of Germany was affected by the crime spree. North Rhine-Westphalia, where Cologne is located, suffered the heaviest bout of migrant crime, registering some 1000 individual complaints.
Next on the list is the city-state of Hamburg, where 200 complaints were made.
At the other end of the scale are Lower-Saxony, Brandeburg, Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland, which all received one complaint each. As in Cologne, in almost all cases the
Yet whether it was one incident or one thousand, the people of Germany are increasingly feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, putting pressure on the government to reverse their open door immigration policy which has so far been championed by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Mrs. Merkel, who is ideologically wed to the idea of an open Europe, is resisting all efforts to close the borders, instead lobbying for other European countries to take in more migrants to spread the load. Her obstinance is causing others within her party to look for ways to control the flow of migrant into Germany without shutting the borders – yesterday Julia Kloeckner, leader of Merkel’s Christian Democrats in the western state of Rhineland-Palatinate suggested setting up a series of “border centres” along the border with Austria in a bid to speed up the processing of migrants and deportation of those rejected.
But Mrs. Merkel’s political opponents have been more forthright. Speaking on TV last night, Beatrix von Storch, chairman of the anti-immigration Alterantive for Germany (AFD) party said Mrs. Merkel had “ruined” Germany like no other leader since the end of WW2.
“I bet you that when this is all over and she has left office she will have to leave the country on security grounds. She will have to go into exile in Chile or some other place in South America,” she added.
Meanwhile the people of Germany are left pleading for more protection from the migrant gangs roaming their streets.
Last week Breitbart London reported on 16 year old Bibi Wilhailm, who uploaded a twenty minute plea for help in the face of the increasing Islamisation of her neighbourhood. 
Describing how she and a friend witnessed a protest by Muslims calling for death to infidels, she asked: “Why is Germany standing by, watching, and then doing nothing? Please explain, why. Men of Germany, these people are killing your children, they are killing your women. We need your protection."
“The politicians live alone in their villas, drink their cocktails, and do nothing. They do nothing! I do not know what world they live in, but please, people, please help us! Please, do something!”

Monday, January 11, 2016

Obama only supports revolutions against secular rulers in the Middle East!

Obama ordered CIA not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran because he wanted to court Khamenei

The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. 
There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. 
To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered — in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.
In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes.
“Nuclear Deal Fuels Iran’s Hard-Liners,” by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2016:
The Obama administration’s nuclear deal was intended to keep Iran from pursuing an atomic bomb, and raised hope in the West that Tehran would be nudged toward a more moderate path.
But there are growing fears in Washington and Europe that the deal—coupled with an escalating conflict with Saudi Arabia—instead risks further entrenching Iran’s hard-line camp.
Since completion of the agreement in July, Tehran security forces, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have stepped up arrests of political opponents in the arts, media and the business community, part of a crackdown aimed at ensuring Mr. Khamenei’s political allies dominate national elections scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Iranian politicians and analysts….
But the ranks of reformists in Iran have been depleted. Many activists are angry at the Obama administration for failing to support them six years ago in a rebuff that hasn’t been previously reported.
Iranian opposition leaders secretly reached out to the White House in the summer of 2009 to gauge Mr. Obama’s support for their “green revolution,” which drew millions of people to protest the allegedly fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The demonstrations caught the White House off guard, said current and former U.S. officials who worked on Iran in the Obama administration.
Some U.S. officials pressed Mr. Obama to publicly back the fledgling Green Movement, arguing in Oval Office meetings that it marked the most important democratic opening since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Mr. Obama wasn’t convinced. “‘Let’s give it a few days,’ was the answer,” said a senior U.S. official present at some of the White House meetings. “It was made clear: ‘We should monitor, but do nothing.’ ”
The president was invested heavily in developing a secret diplomatic outreach to Mr. Khamenei that year, sending two letters to the supreme leader in the months before the disputed election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, said current and former U.S. officials.
Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran—and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement—influenced Mr. Obama’s thinking, current and former U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials said the White House also was getting conflicting messages from Green Movement leaders. Some wanted Mr. Obama to publicly warn Mr. Khamenei against using force. Others said such a declaration would give Iran’s supreme leader an excuse to paint the opposition as American lackeys.
Mr. Obama and his advisers decided to maintain silence in the early days of the 2009 uprising. The Central Intelligence Agency was ordered away from any covert work to support the Green Movement either inside Iran or overseas, said current and former U.S. officials involved in the discussions.
“If you were working on the nuclear deal, you were saying, ‘Don’t do too much,’ ” said Michael McFaul, who served as a senior National Security Council official at the White House before becoming ambassador to Russia in 2012.
After a week of demonstrations, Iran’s security forces went on to kill as many as 150 people and jail thousands of others over the following months, according to opposition and human rights groups. Mr. Khamenei accused the U.S. of instigating the uprising. Iran denied killing protesters.
Some of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , said in retrospect the U.S. should have backed the Green Movement. “If we could do it again, I would give different counsel,” said Dennis Ross, Mr. Obama’s top Mideast adviser during his first term. At the time, he said, he argued against embracing the protests.
A senior U.S. official said this week that the Obama administration argued against covert support for the Green Movement because it risked undermining its credibility domestically, not out of fear of Mr. Khamenei’s reaction. “We did not want to tar the movement,” the official said.
Mr. Obama pursued nuclear diplomacy with Iran using a two-track approach: ratcheting up economic sanctions while leaving the door open for direct negotiations.
Over the next four years, international sanctions cut Iran’s oil exports in half, and the value of its currency, the rial, dropped by two-thirds. The U.S. also succeeded in shutting off most of Iran’s financial institutions from the global economy, including Iran’s central bank.
In 2012, the White House, working through Omani intermediaries, set up the first direct talks with Iran. A year later, Mr. Rouhani was elected, and the negotiations moved more quickly toward an agreement.
Mr. Obama’s advisers said the White House’s cautious handling of Iran’s political opposition was the best course in 2009. The Green Movement wasn’t unified, they said, and didn’t have much of a chance to overthrow the regime.
Former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who led the protests, remain under house arrest in Tehran, despite pledges by Mr. Rouhani to release them. Thousands of student leaders and democracy activists who took to the streets six years ago were exiled to Turkey, Europe and the U.S., fearing arrest if they return home.
At a recent oil conference in Tehran, Mr. Rouhani’s energy minister, Bijan Zanganeh, answered questions about oil production and job promotion in the wake of the nuclear agreement. When pressed about the status of political prisoners, which include Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi, he didn’t answer and instead jumped into a waiting SUV.
“A historic opportunity was missed” six years ago, said former Green Movement leader Heshmat Tabarzadi in an interview via Skype in Tehran. He has served intermittent jail terms there since 2009.
“There isn’t much of a Green Movement left,” he said.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Hillary’s and the Democrats’ "war on children"

From HERE:


2016 is our last stand. It’s the most important year in our country’s history.

After what Barack Obama has done to damage America, I fear the window is closing fast. I don’t believe America can be saved if a Democrat like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders follows Obama in the White House. Either we take back the White House; repeal and replace Obamacare; stop the madness of climate change/green energy; stop the EPA dead in its tracks; undo all the onerous regulations put into place by Obama; build a wall and secure the border; stop the madness of importing Syrian refugees to America; and dramatically lower taxes, spending and debt, or America is lost forever.

If the GOP doesn’t win the White House on Nov. 8, the very next day we need to all be thinking of where to go and what to do to protect our families, our incomes, our assets, our children’s future. It’s time for “Escape From America.”

It sounds like the title of a fictional horror film, except this time it’s real. Every friend I have with substantial assets to protect is already making plans either to leave or to obtain dual citizenship. The preparations have begun for smart people with the resources.

Today’s column is about the campaign theme that the GOP presidential candidate must use to win the 2016 election. This is the theme that can save our country and our children’s future. If Republicans don’t use it 24/7 from now until the election in November, they should be prosecuted for gross negligence. Their only defense would be insanity. I call this theme the Democrats’ “war on children.”

Democrats understand marketing and branding so much better than Republicans. Obama, Hillary and Bernie always take a page right out of their favorite playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” by declaring a “Republican war on women.” It’s all Hillary talks about. It will most certainly be the theme her 2016 campaign is built around.

Sadly, Republicans are cucktarded cowards afraid of their own shadows. Democrats trot out “the race card” and the “you hate women card” again and again. The GOP responds by playing defense and running scared.

It’s the reason I’m a big fan of Donald Trump. He doesn’t play that game. He isn’t afraid of anyone. He doesn’t apologize or play on defense. He plays on offense. He’s in your face. He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may — no matter how offensive or politically incorrect. He plays to win. 

Donald understands that we need to be relentless to make America great again and to make America safe again.

It’s time for all Republicans to learn from Trump. It’s time to fight fire with fire. It’s time to throw out all the gentlemen’s rules because we’re not fighting gentlemen. We’re fighting slanderous liars and frauds out to destroy America and steal our children’s future. We can’t afford to “play nice.” It’s time to put Democrats on the defensive.

Democrats understand the marketing and branding power of using emotional hooks like “the war on women.” Well, two can play at that game. It’s time to use an emotional hook of our own. The difference is this one isn’t made up. It’s time to point out that the real war is the Democrats’ “war on children.”

The war on children starts in the womb. Hillary and her ilk don’t hesitate to kill children in the womb. No point in a woman’s pregnancy is too extreme. No limit to abortion is acceptable. Not even ripping a child to pieces with partial birth abortion is too extreme for Hillary and the Democrats. Not even the harvesting and sale of organs from innocent fetuses by Planned Parenthood is too extreme.

And anyone who tries to point out these extreme examples of murder or torture upon children, anyone who champions or defends children who cannot speak for themselves, is immediately slandered and labeled as “extreme” or “an enemy of women.”

Well-meaning people can have legitimate disagreements about whether or not life begins at the moment of conception. But surely only radical extremists would argue that after five months or more, a fully formed fetus with a beating heart is not a child. Surely only radical extremists would defend the harvesting of organs from dead babies.

But this is only the start of Hillary’s and the Democrats’ war on children.

The children who survive are then consigned to government schools where they are kept marginally ignorant, taught to always obey authority and show loyalty to government, and taught it’s OK to be dependent upon government. The brainwashing begins young, starting with free breakfasts and lunch provided by government. Parents no longer take care of the most basic of responsibilities: feeding their children.

Can you imagine? Moms and dads are no longer capable of making breakfast for their children. 

Government schools teach kids to expect breakfast, lunch and now even a backpack filled with food to take home for the weekend.

Big Brother now provides your meals, not mom or dad.

These same government schools have outlawed being a boy, labeling the actual signs of masculinity as “Attention Deficit Disorder” and drugging boys because they act like boys. Not to mention the more boys they count as “disabled” the more money the school gets from the federal government.

These same government schools teach our children to be sheep. They are discouraged from thinking for themselves, taught that competition in all forms (but especially in business and the workplace) is bad, and rewarded with a trophy if they simply show up.

What does this lead to? A future taking orders from a manager at a fast food restaurant, or a future sitting home watching cartoons and Jerry Springer while waiting for a welfare check in the mail. But of course, this is how you create future loyal Democratic voters.

Perhaps worst of all is that for many years now our schools have been keeping America’s schoolchildren ignorant about basic economics. Our children are never taught in school (and the mainstream media keeps it well hidden, too) the numbers $164,000 and $8,200: $164,000 is the current federal debt each American family of four owes; and $8,200 is the amount, at 5 percent interest, you are paying on that debt each and every year.

No one teach our children that this debt will destroy their future and rip their hopes and dreams to shreds. No one teaches our children why the debt keeps growing: to keep progressive politicians in office for life and line the pockets of the political class.

This government spending and debt machine is at the heart of the Democrats’ war on children, and the day of reckoning is fast approaching.

If you have any doubt about a day of reckoning and what it might look like, all you need do is look at Greece. That bankrupt, broken country proves that debt is a poison, a dream killer, the death of a nation.

But we can look closer to home to see even more proof. Just study Detroit, a city under 100 percent Democratic control for well over 50 years. The last Republican mayor of Detroit left office in 1962. Ruled for half a century by the same policies and leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary and Bernie, Detroit is a bankrupt broken cesspool of murder, violence, crushing poverty, broken street lights, abandoned buildings and taxes so high everyone with any assets has left. Both Greece and Detroit are places that prove the Democrats’ war on children is brutal and real.

So setting aside abortion, you mean a place where children can’t walk the streets without risking shootings, rape or murder is not a war on children?

You mean a place where children are almost guaranteed to never get a solid education, never find a good job, and rely on food stamps and welfare for life isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where almost no child has a father in the home isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where your environment is abandoned buildings, broken street lamps and drug dealers’ owning the streets isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where a child is more likely to wind up in prison than college isn’t a war on children?

Again, let me stress, only Democrats and their policies and progressive agenda have created this brutal environment. Only Democrats like Obama, Hillary and Bernie have been in power and control of Detroit since 1962. And don’t forget the party that ran Greece into the ground was called the “Socialist Party.”

It’s always liberals, leftists, progressives and socialists who lead a war on children.
So let’s stop talking about a made-up war on women. It is only meant to distract. The GOP must start talking about the real war: Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrats’ war on children.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on my columns for four wonderful years. I hope you’ll continue to watch my videos and read my columns at my personal website, ROOTforAmerica.com. Because that’s what my life is dedicated to: I root for America. God bless you. God bless America. And Happy New Year 2016, the year we take back our great country!

Personal Liberty

Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root is one of America's leading Libertarian-conservative authors. Wayne's new book is The Murder of the Middle ClassWayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, serial entrepreneur, conservative media commentator, and proud champion of the middle class. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and Fox News regular. Follow Wayne on Twitter and visit Wayne's web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Obama Set to Sign Deal Allowing Foreign Takeover of America’s Land and Resources

From here:

Once shrouded in secrecy, President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership is now becoming public, and what we’re discovering is absolutely frightening.

Apparently the deal reverses policies in place to protect national security.

Chapter 11 of the deal allows foreign investors the rights to acquire American land, businesses, ports, natural resources, infrastructure and other property.

Chapters 28 and 29 give foreign investors the ability to work around U.S. courts and sue the United States before a dispute tribunal if they feel U.S. law violated their “rights” under the deal.
Additionally, the U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary, but the TPP agreement reverses this power. As a consequence, other countries could maintain that U.S. security interests violate the deal and they could then insist the United States pay billions of dollars in damages.

The TPP is anything but the simple free trade deal Obama wants us to think it is. It is a complex array of rules and regulations intended to control the economic relations between the nations involved in the deal. Furthermore, there is no economic model indicating any benefit to the United States from the agreement.

There is a reason Obama wanted to keep the details of this deal secret. While he wants to tout that it will help workers, the truth is that it does the opposite.

Obama has proven again and again why he cannot be trusted. He goes behind the backs of the American people and institutes legislation whether we like it or not. His actions suggest that he constantly puts Americans at risk.

Even if we didn’t now have the agreement of the text to go by, his track record alone should tell us this is a bad deal and should be stopped.


UNITED NATIONS – The fine print of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a reading has revealed, reverses policies put in place to prevent the foreign takeover of the United States’ ports and other crucial national infrastructure.

And it appears to undermine U.S. national security.

The release of the long-hidden Obamatrade text reveals it gives foreign interests the power to do an end-run around laws designed to protect crucial American infrastructure from national security threats – and the U.S. would be hard pressed to stop it.

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.
The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim the U.S. national security interests violate the TPP agreement and they could then demand the U.S. pay billions of dollars in damages.

It’s telling that the Obama administration failed to safeguard the U.S. national security while other nations – Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand – made sure they maintained their sole and sovereign authority to control their national security.

Chapter 11 of the TPP gives foreign investors special rights to acquire American land, natural resources, businesses, ports, infrastructure and other investments in the U.S.

Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their “rights” under the TPP.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the TPP, the sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his TPP country under Shariah law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits,” under the terms of the agreement.

The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to national security.

This is not an unheard of scenario.

In 2006, Dubai Ports World (DPW), a state owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to buy a company that ran six major U.S. ports. Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks.

That controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Like the TPP, the Oman pact gave foreign investors expansive rights to acquire and operate U.S. businesses – and to sue if they felt their rights were violated. After a huge public outcry, the sale was blocked.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT read: ” For greater certainty, if a party invokes [the 'Security Exception'] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign “trade” tribunal could overrule it.

But this crucial stipulation was eliminated from Article 29.2 of the final TPP text.

As a result, any company operating in a TPP country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a
crucial American asset based on national security grounds.

Without this footnote to Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its
judgment for that of the U.S. government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.

The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H, which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal. While Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand listed their relevant foreign investment review laws, the United States failed to do so.

WND reported only weeks ago when the text of the TPP finally was released so lawmakers and taxpayers could read it.

TPP was envisioned as the largest-ever economic regulatory treaty, encompassing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the pact will merge the U.S. economy with Mexico and ten others nations, including Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei.