Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Iran Deal

by -

When the world found out about the $400 million cash ransom to Iran last January, Obama lied to the American people about why it was cash.

August 4th, Obama tried to explain away the reason that his administration sent Iran $400 million in foreign cash.

“The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and could not wire the money.”

The truth is, we are learning now that America sent two wire transfers to Iran. One of the wire transfers happened before the ransom payment and one after.

In July of 2015, the same month that the Iran deal was announced, a wire payment was made from the U.S. to Iran for just under a million dollars. The payment was made to settle a claim over drawings in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art and one over fossils at the Iran Ministry of Environment.

Just as recent as April of 2016, we sent a wire for close to nine million dollars, to clean up radioactive water.

It is clear that Obama lied about being able to send wire transfers.

The admission came from a Treasury Department spokesman over the weekend.

Being able to make the wire payments and paying in cash gives more credibility that it was a ransom payment in January.

Once again we are getting conflicting stories from the administration and now lies directly from Obama’s mouth.

The Iran deal is something that Obama had hoped would be part of a positive legacy he left on the world, but it is turning into a nightmare.

When campaigning over the weekend for Hillary at a fundraiser, nobody applauded his Iran deal according to Mark Landler, a White House correspondent.

With the Iranian military threatening our ships in the Persian Gulf and taking more hostages, the Iranian deal has become a full-blown disaster and maybe Trump is right in ending the deal on his first day in office.

What do you think? Should the next president end the Iranian deal?

by -

The Obama Administration did something in January that goes against one of our most sacred rules in dealing with terrorists; he paid a ransom.

Just five days after Iran released our sailors that were captured in January in an embarrassing spectacle, Obama sent $400 million on the same day four other American’s held in Iranian prisons were released.

The Obama administration says the money was part of the Iran deal, but the facts are not adding up.

If the payment was part of the deal, then why did Obama load up wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other non-American currencies and fly it to Iran in a unmarked cargo plane in the middle of the night?

John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department tried to explain the payment.

“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home. Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

The Administration says that the payment was to clear up an old debt from 1979 before Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was ousted as the last monarch of Iran.

Let’s get this strait.

The United States paid a 37-year old debt to Iran on the exact same day that they release four Americans who had been imprisoned in Iran.

Does anybody believe the administration? Not really. People on both sides of the isle are furious that it looks like Obama paid a ransom to Iran of all places.

If it was part of the Iran deal, why didn’t Obama mention it back when the prisoners were released in January?

In Iran, the press reports have quoted leaders in the Iranian military that describe the cargo plane full of money as a ransom payment.

Is what Obama did illegal? Maybe not, because if the payment was paid in foreign cash it puts the payment in question.

There are members of Congress that are trying to pass legislation that will prevent the Obama administration from making more cash payments to Iran and to force the administration to release the details of the $1.7 billion transfer to Iran.

Senator James Lankdor from Oklahoma, one of the members trying to pass legislation by co-writing the bill, said this about ransom payment.

“President Obama’s…payment to Iran in January, which we now know will fund Iran’s military expansion, is an appalling example of executive branch governance. Subsidizing Iran’s military is perhaps the worst use of taxpayer dollars ever by an American president.”

Again, if this was just part of the Iran deal, why all the secrecy? Let us know your thoughts about the ransom payment in the comments below.

by -

The truth is unraveling about the Iran deal and Americans were not told the truth.

The White House used executive privilege this week and restricted a top aide from appearing before the House Oversight Committee to discuss his comments about deceiving the American people.

Now in Vienna, where most of the deal was negotiated, John Kerry spoke to the embassy’s staff and clearly doesn’t have a lot of respect for passing along factual history to our grandchildren.

“We jammed you all last year and the year before with countless meetings here. So you’ve been very, very much a part of an extraordinary journey that has produced an historic outcome, and that’s something that you can take with you forever, maybe tell – embellish it a little bit for the grandchildren, tell them how you sat in a room and got Zarif to give in to your mighty persuasion. Whatever you want, folks.

The final comments got some laughs, but the embellished idea seems to be the key word behind the Iran deal.

They embellished the power of the deal. They embellished the benefits of the deal and now they want us to embellish the importance to our grandchildren.

What do you think about the Iran deal? Let us know in the comments.

by -
Obama Scandal

When Obama and Hillary pushed for the new Iranian Deal made earlier this year, majority of the American people thought it was a bad idea, and they were right.

An Iranian senior military official said that Obama has urged the Iranians to fire and test its ballistic missiles in secret as to not upset the region.

This is a big claim, because if the Iranian official is correct, then Obama encouraged the Iranians to break the deal they made.

To make matters worse, the White House confirmed that Obama advisor Ben Rhodes will not be allowed to testify on the Iran deal in a Senate hearing.

Ben came under fire when he said in a New York Times article that the administration controlled the narrative of the Iran deal with “expert” witnesses and fed the nation and young reporters the information they needed to support the Iran Deal.

It all sounds fishy. A top White House aide won’t testify on the deal, the Iranians are saying that Obama is encouraging them to break the deal, and now new reports say that the American soldiers captured by Iran were treated worse than we were lead to believe.

Reports are coming out that the American public was not told the full story of the Americans captured by Iran earlier this year. Obama is withholding information regarding the treatment of our soldiers by Iran and if the truth is released, then Americans would no longer support Iran in any capacity.

Rep. Randy Forbes from Virginia was very adamant about the classified information being released to help American’s frame and more accurate picture of Iran. He says that the Administration is pushing back and he won’t be surprised if it takes a year to get the documents declassified and released.

Everyone knew the Iran deal was a bad deal when Obama and Hillary started talking about it, but now it is evident we didn’t even have all the information.

Obama is done in January, so new information on Iran will only hurt his legacy. The sad thing is, Americans are left with an awful deal and only slivers of truth, but it is enough to know Obama lied to us and Iran is no friend of ours.

What do you think? Do you like Obama’s deal with Iran? Are they our friends? Let us know in the comments.

by -
Iran Deal

One of the many outrageous concessions that President Barack Obama made in his “nuclear deal at any price” with Iran’s Mullahs was to ignore three Americans being held hostage in Iran on trumped up charges that include everything from spying to espionage.

At the time the deal was inked, the Obama Administration said they didn’t bring up the hostage issue during negotiations because they didn’t want any sticking points that might derail the agreement.

Obama’s “agreement” doesn’t stop Iran from enriching uranium, doesn’t allow for anywhere anytime inspections by western nuclear experts, tore up economic sanctions that had been hurting Iran’s economy, opened the floodgates on conventional weapons purchases and concluded with a $150 billion payment by the U.S. to Iran to close the deal.

In return, the Obama got America nothing but a worthless piece of paper that many experts say Iran has already violated by testing long-range nuclear capable ballistic missiles that are supposed to be prohibited under the “agreement”.

Now, as if to punctuate their contempt for Obama and the West, Iran has arrested an Iranian-American scholar and consultant who were in the country to improve relations between the United States and Iran.

The arrest is a clear sign that dual citizens from the United States who are visiting or living in Iran after the nuclear agreement was reached in July are at greater risk– not less– because of the deeply flawed nuclear deal.

Thomas Erdbrink, writing for The Washington Post, described Siamak Namazi as a consultant with the World Economic Forum Young Global Leader who was working on strategic planning at Crescent Petroleum, a subsidiary of the Crescent Group, a conglomerate based in the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Namazi was taken into custody by Iranian Intelligence officers around Oct. 15 according to friends and is currently being held at Evin Prison in Tehran. News of Mr. Namazi’s arrest rekindled fears that Iran is continuing to engage in their hate based anti-Americanism that prevailed before the talks that led to the nuclear deal.

Erdbrink quoted Mark Toner, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, who issued a statement in response to queries about Mr. Namazi:

“We’re aware of recent reports of the possible arrest in Iran of a person reported to have U.S. citizenship. We’re looking into these reports and don’t have anything further to provide at this time.”

Members of Iran’s “rubber stamp” Parliament believe one imprisoned Iranian-American, Jason Rezaian, a correspondent for The Washington Post in Tehran, heads a network of spies. Mr. Rezaian, arrested in July 2014, was convicted of espionage this month by one of Iran’s kangaroo courts.

The Iranian police have also imprisoned Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor, and Amir Hekmati, a Marine veteran, dashing hopes that they would all be freed after the nuclear accord was reached. Quoting Erdbrink’s article again:

“It’s not a good sign for those who want to open Iran to the West and the United States,” said Alireza Nader, an Iran specialist at the RAND Corporation in Washington.

by -

Joe Biden admitted it is a “totally legitimate argument and concern” that Iran will use U.S. dollars to threaten Israel, if Obama’s Iran deal goes through.

He just doesn’t care.

During a round table in Florida, filled with mostly Jewish supporters who are naturally concerned about how lifting Iran’s sanctions might threaten Israel, Biden agreed that it’s cause for concern:

“The sanctions relief from this deal is the second piece, and it goes to the second issue mostly. ‘Well, Joe, even if, even if I believe that you were able to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, you’re going to give them a lot of money, Joeboy. And they’re going to go out and do more of the bad things they are doing now, doing it more efficiently, and threaten our friends in an existential way, because they will have so much more money and capacity.’ Totally legitimate argument and concern.”

Obama’s Iran deal–which was negotiated with major world powers in Austria–has been controversial on both sides of the aisle. His own party has been struggling to get Senators to commit to the legislation–because it gives Iran essentially everything they asked for, in exchange for a mostly-unenforced promise to not build nuclear weapons.

That includes lifting of most sanctions on Iran–which has crippled the Iranian economy in recent years–which will result in a flood of funds hitting the terror-loving regime. Money that Iran has explicitly said will go towards wiping Israel off the planet.

Because Obama didn’t label his deal with Iran as a “treaty,” it only needs 36 Senators to pass into law. It struggled to get even that–but, earlier this week, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), agreed to break the gridlock. The deal with Iran now looks like it’s going to happen–even though Obama and Biden know it’s bad news for American allies.

by -

When you are out of your depth, don’t understand a problem or need answers, it is always good to ask the experts.

And while a bipartisan majority of members in both houses of Congress have said they will vote against President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran when a vote is scheduled, enough members who support the president’s plan have promised to defeat any effort to override of his veto of legislation to stop the deal from moving forward.

Now comes news from Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who is retiring from Congress next year, announced this morning that she will support the president’s deeply flawed Iran nuclear deal.

Mikulski’s decision makes her the 34th senator to support the deal, giving President Obama enough support in the Senate to sustain a veto of a Republican bill opposing it, should that bill pass in a vote later this month. In a statement, Mikulski said:

“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime.” “I have concluded that (the president’s) Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal.”

Still, the number of retired generals and admirals signing on to a letter to Congress rejecting the Iran nuclear deal stands at 214 as of last Thursday – all former high-level U.S. military officers who say the “agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous” and “introduce new threats to American interests.”

The letter was initially sent to House and Senate leaders from both parties last week with 190 signatures. The signatories include former Navy Vice Admiral John Poindexter, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who held various defense advisory positions during President Bill Clinton’s administration and serves as a Fox News contributor on military and strategic issues, also signed the letter. According to the letter:

“The agreement as constructed does not ‘cut off every pathway’ for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.” “To the contrary, it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding by the deal.”

The former military officials also point out that the deal is “unverifiable” and that the agreement included a “secret side deal” between Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency that would prevent U.N. weapons inspectors “from reliably detecting Iranian cheating.”

Support for the flawed Iran deal has been coming in from a litany of familiar “peace at any price” liberals including more than 120 wealthy Democratic donors. Proponents include Hollywood producer Norman Lear and former Clinton-Gore campaign chair Mickey Kantor who organized a similar letter campaign sent to Democratic leaders August.

Observers note that Democrats are taking military and national security advice from filmmakers, TV producers and entertainment celebrities while actual military experts with experience in the field of keeping America safe have made their views known to all members of Congress.

Congress is expected to vote in the weeks ahead to block the president’s Iran nuclear deal and stop Obama’s plan to authorize the end of broad sanctions for Iran’s radical mullahs – something the president can do by simply ignoring existing law as he has done with impunity on various issues in the past.

It is worth noting that this week’s letter was signed by retired generals and admirals who served in both Democrat and Republican administrations over the past 40 years.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...