The Islamic Republic of Iran is reportedly building a nuclear weapon — capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people — and we have only ourselves to blame for trusting and appeasing the fascists in Tehran.
For decades, we’ve known that Iran’s ruling mullahs are determined to enslave their own population and destroy Western powers.
This week, we have two new pieces of evidence of why we shouldn’t trust the Islamic Republic of Iran or its sympathizers in the West.
By dropping charges against major arms targets, the administration infuriated Justice Department officials — and undermined its own counterproliferation task forces.
WASHINGTON — When President Barack Obama announced the “one-time gesture” of releasing Iranian-born prisoners who “were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses” last year, his administration presented the move as a modest trade-off for the greater good of the Iran nuclear agreement and Tehran’s pledge to free five Americans.
“Iran had a significantly higher number of individuals, of course, at the beginning of this negotiation that they would have liked to have seen released,” one senior Obama administration official told reporters in a background briefing arranged by the White House, adding that “we were able to winnow that down to these seven individuals, six of whom are Iranian-Americans.”
Last year, President Obama assured the world that “we are living in the most peaceful, prosperous and progressive era in human history,” and that “the world has never been less violent.”
Translated, those statements meant that active foreign-policy volcanoes in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and the Middle East would probably not blow up on what little was left of Obama’s watch.
Obama is the U.S. version of Stanley Baldwin, the suave, three-time British prime minister of the 1920s and 1930s. Baldwin’s last tenure (1935-1937) coincided with the rapid rise of aggressive German, Italian and Japanese fascism.
Susan Rice finally remembered that she unmasked intercepted messages to show that Trump and his campaign and transition team had their conversations intercepted by our intelligence agencies. Rice has not yet explained why she did this. Her role as national security adviser was to advise on policy, not to act as an investigator. Presumably, the intelligence agencies that intercepted the messages did not believe that it warranted unmasking the identity of Trump and his associates. But Susan Rice did. She is now trying to remember why she did it and what she did with the intercepts.
Why? The answer is obvious to anyone using simple logic. She did it because her boss, Obama, told her to do it. Not even Rice is dumb enough to say she unmasked Trump to advise Obama on foreign policy. But if she read the intercepts and unmasked Trump, then it is logical that she gave this information to Obama. Otherwise, why do it?
On Tuesday afternoon, President Barack Obama’s former National Security Advisor Susan Rice appeared on MSNBC with host Andrea Mitchell to answer questions about allegations that had emerged earlier in the week to suggest that she requested the “unmasking” of the names of Donald Trump’s campaign and transition teams in intelligence reports, which allegedly had nothing to do with national security, and that she had compiled spreadsheets of those names.
Forget G. Gordon Liddy and the White House plumbers of Watergate days. If you’re looking for a my-president-right-or-wrong apparatchik in the grand tradition of the Soviet Union, willing to do anything for her leader, look no further than former national security adviser Susan Elizabeth Rice.
The case involves Sindbad Market in Portland. According to the Agriculture Department’s Office of Inspector General, the market made four fraudulent transactions with three ineligible customers. Because the owner was personally involved in one of the transactions, that ordinarily would trigger a one-year suspension of the ability to accept food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
But an attorney for Sindbad Market asked for and received an exemption in September on grounds that suspension would cause a hardship for Muslim food stamp recipients, who rely on the market for its preparation of halal meat, in accordance with Islamic law. The federal government agreed to impose a $33,000 fine instead.
Let the freak out begin. MSNBC and CNN on Tuesday went nuclear over Donald Trump’s move to roll back Barack Obama’s “signature” climate policies, whining that the President is “destroying” and “obliterating” the Democrat’s efforts. The CNN graphics department went into overdrive with one biased description reading, “Trump Signs Order Dismantling Obama Climate Record.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an order to undo Obama-era regulations to curb climate change, keeping a campaign promise to support the coal industry while calling into question U.S. support for an international deal to fight global warming.
House Intel Chief Devin Nunes revealed Obama’s intelligence agencies may have been improperly spreading significant information about Trump’s transition.
In the last three months of the Obama presidency, significant personal information from and about the Trump transition was collected and widely disseminated at intelligence agencies, according to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
Dozens of intelligence reports provided to Nunes by an unnamed whistleblower were floating around during the sensitive transition period following the election, he said. The information collection itself may have technically been legal, but the failure to properly mask the information “alarmed” the California congressman, who notified the White House of the surveillance and dissemination of information on Wednesday afternoon.
House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff is in high dudgeon over the bad form of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes in reporting his bombshell — that the chairman had been shown actual surveillance (not involving Russia) of the Trump transition team and possibly of the then president-elect himself — to President Trump before he presented the evidence to the committee.
While the American Intelligence Community (IC) plays “not us” when it comes to claims that the Obama Administration spied on President Trump (when he was both a candidate and President-elect), Fox News has learned that in order to avoid a paper trail, fingerprints, and pesky little details like the Bill of Rights, President Obama circumvented all of that by requesting the British spy on Trump.
Alfred Hitchcock’s black comedy The Trouble with Harry bombed at the box office when it was first released in 1955; it has now achieved the status of a classic. Today, a bizarre melodrama playing in all the major political theaters, which might be called The Trouble with Barry, has become an overnight smash hit. Starring Barack Obama, a prodigy of the art of surveillance and Teflon-like resilience, it will eventually run its course. However the plot may develop, one thing is certain: it will not be regarded as a classic.
The trouble with Barry, like Hitchcock’s moribund Harry, is that he never seems to go away, constantly emerging at the most inopportune moments. Unlike every other president in American history, Obama has dedicated himself to the practice of what the Washington Examiner has described as “post-presidential meddling.”
Host Chris Wallace of “Fox News Sunday” spent most of his Sunday show on the subject of whether there is any evidence of Trump officials colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 presidential election. “On the Russian collusion, there’s a lot of smoke, no evidence,” said panelist Bob Woodward of Washington Post Watergate fame.
There is a lot of breaking news this weekend as the nation learns that a sitting President (Obama) looks to have used the nation’s national security apparatus – which is empowered to protect this nation from foreign enemies and threats – for crass political gain (read “personal gain”). If this is even partially true, this would be Watergate on steroids and irreparably tarnish the Obama administration for all history.
These high stakes may also explain the irrational fear and hate by the democrat leadership we have seen in their scorched-Earth actions since the election. Events may be unraveling on them big time, events that started last summer in a very different world.