MB Obama Appointee, Bundler Blocks More Video Releases By Group Behind Planned Parenthood Sting – Hillary’s Connect to PP

-White House threatens to veto bill blocking Planned Parenthood’s funding
planned parenthood vp medical director
JULY 31, 2015 By Mollie Hemingway

A federal judge late Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

Even though the National Abortion Federation filed its claim only hours before, Orrick quickly decided in their favor that the abortionists they represent would, ironically, be “likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest.”

Thus far the videos have featured born-alive humans discussing the killing of what abortion providers themselves call “babies,” the “crushing” of their bodies and harvesting of their organs for sale to for-profit companies.

From Orrick’s restraining order:

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable William H. Orrick, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Courtroom 2, why you, your officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with you, should not be enjoined and restrained from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly and indirectly, any and all of the following acts:

(1) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party any video, audio, photographic, or other recordings taken, or any confidential information learned, at any NAF annual meetings;

(2) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the dates or locations of any future NAF meetings;

(3) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the names or addresses of any NAF members learned at any NAF annual meetings; and

(4) attempting to gain access to any future NAF meetings.

Pending hearing on the above Order to Show Cause you, your officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with you ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:

(1) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party any video, audio, photographic, or other recordings taken, or any confidential information learned, at any NAF annual meetings;

(2) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the dates or locations of any future NAF meetings; and

(3) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the names or addresses of any NAF members learned at any NAF annual meetings.

The suit filed by the National Abortion Federation attempted to restrain the journalism on the grounds that the Center for Medical Progress would be in violation of non-disclosure agreements its journalists had signed. The issue of whether you can restrain journalistic expression on such grounds is not cut and dry, according to Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment lawyer.

David Daleiden, the journalist behind the Center for Medical Progress videos, told CNN earlier today that the reason why Stem Express filed suit against release of a video of their meeting with him is because they admitted to receiving fully intact fetuses from abortion clinics. Daleiden said those conversations may have shown “prima facie evidence of born-alive infants.”

The Center for Medical Progress responded to the injunction:

The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work. The National Abortion Federation is a criminal organization that has spent years conspiring with Planned Parenthood on how to violate federal laws on partial-birth abortion and fetal tissue sales. The Center for Medical Progress will contest any attempts to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech or silence the freedom of the citizen press.

We’ll have to wait to find out just how grisly the National Abortion Federation’s discussion of organ harvesting was.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.

White House threatens to veto bill blocking Planned Parenthood’s funding
The White House on Friday threatened a veto on any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood
August 1, 2015 by The Hill | Jordan Fabian

The White House on Friday threatened a veto on any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.

A budget measure that strips funding from the organization “is certainly something that would draw a presidential veto,” press secretary Josh Earnest said.

“We have routinely opposed the inclusion of ideologically driven riders” in budget bills, Earnest added.

It is the first time the White House issued a veto threat against Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood since an anti-abortion group began releasing secretly recorded videos.

Senate Republicans have taken aim at the women’s health group in recent weeks on the heels of videos that the Center for Medical Progress claims show Planned Parenthood officials trying to sell parts of aborted fetuses, which would be illegal.


Report Exposes Hillary’s Close Relationship With Planned Parenthood
The Clintons have accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from Planned Parenthood and its employees
August 1, 2015 DR. SUSAN BERRY by Breitbart

A new report released jointly by PACs America Rising and Women Speak Out, partner of pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, chronicles the longstanding relationship between Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood.

Though Clinton was first quoted as saying she found the Planned Parenthood videos depicting the organization’s officials describing the sale of aborted baby organs as “disturbing,” the former Secretary of State tweeted out her support for the nation’s largest abortion provider on Thursday:

The report highlights the following:

Clinton has accepted Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award

The Clintons have accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from Planned Parenthood and its employees;

Planned Parenthood actively lobbied Clinton during her time as Secretary of State and received tens of millions in taxpayer funding from USAID;

Planned Parenthood is part of a network of far-left groups propping up Clinton’s candidacy with hundreds of millions of dollars pledged.

As The Federalist noted in 2014, Clinton sang the praises of eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in 2009:

“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously,” Clinton said at a Planned Parenthood event. “Her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”

“When I think about what [Sanger] did all those years ago in Brooklyn,” she added. “I am really in awe of her. And there are a lot of lessons we that can learn from her life and the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so greatly.”

“What’s really ‘disturbing’ are Hillary Clinton’s long financial connections to Planned Parenthood,” said Joe Pounder, spokesman for America Rising, in a press release. “Like any Clinton associate, all you need to do is follow the money to discover how deep Clinton’s Planned Parenthood ties go. That’s exactly why you will never see Clinton criticize the group—her personal interests run too deep.”

“Planned Parenthood’s brutal abortion business has been laid bare for all to see and Americans are repulsed,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Women Speak Out PAC. “Hillary Clinton must immediately renounce her Margaret Sanger Award, Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, and return the tens of thousands of dollars she’s accepted from them.”

FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Gushes Over Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder: “‘I Admire Margaret Sanger Enormously, Her Courage, Her Vision”…
August 1, 2015

Via MRC:

During a March 27, 2009 speech accepting the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, Clinton talked about being in awe of the racist eugenicist:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. Another of my great friends, Ellen Chesler, is here, who wrote a magnificent biography of Margaret Sanger called Woman of Valor. And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

And there are a lot of lessons that we can learn from her life and from the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so bravely. One in particular, though, has always stood out for me almost a hundred years later. It’s the lesson that women’s empowerment is always, always about more than bettering the lives of individual women. It is part of a movement. It’s about economic and political progress for all women and girls. It’s about making sure that every woman and girl everywhere has the opportunities that she deserves to fulfill her potential, a potential as a mother, as a worker, as a human being.


dems slave planned parenthood tfernandez
abortion Selling-Human-Body-Parts
hillary sanger planned PP abortion moralmatter
Margaret Sanger weeds abortion
obama sanger abortion kristiann1

Related previous posts on this blog



































Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

On the verge of the unthinkable – Huckabee is Right: Iran Nuke Deal Brings us Closer to Catastrophe of Holocaust Proportions

On the verge of the unthinkable
obama iran deal
August 1, 2015 By Carol Brown

Can we stop this deadly Iran deal?

Perhaps. (Partially.)

Should we try?

Yes. With every fiber of our being.

To the first point, there are two major hurdles that make stopping this deal nearly impossible.

First, there are the numbers needed in Congress to override Obama’s veto. At this time, the numbers aren’t there. But perhaps we can change that.

Second, even if Congress is able to override Obama’s veto, we cannot stop the full scope of the deal from going into effect. As John Bolton explained during an interview on Fox News, because Obama partnered with European nations, they will still honor the deal irrespective of our actions.

Obama intentionally surrendered our sovereignty to Europe.

And that doesn’t even take into account Russia or China.

According to Bolton, all Congress can do is stop Obama from lifting sanctions. And if that happens, it triggers a clause in the deal that releases Iran from its responsibilities with respect to nuclear agreements.

To the latter point, I’m not convinced it means much. There’s no reason to think Iran would uphold its end of the bargain no matter what the circumstance. Nor am I convinced the deal allows the West any meaningful ability to monitor Iran’s behavior. More importantly, I have no confidence the West would take action against Iran even if they did catch Iran breaking its end of the bargain. Quite the opposite.

But back to the sanctions for a moment. American sanctions have the strongest economic impact on Iran compared to sanctions from other countries. Sanctions relief will also increase the chances that Iran would have enough money to buy a nuclear weapon from another country, such as North Korea. Given the choice between the United States keeping sanctions in place, or not, it’s a no brainer to keep them in place. So while this would not “kill the deal,” as they say, it’s still meaningful.

In addition, a Congressional vote against the deal — one large enough to override Obama’s veto — would send a message to the rest of the world that America does not stand with a nuclear Iran. And we certainly don’t fund it to the tune of 150 billion dollars.

How surreal it is to type these words. We are writing, reading, talking, screaming, raging, witnessing, and fearing our country becoming an enabler of the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. That we are on the verge of helping a nation that wants to destroy us, acquire the weapons to do so. That we are aligning ourselves with the 21st century Hitler. And that we must take action — no less fight a nearly impossible fight — to curb this descent into evil, madness, and hell.

As John Podhoretz wrote in Commentary Magazine:

The United States and its allies have struck a deal with Iran that effectively ensures that it will be a nuclear state with ballistic missiles in 10 years, assuming Iran adheres to the deal’s terms, which is a very large assumption…The president and the secretary of state are making large claims for the deal that are not true; the same will be true of all of its signatories, who are seeing Nobel stars in their eyes…and while those of us who see Iran’s nuclearization as the threshold threat for the rest of the 21st century will not be silent and will not give up the fight against it, it is appropriate to take a moment to despair that we — the United States and the West — have come to this.

Yes. Despair. That it has come to this.

And, yes. Not giving up the fight.

Each of us must do everything in our power to create a small miracle — to maximize the chance that Congress can override the veto of the evil enabler of terror who sits in the oval office.

Will our actions matter? I don’t know. Like many readers, I have become cynical and increasingly hopeless. I have lost confidence that my voice counts for anything.

And yet.

How can any of us live with ourselves if we didn’t do everything possible to ensure a future for ourselves and our children? To live.

You don’t have to be optimistic when taking political action. People can have serious doubts about the outcome of their efforts and still put forth the effort.

And mind you, the effort is nothing monumental. It doesn’t take an enormous amount of time or energy (not that that’s the point). It doesn’t require that we put our life in harm’s way or take a huge risk we are unwilling to take. (Obama is doing that for us.) All we need to do is contact our elected officials to say we are against the Iran deal.

Will they listen? I don’t know. Will they care? I don’t know. The cynic in me believes most are dug in and know how they will vote irrespective of how many call to voice their opposition.

And yet.

Imagine your child or grandchild living in a world with a nuclear Iran. Imagine your child or grandchild asking what you did to try to stop it. And imagine you saying you couldn’t be bothered to take a couple of minutes out of every day for a few weeks to make a few phone calls.

Imagine your child or grandchild asking you why you didn’t do it. And imagine telling them you couldn’t be bothered because it wouldn’t matter. And when they ask you how you knew it wouldn’t matter, you tell them it hadn’t seemed to matter in the past so you assumed it wouldn’t matter now.

And they say: But still. Why didn’t you try?

And you have to look them in the eye and defend your cynicism and hopelessness, while all-the-while you want them to be fighters.

How can anyone be so cynical, so hopeless, or so apathetic to be unwilling to expend even an ounce of energy to press for votes against this deal?

Because unlike any other dangerous move Obama has made against America, this time the stakes are as high as they get. Obama has shoved the United States (and Israel) in front of a speeding train with barely room to maneuver to free ourselves.

Perhaps this precipice that Obama has brought us to is so unthinkable, so surreal, and so terrifying that it tests the limits of our ability to truly grasp what it means. Perhaps we retreat into denial. Or perhaps the prospect of a nuclear Iran is somewhat abstract. It’s a country far away from us. And maybe we somewhat simplistically think Israel will take care of Iran.

Whatever the case, we cannot allow ourselves to remain passive.

Taking action doesn’t require us to fit into a box or don a label, be it “conservative,” “grass roots,” “activist,” “patriot,” and so on. It’s enough that we’re American. And for that reason, we never give up.

Here is some information for those who will not give up, despite apathy, discouragement, disillusionment, hopelessness, frustration, as well as a hefty dose of rage. Time is of the essence. The vote is days away.

Contact your Senators and Congressional Representative. And do so as often as possible. [Contact info on right side]

Contact those Senators we need to target who may (emphasis on “may”) break with party alliance and vote against the deadly deal. Thanks to Steve Chambers who wrote a piece for AT that provided names and contact information for the Democrats to target. (Note: The first five senators are up for reelection in 2016.)

Michael Bennet (CO) . bennett.senate.gov . (202) 224-5852

Richard Blumenthal (CT) . blumenthal.senate.gov . (202) 224-2823

Barbara Mikulski (MD) . milkulski.senate.gov . (202) 224-4654

Charles Schumer (NY) . schumer.senate.gov . (202) 224-6542

Ron Wyden (OR) . wyden.senate.gov . (202) 224-5244

Ben Cadin (MD) . cadin.senate.gov . (202) 224-4524

Robert P. Casey (PA) . casey.senate.gov . (202) 224-6324

Joe Donnelly (IN) . donnelly.senate.gov . (202) 224-4814

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) . gillibrand.senate.gov . (202) 224-4451

Heidi Heitkamp (ND) . heitkamp.senate.gov . (202) 224-2043

Joe Manchin (WV) . manchin.senate.gov . (202) 224-3954

Robert Menendez (NJ) . menendez.senate.gov . (202) 224-4744

Bill Nelson (FL) . billnelson.senate.gov . (202) 224-5274

Debbie Stabenow (MI) . stabenow.senate.gov . (202) 224-4822

Cory Booker (NJ) . booker.senate.gov . (202) 224-3224

Gary Peters (MI) . peters.senate.gov . (202) 224-6221

Mark Warner (VA) . warner.senate.gov . (202) 224-2023

Make this deadly deal a topic of interactions with others. Help them grasp the urgency and light a fire under them to speak out. Give them information to help them do so.

Keep printed materials with you to give to others. Print out the contact list, above. Print out talking points. Have materials on hand. Keep them in your car. Give them to people at the dry cleaners, the supermarket, everywhere you go. Help them understand what is at stake.

Use social media to educate others and convince them to take immediate action.

Support organizations that are lobbying Congress against this deal. Christians United for Israel, for example, has created a spin-off lobbying group (CUFI Action Fund) that has made the Iran deal it’s top priority for action.

Many clocks are ticking, ticking, ticking. Counting down to an Iran nuclear break out. Counting down to the 2016 presidential election. But the clock that will run out sooner than either of these is the one counting down the number of days before Congress votes on the Iran deal.

I implore every reader to take action.

Orwell could never have imagined this level of madness.

But here we are.



Huckabee is Right: Iran Nuke Deal Brings us Closer to Catastrophe of Holocaust Proportions
mike huckabee
31 July 2015 by Anne Bayefsky

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee raised the specter of the Holocaust in his evaluation of President Obama’s Iran deal, he touched a raw nerve because Huckabee got it right: The Holocaust taught us that evil is not satiated after it consumes Jews. A deal that is catastrophic for Israel is also catastrophic for the United States.

The Governor reminded us that imagining the deal means losing some purportedly tolerable number of American servicemen to Iranian terror, somewhere “over there,” is morally and empirically wrong.

Critics, however—starting with the President—jumped on the Governor’s remarks – misread and misrepresented. What the Governor actually said to Breitbart News on July 25, 2015 was as follows: “This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

In response to the critics, Huckabee refused to be cowed. He subsequently told reporters and tweeted: “The last time the world did not take seriously threats against the Jewish people, just before World War II, this ended up in the murder of six million Jews… For decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to ‘destroy,’ ‘annihilate,’ and ‘wipe Israel off the map’ with a ‘big Holocaust.’” “What’s ‘unacceptable’ is a mushroom cloud over Israel,” he added. “If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all.”

President Obama, anxious to court American Jews to support the deal – and New York Senator Chuck Schumer in particular – responded with alacrity from a trip abroad in Ethiopia: “The particular comments of Mr. Huckabee are, I think, part of just a general pattern that we’ve seen that is — would be considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad.”

Huckabee shot back via Twitter: “What’s ‘ridiculous and sad’ is that @POTUS does not take Iran’s repeated threats seriously.”

The accuracy of Huckabee’s reply was corroborated by Secretary Kerry within a day, when Kerry testified at the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week. Over and over, Kerry was asked by Congressmen about the dangers of Iran in the here and now.

Congressman Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) 80%: Three months ago Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi stated that erasing Israel off the map is non-negotiable. Do you believe his comments accurately reflect Iranian government goals?

Secretary Kerry: I think it accurately reflects some people’s rhetoric and some people’s attitude…

Congressman Rep. Steven Chabot (R-OH) 80%: If this is such a good deal, why is Israel so opposed to it?

Secretary Kerry: First of all, I understand when you say Israel, there are people in Israel who support it…There are concerns about the region they live in, about the nature of the rhetoric that’s used…

Congressman Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)74%: Is it the policy of the ayatollah…that Iran wants to destroy the United States? …Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?

Secretary Kerry: I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity. But I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us.

In other words, the Prime Minister of a democratic state, a close ally, and three-quarters of Jewish Israelis from all political stripes who are opposed to the deal were dismissed, along with the insufficiently specific “rhetoric.”

The militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, Kerry suggested in the same hearing, was all in the past. “We know what they were doing, we’ve already drawn our conclusion about 2003. We know they were engaged in trying to make a weapon.” So this deal literally gives Iran a do-over.

Downplaying the evil intent of Iran isn’t just fuzzy thinking. This posture has formed the essence of the President’s foreign policy from the moment he took office and is critical to appreciating the catastrophic nature of the deal.

As early as March 2009, President Obama produced a video in which he directly addressed the “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” seeking “engagement grounded in mutual respect.” When his vision finally culminated last week in the overthrow of the entire hard-won UN sanctions regime, Ambassador Samantha Power boasted that negotiators “demonstrated” “mutual respect.”

Governor Huckabee is telling us: stop whatever you’re doing, and let that sink in. Mutual respect for a regime overtly committed to genocide against the Jewish state.

After the President ridiculed the Governor for his own political purposes, there were other politically tinged responses.

The Anti-Defamation League – whose new National Director Jonathan Greenblatt is a former Special Assistant to President Obama – immediately fell in line behind the President. Naturally, Greenblatt labeled Huckabee’s comments “completely out of line.”

Marvin Hier, Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told CNN, “…the only way we’re going to win this is with bipartisan support…[W]hat [Huckabee] said…is hardly the way to achieve that bipartisan support.” Huckabee’s political rival Jeb Bush told MSNBC: “This is not the way we’re going to win elections…” The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, called Huckabee’s words inappropriate while explaining to USA Today that “he had met with dozens of congressional Democrats because ‘I think ultimately they may decide whether this deal goes through or doesn’t go through.’”

Critics of Huckabee worried that Democrats would defend their president if his honor was at stake, regardless of the demerits of the deal. Seeking precisely such an outcome, the President had twisted Huckabee’s words into a personal assault devoid of substance. From Ethiopia, the President said: “we just don’t fling out ad hominem attacks like that.” Instead of addressing Iran’s illegal, evil intentions and deeds, or Iran’s lack of mutual respect for diversity of any kind, the President made the critique of the deal all about himself.

The liberal news outlet Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) ran a piece about Huckabee’s comments that counseled those considering making a Holocaust analogy: “never again.” That’s exactly the intimidation President Obama hoped to achieve.

It is also exactly the opposite of the lesson that ought to be drawn from the Holocaust.

In 1939, when Hitler spoke of “the end of the Jews” of Europe, precious few took seriously his genocidal intent. Just days ago, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a chanting crowd: “You heard ‘Death to Israel,’ ‘Death to the US’… So we ask Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran.”

Last year, Khamenei said “this barbaric… regime of Israel… has no cure but to be annihilated.”

It is time that the Obama administration stopped calling these statements “rhetoric” and stopped pretending that the subject at hand is Mr. President.

The subject at hand is an enemy that is the leading state sponsor of terror; today openly advocates genocide; funds the killers of Israelis; tortures Americans in its prisons; and stays in power only through brutality and mass disenfranchisement. An enemy that was caught red-handed trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has spent years continuously violating nuclear non-proliferation laws.

The subject is a deal that puts billions into the hands of this deadly foe. A deal that promises Iran an end to an arms embargo when the previously entrenched Security Council regime had no time limit and was not about to expire. A deal that grants Iran a right to enrich that was denied under the now defunct legally binding resolutions.

The President’s deal, with this enemy, takes Israel to the brink of a catastrophe of Holocaust proportions. What else should we call nuclear war?

Anne Bayefsky is the director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Obama Iran Deal 2
iran gobble


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO TPP Deal Hits The Wall – Hillary Clinton heavily involved in TPP, but now knows nothing

Obama’s TPP trade deal hits the wall, Globalist pact sputters – ‘Neither side was prepared to move’

August 1, 2015 by Curtis Ellis

UNITED NATIONS – President Obama’s hopes for a globalist pact integrating economies on four continents ran aground in Hawaii on Friday.

Trade negotiators from 12 nations announced Friday they failed to reach a deal on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP.

TPP would be 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.

The latest round of talks in Hawaii had been expected to yield an agreement to conclude the TPP. The president pressed Congress to surrender its ability to amend the pact, saying that would enable him to quickly wrap up the negotiations. The House and Senate agreed, and gave President Obama the enhanced power, known as trade promotion authority, after a series of controversial votes in June.

But the president’s promises proved false.

Negotiations stalled when national governments failed to accede to corporatist demands to open their borders and allow “people, goods, capital and information to flow freely through the zone,” as Japanese Trade Minister Akira Amari described TPP’s goals at a news conference Friday evening.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said he agreed with Amari on what “we’ve been trying to achieve in these negotiations” and “the larger exercise here of integrating the Asian Pacific region.”

A key sticking point in the negotiations was pharmaceuticals, reported Associated Press.

Striking a deal over how long to protect data used to develop biologic drugs was described as the biggest source of frustration by a source from a non-U.S. negotiating nation.

U.S. drug manufacturers want 12 years, but Australia wants five. A compromise of seven or eight years is seen as a possible compromise.

“The US was on one side of the issue, while practically every other country were on the other side,” the source told Associated Press.

“Neither side was prepared to move and all claimed it as a red-line issue.”

That proposed pact would integrate the U.S. economy with one of the world’s most notorious slave states, Malaysia, where millions of men women and children are routinely sold into forced labor and the sex trade. WND has reported the administration came under fire for issuing a human rights report that critics say whitewashed Malaysia’s record in order to expedite the TPP negotiations.

The failure to reach an agreement assures TPP will be an issue in next year’s presidential contest. Insurgent candidates Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left oppose the deal, pressing establishment candidates to take a stand on a pact that is deeply unpopular with voters across the political spectrum.

Hillary Clinton heavily involved in TPP, but now knows nothing
Hillary press editor in chief
August 1, 2015 — bunkerville

Here our gal Hillary lies through her teeth about the TPP. Does she not know yet that the internet now can contain her lying words? She sure know how E-mails works don’t you know. Interesting clip if only the media would pick it up, but for now it is up to us. Here we go:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times — but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.

“I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

But at a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that “with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this — it is the United States Trade Representative — we work closely with the USTR.” Additionally, State Department cables reviewed by International Business Times show that her agency — including her top aides — were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative’s office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials.

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is not altogether surprising: in a June,CBS News reported that “a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP.” In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

“She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration,” said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. “She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part.”

More at IBT Times
24 times Hillary Clinton championed TPP as Secretary of State | SUPERcuts!


Cables Show Hillary Clinton’s State Department Deeply Involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership
By David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com on July 31 2015 9:30 AM EDT

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times — but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.

“I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

But at a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that “with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this — it is the United States Trade Representative — we work closely with the USTR.” Additionally, State Department cables reviewed by International Business Times show that her agency — including her top aides — were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative’s office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials.

In recent months, labor, environmental, public health and consumer advocacy groups have campaigned against the TPP, saying the pact is a stealth attempt by corporations to tilt the rules of international commerce in their favor. They have specifically criticized provisions in the deal — which are secret but have periodically leaked — that they say would empower corporations to use international tribunals to attempt to overturn public interest laws. The groups represent many core Democratic Party constituencies that Clinton has been courting in her White House bid, which explains why in the lead-up to the party’s primary she has suddenly depicted herself as a critic of the deal. But the cables show that the Clinton-run State Department was indeed a major player in pushing the initiative.

In one September 2009 cable, the State Department’s embassy officials in Wellington outline the New Zealand government’s desire for the United States to involve itself in the trade pact. An embassy cable from a few months later says the U.S. ambassador further discussed the TPP with New Zealand officials. In a February 2010 cable, the same embassy said that Clinton’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frankie Reed met with New Zealand trade officials and “engaged on a wide range of topics, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

The cable notes that at the meeting, New Zealand officials told Clinton’s deputy that the country “views the TPP as a platform for future trade integration in the Asia Pacific and recognizes there will a number of sensitive issues on both sides during negotiations.” The cable says they also discussed the TPP’s effect on intellectual property rights, natural resource investment, and pharmaceuticals — all specific issues that have raised concerns from watchdog groups in the United States.

In a separate cable, State Department officials in New Zealand request an additional employee to specifically “allow the Economics Officer to focus on preparations for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.”

steinberg1 James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State, prepares to testify before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in March of 2011. Tom Williams/Roll Call

In a September 2009 cable, State Department officials report that Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, specifically discussed the TPP with Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister.

“The Deputy Secretary acknowledged that that the U.S. was reviewing its position on TPP, adding that stronger support from Congress as a result of positive steps on issues of concern was likely needed in order to move forward on trade issues with Vietnam,” said the cable.

In a November 2009 cable, the U.S. embassy in Tokyo details TPP discussions between Japanese government officials and Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was then serving as Clinton’s undersecretary of state.

In a December 2009 cable, State Department officials in Hanoi report that the U.S. Ambassador “hosted a dinner on December 21 for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement country representatives.” The cable thanked the Clinton-run State Department for providing “regular updates” that “have been key to helping vus answer the many TPP-related inquiries we receive.”

In a January 2010 cable, State Department embassy officials in Kuala Lampur advise Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on strategies to negotiate the TPP with the Malaysian government.

“Highlight the priority the Administration is giving to the Trans Pacific Partnership initiative, and the role that the TPP will play in promoting economic competitiveness and trade opportunities in the region,” Clinton’s State Department officials advised. “Encourage Malaysia, when it’s ready, to engage TPP members about process and requirements for joining.”

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is not altogether surprising: in a June, CBS News reported that “a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP.” In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

“She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration,” said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. “She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part.”

UPDATE: In 2012 speech in Singapore, Clinton explicitly promoted the TPP as an initiative that “will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region.” She also used the collective “we” in describing the work being done on the pact, saying, “we are making progress toward finalizing a far-reaching new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” She also said “we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join.” The video of the key part of her speech can be seen here http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm

Obama Trade TPPtpp  infograp

Related previous posts on this blog













































Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

VIDEO MB Obama Steps Up U.S. Training of Communist Chinese Military – Difference Between Dems and Socialists?

china troops
31 July 2015 by Alex Newman

Even as the Communist Chinese dictatorship ruthlessly oppresses the people of China while stepping up its aggressive rhetoric, espionage, and military activities aimed beyond its borders, the Obama administration has been training Beijing’s troops in U.S. military tactics, techniques, and procedures. Critics have long opposed the high-level “mil-mil cooperation” between the U.S. Armed Forces and one of the most brutal autocracies on the planet. At least one U.S. lawmaker has been expressing concerns. But the Obama administration, which boasts of its actions and has called for even deeper military ties with Beijing, shows no signs of backing down from the highly controversial and potentially dangerous programs.

In 2013, the Obama administration shocked the world by inviting Communist Chinese troops to the United States to train with American forces for the first time in history. Ostensibly aimed at practicing “disaster management,” the U.S.-Communist China military exercises raised widespread alarm among national security experts. And while the Pentagon downplayed the risk and denied in comments to The New American that any weapons were involved, Chinese officials were boasting of “weapon demonstration, technique exchange, and cooperative action.” Earlier in 2013, a senior Chinese general, who in 2005 threatened to destroy hundreds of U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, led a “military exchange program” delegation to Washington, D.C. from Beijing.

The next year, again for the first time in history, Obama offered further opportunities for Chinese forces to gather sensitive intelligence on how the U.S. military works — this time by inviting Beijing’s Navy to participate in the “RIMPAC war games.” Hosted off the American coast by the U.S. Pacific Command, RIMPAC is the largest multinational maritime exercise in the world. And by allowing the Chinese regime’s ships to participate, Beijing was able to gather important insight into the U.S. military’s “tactics, techniques and procedures” (TTPs), according to analysts. Beijing was invited again this year, even as it steps up its aggressive actions against U.S. Navy ships in international waters.

Since Obama took office, U.S. forces have been training Chinese troops and sailors in “counter-piracy operations” in the Indian Ocean, too. The Obama administration also waived the ban on Chinese parts in U.S. weapons systems, with potentially catastrophic implications for national security. And in February of this year, the administration invited dozens of Chinese naval officers to tour the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Surface Warfare Officers School, and the U.S. Naval War College. The dictatorship’s officers also “took part in seminars with trainees at the Surface Warfare Officers School,” the Chinese Navy headquarters boasted to the regime’s propaganda outlets.

In recent years, the administration has gone even further in terms of linking up the U.S. military to Beijing’s “People’s Liberation Army.” “The military-to-military ties between the United States and China have grown and strengthened in recent years and it is an area of cooperation that the United States values,” said Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice last year while in Beijing meeting with top Communist Chinese officials, including dictator Xi Jinping. “President Obama firmly believes that the U.S.-China relationship is one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in the world and that there is virtually no problem of global significance that can be better resolved when the United States and China are working together at the same table.”

The deepening bonds between U.S. and Chinese forces under the Obama administration, justified by the administration and the establishment as an effort to prevent “misunderstandings,” has now attracted some attention even from establishment media organs. In a Reuters column last week about how the United States is training China’s military even while inching toward conflict, columnist William Johnson noted that, despite tensions, “the two nations’ militaries train together at a very high level.” He noted that even though the two governments were coming closer to “armed confrontation,” the Obama administration was simultaneously “training Chinese forces in the American way of war.” The two militaries are also developing “increased interoperability,” Johnson observed.

Beijing is taking full advantage of the opportunities to learn about the U.S. military and how it operates, too. Various “cooperative” and “international” military efforts with U.S. forces are being used by China to, for example, “explore the anti-submarine warfare tactics of the U.S. forces stationed on Diego Garcia Island, south of India, as well as those of U.S. and allied forces in the Gulf of Aden,” according to Johnson. Meanwhile, with Beijing being allowed to use the European Union’s MERCURY communications network, China is able “to understand exactly how NATO allies coordinate efforts in every stage of sea battle, from planning to execution to assessment,” Johnson explained. Incredibly, the columnist goes on to argue for increased military cooperation.

Apparently, some military officials also support the administration’s ongoing support for the Chinese regime’s armed forces. “The PLA(N) [People’s Liberation Army-Navy] and PLAAF [People’s Liberation Army-Air Force] are now global brands and our desire is for them to increasingly contribute to security and stability operations,” wrote Vice Admiral Robert Thomas in a column published by Defense One. “What’s next? Our goal is clear: we want to work with the PLA(N) and PLAAF to ensure their efforts contribute to regional stability and that they act as a proponent of the rule of law in the international system. To this end, increased cooperation between the U.S. 7th Fleet and the PLA(N) will benefit all nations in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.”

But more than a few high-profile voices have said the cooperation ought to end — and that it is putting U.S. national security in danger. In an analysis published by the Center for Security Policy, for example, U.S. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.) started off by blasting the invitation extended to Communist China to participate in RIMPAC. That massive exercise “is for allies and friends, not nations planning to eventually wage war on the United States,” he said, quoting analyst Robert Sutter’s 2005 assertion that “China is the only large power in the world preparing to shoot Americans.” That assessment remains true today, Admiral Lyons noted: “Beijing is configuring its forces — especially its navy — to fight ours.”

“As Beijing’s behavior has become more troubling, the Pentagon has clung to the hope that military-to-military relations will somehow relieve tensions with the Chinese,” Lyons continued, rightly or wrongly assuming that the Obama administration’s training of Chinese forces is at least well-intentioned, if naïve. “Yet as Ronald Reagan taught us, the nature of regimes matter. We are now helping an incurably aggressive state develop its military — to our peril. There is something very wrong at the core of the Obama administration’s and the Pentagon’s China policies.” Of course, numerous other respected analysts and Western officials have offered similar warnings about Beijing’s intentions.

The Chinese regime’s increasingly aggressive confrontations with U.S. ships and aircraft in international waters and airspace have raised alarm, too. Meanwhile, Beijing’s generals have, even in recent years, threatened to annihilate hundreds of U.S. cities in a nuclear holocaust if the U.S. government were to stick by its treaty obligations and defend the free Republic of China (Taiwan) from the communist regime ruling the mainland. Obama responded by inviting the communist general to the United States on an official exchange mission. The regime has also been aggressively spying on the United States, most recently found culpable in a massive hacking attack. Plus, the fact that the Communist Chinese dictatorship has murdered more human beings than any other in history should, in and of itself, be cause for serious concern.

In Congress, some lawmakers have started questioning the Obama administration’s “mil-mil” actions, too. Late last year, Rep. Randy Forbes (R. Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, sent a letter to Obama’s defense chiefs asking for a “review” of the cooperation. “I believe that the Department currently lacks the thorough guidance and oversight mechanisms necessary to maintain a consistent mil-mil policy that best serves U.S. national security objectives over the ‘long-haul’ of the emerging U.S.-China peacetime competition,” the congressman wrote, citing “multiple examples” of senior U.S. officials “pursuing multiple, divergent mil-mil engagement objectives.” But even Forbes’ publicly expressed doubts hardly hit on the main problems.

Of course, Obama has not been alone in handing sensitive insight into the U.S. military to Beijing on a silver platter. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, helped the hostile communist government access some of the most sensitive American military technology, even while covering up various crimes for the regime and its agents, as documented in the February 15, 1999 “Chinagate: Treason in the White House” issue of The New American. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” wrote former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer.

The Obama administration’s seemingly bizarre decision to cooperate so closely with the brutal Chinese regime is in line with advice offered by billionaire globalist financier George Soros. In recent months, the Rothschild dynasty protégée has become increasingly vocal in demanding an even broader “strategic partnership” with the dictatorship, allegedly to avoid another world war. Soros has also called regularly for Beijing to “own” what he touts as the “New World Order.” The broader globalist establishment, meanwhile, continues to build up the ruthless autocracy, even as Chinese Communists increasingly seize control of more and more of the architecture of “global governance.”

For the sake of U.S. national security and liberty, the U.S. government should end any and all programs that could benefit the brutal autocracy or its armed forces in any way — particularly in the event of conflict with the United States. The Obama administration, which has also invited Russian terror troops to U.S. soil for training with U.S. forces for the first time in history, clearly has no intention of reining in the potentially catastrophic assistance to hostile foreign regimes. But Congress, which controls the purse strings, can and should take action to protect America.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

PRICELESS: Watch DNC Chairwoman Try To Explain Difference Between Socialist and Democrat
July 31, 2015 by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor

It’s a rare occurrence when I can actually applaud MSNBC’s Chris Matthews; in fact, I’m not sure it’s ever happened before.

But, as they say, there’s always a first. I haven’t checked, but it’s possible hell just froze over.

When you see the exchange between Chris Matthews and Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, I think you’ll understand why, today, I’m putting my hands together for Chris Matthews.

Via CainTV.com:

Usually, when a completely discredited very important Democrat appears on the Chris Matthews program, you expect to see a lot of coddling and hand holding. These people represent Matthews’ team, and he can normally be counted on to go easy with the questions. Every once in a while, though, he lives up to the show’s name and lobs a Hardball.

Take, for example, a recent interview with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The subject of Bernie Sanders came up, and Matthews asked his guest if she thought a proud socialist should be allowed to speak at the Democrat Convention. After all, Sanders may caucus with Dems but he’s an Independent, not a member of their party.

“Of course he should speak,” Wasserman Schultz replied.

This seemed to throw Matthews, who asked “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference, but what do you think it is?”

Wasserman Schultz tried to dodge, but Matthews pressed on. “You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”

Unfortunately, she had no answer. That’s because, nowadays, there is no difference. Democrats have long been lost down the rabbit hole of wealth redistribution and statism. Socialism is no longer some sort of outlier that falls under the Democrats’ “big tent.” It’s the hallmark of their base.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz knows this, but she also knows that admitting it would be politically disastrous – not just for the party she fronts – but for her personal electoral prospects.

See it for yourself here:

Frighteningly enough, Bernie Sanders isn’t the only socialist in the Democrat field of candidates — even if he’s the only one who will openly admit it. We’ve written previously about Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s socialist tendencies — and the very dangerous road they lead down. Of course, we’re already feeling the very real effects of the current socialist-in-chief, President Barack Obama.

So while I must admit I got a good chuckle seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schulz squirm as she failed miserably to explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist — because there is none these days in America — this really is no laughing matter.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

VIDEO Globalization of Education: Producing Green Global Citizens – Globalist’s Cause Is Destruction: What Is Your Cause

globe children
30 July 2015 by Alex Newman

For years, Americans have been up in arms over the Obama administration’s unconstitutional efforts to nationalize education, primarily through Common Core. Especially concerning is the White House bribing and bludgeoning our state governments to surrender control over our schools. The outrage is still growing.

But a peek beneath the surface reveals that the nationalization of American schools is actually just one component of a much broader global agenda: the globalization of education. This is being openly pushed by the Obama administration, the United Nations, UNESCO, Common Core financier Bill Gates, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg summit attendees, and many other powerful forces. It is all public record.

What do I mean by “globalizing” education? Just what the term implies: moving away from local, state, and even national control of schools into a brave new world where education policy is largely dictated at the global level. That might sound far-fetched if you’ve never done the research or get your news from the TV, but it is all essentially out in the open.

UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization — has been working toward this goal from the start. For decades now, globalists at UNESCO and other UN outfits have been openly plotting to impose what they sometimes refer to as the “World Core Curriculum” on all of humanity. If you want a real trip down the rabbit hole, investigate this. It was created by UN Deputy Secretary General Robert Muller, a disciple of influential occultist and Lucifer Publishing Company founder Alice Bailey.

Today, UNESCO has all sorts of “global education” schemes to transform humanity. In a recent column published by Project Syndicate, Bulgarian Communist and UNESCO boss Irina Bokova is very explicit about it all. She wrote that “education can bring about a fundamental shift in how we think, act, and discharge our responsibilities toward one another and the planet.” She also said that “schools can nurture a new generation of environmentally savvy citizens to support the transition to a prosperous and sustainable future.”

In the same column, she brags about how UNESCO and the UN Climate Change bureaucracy are promoting “climate change” education in schools and training teachers to shape the values of your children — all toward what UNESCO would like to see. Bokova and other UN leaders also regularly describe the purpose of their global education schemes as producing quote-unquote “global citizens.”

The UNESCO chief goes on to say that “what is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources.” She also described the UNESCO-led “UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,” which began in 2005, as “explicitly intended to instill in every human being the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to shape a sustainable future.” In every human being? Does that include your children? You can bet on it.

In 2004, billionaire Bill Gates, a chief funder of the UN Population Fund, abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and of course, Common Core, signed an agreement with UNESCO on global education. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, meanwhile, has been very open about his agenda too. Consider that he often refers to UNESCO as the administration’s “global partner” in the “cradle-to-career” agenda. At a 2012 “Sustainability Summit,” Duncan said the administration is working to quote, “build the science of sustainability into the curriculum, starting in kindergarten and extending until the students graduate from high school.” He also brags about using government schools to turn your children into “green citizens” ready for “green jobs.” Do you send you kids to school to become “green citizens”? If you’re like virtually every parent I’ve ever met, the answer is obviously “no.” You can read many of Duncan’s radical speeches right on the Department of Education’s website.

I want to leave you with one final quote from UNESCO that should give you some insight into where all of this global “education for sustainable development” is really going. In a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education, the UN sustainability zealots tell us, “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” Did you catch that? More education increases the threat to sustainability.

I’ve written very extensively on this subject, so I encourage you to read the articles in The New American and follow the links to the primary source documents embedded within them (e.g., see here, here, and here). In short, American schools and schoolchildren are being globalized. And your kids are in the crosshairs. Now that you know, what do you plan to do about it?

Watch The New American Globalization of Education: Producing Green Global Citizens video at the link below

Turning urban youth into global citizens | Angela Jackson | TEDxProvidence
Jun 29, 2013

Angela Jackson is the founder and executive director of the Global Language Project, an educational movement that seeks to equip disadvantaged public-school students with the skills to compete in a globalized world and work force by helping them to develop functional proficiency in a language other than English.

The Globalist’s Cause Is Destruction: What Is Your Cause
Humanity has the power to take back its destiny
August 1, 2015 by Alex Jones

Alex Jones breaks down the ways the NWO games the system in their favor and their final technotronic eugenics nightmare solution and he asks you the viewer, What is your cause? If you stand by and let the globalist rip this world apart you have only yourself to blame for not getting in the game.

super nwo

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Hillary’s Widening Scandals – MB Aid Huma Abedin Investigated For “Fraud”, “Theft Of Public Money”, Official Letters

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin at the Open Government Partnership event in New York
July 31, 2015 By Walid Shoebat

The State Department concluded this year that Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closest aides had committed violations of rules governing vacation and sick leave during her tenure as an official in the department. Abedin, as Shoebat has extensively documented her links and ties to Wahhabists including the Muslim Brotherhood.

The finding — which Abedin has formally contested — emerged publicly Friday after Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to Secretary of State John F. Kerry and others seeking more information about an investigation into possible “criminal” conduct by Abedin concerning her pay.

According to Grassley’s description of the investigation, Abedin’s time sheets indicated that she never took vacation or sick leave during her four years at the State Department, from January 2009 to February 2013. But the investigation, the senator wrote, found evidence that Abedin did take time off, including a 10-day trip to Italy, and that she told colleagues in e-mails that she was out “on leave.”

OIG found at least a reasonable suspicion of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, theft of public money through time and attendance fraud, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 208, acts affecting a personal financial interest related to conflicts of interest connected to her overlapping employment as an SGE and her employment at Teneo and at the Clinton Foundation. The Judiciary Committee first inquired about related issues in June 2013. In May 2013, the Department of State allegedly paid Ms. Abedin approximately $33,000 for “unused” leave, though it is unclear whether she should have been entitled to such a payment.”

The letter to Abedin can be read in full:

Ms. Huma Abedin
July 30, 2015
Page 2 of 3

In May 2013, the Department of State allegedly paid you approximately $33,000 for
“unused” leave, though it is unclear whether you should have been entitled to such a payment.
During approximately three and a half years as a full time government employee, you reportedly never requested, were approved for, or had your leave balance reduced for use of any sick leave, annual leave, administrative leave, or maternity leave. Yet, the allegations illustrate that you were in fact on leave on numerous occasions. If these allegations are true, then it raises questions for you and your Department supervisors about why you were paid the cash value of leave taken but not reported and whether you were entitled to such a payment.

On June 13, 2013, the Judiciary Committee asked that you provide, among other things,
all documents and communications between the Department of State and Teneo, and any client or entities they represent. You did not provide the requested documents in your response on July 5, 2013. Since then, the Judiciary Committee has received additional allegations that further inform the original request. The Committee has learned of allegations that, during your simultaneous employment by the Department of State, Teneo, and the Clinton Foundation, you were solicited for and delivered favors for preferred individuals. For example, while employed by the Department of State, you allegedly sent or received approximately 7,300 emails on your official Department of State address that involved Mr. Douglas Band, President of Teneo. In one exchange, Mr. Band allegedly emailed you to request that you reach out to then-Secretary
Clinton to encourage President Obama to appoint Ms. Judith Rodin to a White House position.

At the time, Ms. Rodin was a client of Teneo and President of the Rockefeller Foundation, a large donor to the Clinton Foundation, a fact which Mr. Band allegedly noted in his email. In addition, you allegedly forwarded this email and others to your non-government account ending in @clintonemail.com. As a result, investigators were unableto review any subsequent emails on the chain, as they were shielded from the Department’s records systems on Secretary Clinton’s non-government server. In light of this new information, please provide the following documents and information:

1. All documents and communications responsive to the June 13, 2013, letter from the
Judiciary Committee.

2. All documents and communications referring or relating to time and attendance, all
approved timesheets, leave requests, and any requests for paid or unpaid excused
absences or administrative leave.

3. All documents and communications referring or relating to any amount received as
compensation for unused leave.

4. All documents and communications referring or relating to your designation as an SGE.

Ms. Huma Abedin
July 30, 2015
Page 3 of 3

5. All e-mails forwarded from your Department of State account to any of your other e-mail accounts.

6. What was the purpose of your trip to Italy and France in 2011? If it was to conduct Department of State business, was a government travel voucher submitted? If so, please provide a copy.

7. Please provide all records relating to your stay at the U.S. Ambassador to Italy’s
residence in Italy. In addition, did you pay for all aspects of your stay at the residence?

If not, then which aspects of your stay at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence did you pay for, if any?
In responding to these requests, please provide all responsive records from all of your email accounts, including non-government email accounts. Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions. Please submit your responses by August 10, 2015. If you have any questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Charles E. Grassley

Proof: Huma has Ties to Muslim Brotherhood Countless Documents Surface

Charles E. Grassley’s letter to John F. Kerry regarding Huma Abedin’s pay

Charles E. Grassley’s letter to Steve A. Linick regarding Huma Abedin’s pay

Ever-widening Scandals Continue to Plague Hillary
31 July 2015 by Bob Adelmann

The latest Quinnipiac survey shows Hillary Clinton failing across the board: on leadership, on empathy, on trustworthiness. Her net favorability is minus 11 percent.

It may be that the serial scandals committed in the past are coming back to haunt her. It may be that new scandals just being uncovered before the old ones can be neutralized are overwhelming her. Even erstwhile supporters are having second thoughts.

A week ago two inspectors general reported that 10 percent of the e-mails they studied from the batch Clinton released to the public contained critical national security secrets. At the time, this writer suggested that since they looked at only 40 e-mails out of the 30,000 she released, there were potentially many more still to be uncovered.

On Friday the Washington Times reported that was the case, with intelligence services scrambling first to contain and then to assess the damage caused by Clinton in her e-mails. So concerned was Director of National Intelligence Charles McCullough that he notified members of intelligence committees in both the House and the Senate of their seriousness, and their strategy to mitigate the damage as best they could:

We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification … markings … but [they] should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure server….

[Our strategy is] containment first, then a damage assessment is how this must be handled.

The Times noted further that these breaches were potentially far more serious than those by former CIA Director David Petraeus last year when he was charged with and found guilty of giving some classified information to his mistress and biographer, while storing other classified information in his home “in an insecure manner.”

One of those notified of the Clinton breach was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who became livid upon learning of the potential size, reach, and destructiveness of the information in Clinton’s unguarded e-mails. He wrote specifically of the 32,000 unreleased e-mails that are currently possessed by Clinton’s attorney:

It’s a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified information in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are.

Then Grassley blasted the FBI and the State Department for failing to move ahead quickly to secure those e-mails:

There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing in securing these classified emails, and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general … to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified.

This is one scandal that simply will not go away. A federal judge scolded the State Department for delays in releasing the documents requested, including those of Clinton’s aides while Hillary was secretary of state who were also using private unsecured e-mail accounts while working for her.

Another scandal involves an apparent pay-to-play scheme with the Swiss bank UBS. In 2008, gifts from UBS to the Clinton Foundation totaled an estimated $60,000. In 2014, they ballooned to $600,000 (a factor of 10!) following the “resolution” of issues between the IRS and the bank, thanks to intervention by Clinton. Her husband was also involved in the scheme, being paid another $1.5 million in exchange for some minor services performed for bank officials.

And still another scandal has surfaced, this time over revelations that her foundation set up a fundraising facility in Sweden at the time that country’s government was lobbying Clinton’s State Department to lift sanctions against Iran. The sanctions threatened Sweden’s thriving business with that country. Some $26 million was funneled to the Clinton’s foundation in appreciation for services rendered, using that facility. However, that facility was never disclosed and consequently was never cleared by the State Department.

Even Clinton’s friends and ideologues-in-arms are having second thoughts about Hillary as president, including “dissident feminist” and lesbian Camille Paglia. Part of Clinton’s problems in the polls, wrote Paglia, has to do with her endless “drip-drip of scandal.” When Clinton issued the usual denials, the New York Post exclaimed: “She can’t even deny convincingly!”

Paglia has all but written off Clinton as a viable candidate for the presidency:

She’s not competent or credible as a public figure. A politician, particularly a president, must have a distinct skill or expertise in communicating with the masses. It’s the absolutely basic requirement for any career in politics.

If you don’t have an effective public persona, if you’re not a good speaker, if you don’t like to press the flesh, if you’re not nimble enough to deal with anything that comes along, then you are not a natural politician.

And you’re sure not going to learn it in your late 60s.

The drip-drip-drip of scandal that continues to plague Clinton appears finally to be wearing through the Teflon that has protected her from criminal prosecutions for years. And there’s still 15 months until the election, plenty of time for new revelations to surface.

A graduate of an Ivy League school and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at http://www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Center for Medical Progress and Our Broken Rule of Law

obama i am the law
July 30th, 2015 By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)

The ongoing Planned Parenthood scandal is a fascinating story that has a lot of facets that illustrate many disturbing aspects of American society. Although it is difficult to do so, I’m going to ask readers here to set aside the horrifying aspects related to abortion and the sale of baby parts for a moment to focus on one particular aspect that has largely gone unnoticed.

The investigation of the Center for Medical Progress by the Department of Justice has rightly been decried as a transparently political move by the right, but it illustrates a much larger truth: the rule of law, especially with respect to Federal prosecutions, is an absolute illusion in America today.

Instead of the rule of law, we now have the rule of almost totally unfettered prosecutors.

I think most people like to believe that in America today, what determines whether you face the crushing weight of a Federal criminal prosecution is some basic overarching principle of justice wherein prosecutors seek out legitimate evildoers and seek to right wrongs. In reality, that just absolutely isn’t true.

If you want to be fully disabused of this notion, I would highly recommend that you purchase and read Harvey Silverglate’s watershed book Three Felonies a Day, which sets forth a number of important points that people like George Will and Orin Kerr have been trying to raise on the right for years. First, the extraordinary proliferation of federal criminal statutes – and, worse, federal regulations that carry criminal penalties for noncompliance – has resulted in a federal criminal regime in which the average American citizen likely unknowingly commits several felonies a day.

The end result of this paralyzing over criminalization of conduct that is not inherently immoral or unlawful means that a Federal prosecutor can effectively jail you and coerce incriminating testimony against other people any time he wants to. All he has to do is notice you and watch you for long enough and you’ll inevitably do something he can charge you with, no matter how conscientious you are.

A casual perusal of Federal appellate decisions shows that basic principles of fairness, justice, and morality do not by and large guide who does and who does not become the target of massive Federal criminal probes. Rather, once prosecutors have determined that a company deserves to be charged with something, they will go to extraordinary lengths to extract a conviction, regardless of whether any casual observer would conclude that a criminal conviction was fair or that a company had done anything wrong at all.

Let me illustrate with an opinion from the First Circuit. [ http://openjurist.org/821/f2d/844/united-states-v-bank-of-new-england-na ]In this case, a bank was charged with thirty-one felonies for violations of byzantine regulations associated with the Currency Transaction Reporting Act. Briefly stated, the bank’s tellers failed to report aggregate withdrawals totaling over $10,000 under circumstances that an ordinary person (especially the average bank teller) would not realize triggered reporting under the Act. In order for criminal liability to attach under the CTRA, prosecutors had to prove that the Bank knowingly violated the CTRA itself.

Prosecutors could not prove that the actual tellers who failed to report the transaction had knowledge that their activities violated the CTRA; rather, they argued (successfully!) that criminal liability should attach to the Bank because surely the collective knowledge of different people who worked for the bank, added up and imputed to some hypothetical person, amounted to knowledge that something illegal was going on. Consider, that the following absurd language actually appears in an appellate judicial decision in the United States:

In addition, however, you have to look at the bank as an institution. As such, its knowledge is the sum of the knowledge of all of the employees. That is, the bank’s knowledge is the totality of what all of the employees know within the scope of their employment. So, if Employee A knows one facet of the currency reporting requirement, B knows another facet of it, and C a third facet of it, the bank knows them all. So if you find that an employee within the scope of his employment knew that CTRs had to be filed, even if multiple checks are used, the bank is deemed to know it. The bank is also deemed to know it if each of several employees knew a part of that requirement and the sum of what the separate employees knew amounted to knowledge that such a requirement existed.

Understand this well: basic fairness and justice often don’t come into the equation when Federal prosecutors come knocking on your door.

So here we have Planned Parenthood caught now on video multiple times appearing to haggle over the sale of aborted baby parts. The newest video further shows evidence of a conspiracy to transport these parts over state lines in violation of law. The amount of video evidence already released about Planned Parenthood is far more than the evidence that prosecutors have found necessary in other circumstances to grind companies into dust with oppressive and brutal criminal prosecutions.

And yet, the Department of Justice seems strangely uninterested in even investigating this apparent massive criminal violation of Federal law – a violation that shocks the conscience of even ardent pro-choicers. Instead, of course, they are more interested in whether the Center for Medical Progress committed obscure and technical violations of law during the course of uncovering this criminal conspiracy.

The reason behind this is transparently obvious: the DOJ has a vested interest, bestowed upon it by political appointees and powerful Democrats, to harass the Center for Medical Progress while adopting a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to Planned Parenthood and their affiliates.

Conservatives who don’t follow the Federal criminal justice system are shocked that this is how things might even possibly work in America. What I hope they take away from this experience, if nothing else, is an understanding that this is all too often exactly the way it works, and that life or death or prison for you or your company often depends on considerations as inappropriate, trivial, and political as the decision to investigate the Center for Medical Progress.

We need Planned Parenthood defunded, for sure. We also need them prosecuted and put out of business. But let’s not lose sight of what this story has uncovered – we need criminal justice reform in this country as well.

obama planet tfernandez
martial law police

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments