The mainstream media appear eager to distract from the substantive issues raised by the email scandals continuing to plague Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. One example is the media’s focus on the timeline surrounding a Select Committee on Benghazi subpoena for her emails, and when those emails were deleted. As I recently argued, the media wish that these stories about Mrs. Clinton were not true. Most reporters cannot fathom, or will not acknowledge, that she routinely lies to the public about her activities—and those of the Clinton Foundation—while stonewalling both the press and the public.
The repeated revelations that Mrs. Clinton has been lying are apparently affecting her standing in the polls. Politico is now reporting that in the past couple of months she has dropped from having the support of 60% of Democrats, to now having just 51%. And that is before Vice President Joe Biden enters the race, which many signs indicate may happen in the not-too-distant future.
Ron Fournier of The National Journal captured the sentiment of many journalists in his recent letter to Mrs. Clinton, which, he writes, is based on interviews with those who are close to her. “Which brings us to the matter of trust,” he writes in their voice. “Hillary, this makes us want to cry. We can’t figure out why you would compromise the most important commodity of leadership over such banalities.” Fournier continues on to discuss the Clinton Foundation’s inexcusable conflicts of interest and the email scandal.
But while, according to Fournier, some of Clinton’s supporters may have decided that Mrs. Clinton is her own main obstacle to gaining the presidency, the media continue to attempt to salvage her campaign by whatever means possible. Andy McCarthy, writing for National Review, said that “when Benghazi came up in a one-on-one media interview setting, CNN couldn’t bring itself to call Mrs. Clinton on an obvious lie.”
“Plus, it was [Brianna] Keilar who brought up the subject of the subpoena, so one has to assume she did a modicum of research—which is all it would have taken to be ready to challenge Clinton’s false assertion,” writes McCarthy. “Yet, in the context of being asked about her destruction of emails from her private server, Clinton was permitted to tell the public she had not been subpoenaed. …she was able to frame suspicions that she has willfully obstructed probes of the Benghazi Massacre as outlandish.”
The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler awarded Mrs. Clinton three Pinocchios for stating on CNN that “Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.” However, like so many in the media, Kessler focused on minutiae, the technical details of whether government regulations permitted Mrs. Clinton to use private email exclusively.
The real implications of Clinton’s email scandal are not whether government regulations allowed her to use her own private email account, exclusively or otherwise. Rather, Mrs. Clinton’s actions demonstrate that she unilaterally flouted a transparency process designed to provide the public with the ability to hold her accountable for her work as Secretary of State. In the process, she jeopardized national security and may have hidden pay-for-play schemes involving the Clinton Foundation. Plus, in light of the recent revelations about the cyber-hacking of the government’s Office of Personnel Management, it is very likely that the Chinese or the Russians, or both, have possession of every one of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The UK Guardian writes that Cherie Blair’s emails to Mrs. Clinton show that Mrs. Blair, the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “appears to be acting directly as a fixer for the Qatari ruling dynasty.”
“Three years after the successful lobbying effort a Qatari-government backed telecommunications [firm] donated an undisclosed amount to Mrs. Blair’s own charity for women,” reports Raf Sanchez for The UK Telegraph.
“Meanwhile, the Qatari government was also giving millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton’s global charity,” writes Sanchez. “Charity records show that Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation while the controversial committee behind Qatar’s 2022 World Cup bid donated up to $500,000 further.”
“She solicits Sid Blumenthal for advice, and not just on Libya,” continued Rubin. An August 9, 2009 email from Blumenthal appears to pass along a suggestion for a Clinton Global Initiative forum by Shaun Woodward, UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Blumenthal writes that he has already gotten Bill Clinton’s approval, and asks Hillary to “let me know how to move this forward.”
Blumenthal received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation starting that year.
A couple of months earlier Blumenthal writes regarding Woodward that “he told me things you would in my judgment want and need to hear because they will likely involve your personal role.”
“I think you should step in and ask him to tell you directly,” Blumenthal continues.
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” Mrs. Clinton told the press this spring.
To the contrary, at least 25 of the emails that Mrs. Clinton did not delete have been upgraded to classified status by the State Department.
While technically that may not constitute having sent or received classified information through the personal email server located at her home in Chappaqua, New York, it does reveal that she certainly trafficked in sensitive information. We also learned recently that she had edited some of the emails that were handed over to the State Department, long past due. And she hadn’t handed over other emails that were clearly State Department-related business, though she had claimed that she had. That was discovered through the additional emails Blumenthal provided to the Select Committee on Benghazi when he testified before the Committee last month.
In addition, Mrs. Clinton has publicly acknowledged having self-selected and deleted approximately 30,000 emails that she deemed personal, and had the server wiped clean so that it could not be independently verified that they all were, in fact, personal. Who wouldn’t trust Hillary?
It’s impossible to know what information has been withheld by the State Department. However, here are just a couple of topics discussed in those emails containing now-classified information:
Discussions with family members of journalists detained in North Korea; and
A readout from a call with Tony Blair while he was still representing the Quartet, which mediates the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Mrs. Clinton’s ongoing efforts at deception have become so commonplace that perhaps reporters don’t believe that her lies and conflicts of interest deserve regular front-page treatment. Instead they write articles about how the GOP is trying to “vilify” her using her own falsehoods. The drive-by media may be disappointed in their attempts to save Hillary because the slow drip, drip release of her emails will repeatedly force them to confront these real issues, like it or not.
The mainstream media are celebrating, as a deal has been reached between Iran and the P5+1 nations. It appears, however, to be a complete capitulation by the West. CNN described it as “historic,” along the lines of Richard Nixon’s deal with China, which certainly must be music to President Obama’s ears.
But even as terms of the deal are starting to emerge, the holes in the agreement are becoming clear.
“Initial readings of the deal also indicate that Iran will be given the right to veto so-called ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections of Iranian nuclear sites,” reports Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon. “This concession has caused concern that Tehran will be able to continue hiding its nuclear work and potentially continue in secret along the pathway to a bomb.”
“In one of the most controversial concessions made by the Obama administration, a United Nations embargo on arms will also be lifted within around five years as part of the deal…” he writes. “A similar embargo on the construction of ballistic missiles, which could carry a nuclear payload, also will expire in around eight years under the deal.” So much for this deal being strictly about Iran’s nuclear program, as Secretary of State John Kerry has frequently asserted, such as when he was asked why the four Americans being held by the Iranians were not part of this agreement.
Regardless of what President Obama has said, the deal is not verifiable. Just the opposite. It actually rewards Iran with more than $100 billion in sanctions relief, money that is certain to be used by the totalitarian regime to continue to expand its hegemonic and terrorist pursuits. No one will be more determined to overlook any violations than the Obama administration, which is heavily invested in this as the President’s foreign policy legacy, which has mostly been a disaster. Obama is convinced, and rightly so, that the media will help him sell this debacle as a great foreign policy achievement.
It is clear that the two sides have different interpretations of the deal, just as they did with the so-called “framework” agreement reached in April of this year. In the official Iranian news agency IRNA the Iranians triumphantly declare that:
“All nuclear installations and sites are to continue their work contrary to the early demands of the other party, none of them will be dismantled;”
“The policy on preventing enrichment uranium is now failed and Iran will go ahead with its enrichment program;”
“Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, no centrifuges will be dismantled and research and development on key and advanced centrifuges such as IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-8 will continue;” and
“All economic, financial sanctions in banking, finance, oil, gas, petrochemical, commerce, insurance and transportations leveled by the European Union and the US under the pretext to Iran’s nuclear program, will be lifted on early stages of the agreement.”
In addition, there are many details yet to be resolved, as this statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) makes clear. It refers to the “Road-map between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.” It includes a series of target dates this year to set “out a clear sequence of activities over the coming months, including the provision by Iran of explanations regarding outstanding issues.” In other words, details to be worked out later. But in the meantime, UN sanctions will have been lifted, taking virtually all of the pressure off of Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and the P5+1.
The media appear uninterested in detailing the number of red lines that have been broken by this administration. Here are just a couple:
The Secretary of State first said in 2013 that Iran did not have a right to enrich uranium. This agreement legitimizes Iranian enrichment only by limiting the “type” of centrifuge used and amount of uranium stockpiled and enriched.
Iran was supposed to submit to “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Now, it has “a very protracted process of advance warning and ‘consultation’ to resolve concerns.”
The editor of the Times of Israel has laid out “16 reasons nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe,” including this: “Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program—to come clean on its violations—in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations? No.”
Also, “Has the Iranian regime been required to submit to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclear-related activity? No. And there are 14 more.
The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation, laid out “…the Truth About 6 of Obama’s Iran Deal Claims,” including this claim, that “Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.” Yet, as The Daily Signal points out, “Iran is permitted to retain its enrichment infrastructure, including advanced centrifuges. The administration’s concession on uranium enrichment is a serious blow to a decade old principle of U.S. nonproliferation policy. The United States worked very hard in the past to prevent allies from developing indigenous uranium enrichment capability because technologies for uranium enrichment and weapons grade enrichment are the same.”
In addition, from The Daily Signal, “Yet Iran, which developed this capability in defiance of its existing international obligations, is being rewarded for its bad behavior by lifting sanctions on its country, including sanctions concerning shipping, arms sales, transportation, banking and precious metal trade.”
“We have now gotten to the point where the President was saying a year ago, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal,’ and he’s now to the point where any deal will be fine,” argued KT McFarland, an American Conservative Union (ACU) Foundation senior fellow and the moderator of a very informative and underreported panel held last month by the ACU.
“Critics of the nuclear deal sought by President Obama fear that this will be a dangerous deal because of too many one sided U.S. concessions to Iran,” Clare Lopez, a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, presciently noted.
“Iran will keep all of its nuclear infrastructure, including a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor,” she wrote. “And the U.S. reportedly has now pledged to provide Iran technical assistance to further develop its nuclear program.” These concessions appear in the text of the final deal.
Lopez, who participated in the aforementioned ACU event, added that Iran continues to condemn Jews as cockroaches, bacteria, and insects.
“There has never been a year since 1988 or so when the Iranians did not have a clandestine nuclear weapons program,” Lopez said. “The one they are negotiating in Geneva, in Vienna, in Lausanne, that’s the overt side of the program, that’s just the overt part.”
“We don’t know what we don’t know about the covert part but we are pretty confident there is one.”
President Obama is not only using his executive power to engage a hostile, theocratic Iranian regime, he is also trying to pressure future presidents and Congress into perpetuating his damaging policies. His administration is also bending over backwards not to offend the Iranian regime, while this totalitarian government does everything possible to humiliate the United States.
Obama wants a much-needed foreign policy victory during his second term in office. The violations, and the disastrous consequences, can come later—and be blamed on the missteps of a future administration.
The ultimate solution to the Iranian nuclear question—and to the issue of Iran as the leading sponsor of terrorism—is regime change. But world powers are not ready for such a discussion—and neither are the media.
Congress still has a chance to stop this “agreement” from going forward, but President Obama requires only 34 U.S. senators to prevent the override of his veto if they disapprove. Congress has 60 days to consider the deal before voting on it. There is an event in New York City’s Times Square next Wednesday, July 22, with a distinguished list of individuals who will be speaking out about the dangers of this deal, why it can’t be trusted, and what should be done to stop it. The list includes former military leaders, CIA officers, congressmen, and other policy and political activists. You can see the full list of participants here.
Israel, which arguably has the most to lose, will surely be advocating against this agreement. Even so, there will be an intense, bruising conflict to move this deal along to the point of implementation. We know that the media will be doing everything possible to play down the risks and likely implications of this agreement. But will that be enough, along with an Obama administration that pays little attention to the law, the Constitution, and America’s best interests?
Do US Catholics love America enough to actively reject Pope Francis’ Liberation Theology before his historic visit to America this fall?
The speech by Francis to a joint session of Congress could be akin to listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaching social justice and condemning “G-d Damn America.”
Listen in and start this important conversation at church next Sunday!
Investigative journalist Jim Simpson discusses the invasion of the USA through illegal and legal immigration, via Mexico and the Middle East. However, Christians are NOT part of this wave of immigrants from the Middle East. Simpson is the author of the new book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, available for only $2.99 as a Kindle edition through Amazon.com He also addresses the problem of Sanctuary Cities. He says Catholic Charities, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and its grant-making arm, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, are prominent elements of the open borders/amnesty/sanctuary city movement. This unlimited legal and immigration are going to mean the end of America as we know it.
What began in 2012 with secret negotiations between Valerie Jarrett and Iran has now borne its toxic, likely nuclear, fruit. It is now all but certain, excepting an unlikely Congressional intervention, that the Obama administration will officially legitimize the world’s most prolific sponsor of Islamic terror. This follows on the heels of a surprise announcement that Obama would normalize relations with Cuba.
From Tehran to Havana, evil is winning, and Obama is leading the way.
Let’s recall a few things about the Iranian and Cuban deals, and their negotiators:
Obama’s Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956. A personal friend of Barack and Michelle since she introduced the couple, Jarrett is widely assumed to be the most powerful person in the White House. The subject of an FBI investigation, Jarrett’s family is connected with old guard Chicago Communists, including Obama’s political mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
If that weren’t enough to make you question this “deal,” Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter is married to an Iranian man with family in Iran. Conflict of interest, anyone?
Barack Obama is the president who backed the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood into power during the Arab Spring. After issuing Presidential Study Directive Eleven (PSD-11), Obama allied the U.S.A. with terrorists in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and is still backing anti-Assad terrorists in Syria. His administration, through the DOJ, has purged all mention of “Islam” and “Muslims” from counter-terrorism. With Obama’s approval, the Department of Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service have been weaponized against conservatives and Republicans. Yes, that means Obama views American citizens, not Islamic terrorists, as the most dangerous threat to national security.
Likewise, domestic counter-terrorism efforts have been hampered against Muslim Brotherhood front Islamic organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who are now regarded as friends and invited to the White House. Finally, Obama has crippled the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, and left the southern border completely open to whatever murderer, rapist, or terrorist wants to walk in.
Iran, for its part, has been the preeminent sponsor of Islamic terrorism since 1979. Its current leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, personally translated into Farsi the works of Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brother who developed the ideology of modern Islamic terror. Iran funds both Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran has a friendly relationship with the terrorist regime of Omar Bashir in the Sudan, where there is ongoing Christian genocide.
Through Hezbollah, they operate narcotics and terrorist networks around the world, including in Latin America. Hezbollah is remarkably powerful in Venezuela and Mexico, and was behind the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which targeted Argentine Jews.
Cuba, an Iranian ally, is home to another other rogue anti-American regime that welcomes Hezbollah terrorists. Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist who launched Obama’s political career, helped organize trips to Cuba for the Students for a Democratic Society with the infamous Venceremos Brigade.
Not only have the Ayatollahs and Castro brothers been rewarded for their treachery, they are being rewarded handsomely: Cuba will now have full diplomatic relations with the United States, and Iran is expected to receive $100 billion in previously frozen funds.
Do you now start to get a picture of what Obama and the U.S. State Department have accomplished?
2016: A Vote for Republicans, or more Terrorists
In a rare show of wise solidarity, GOP Presidential candidates have denounced the disastrous Iranian deal. Indeed, to listen to Republicans today is almost like listening to former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, who has publicly blamed Obama for ruining the close relationship between the United States and Israel.
Hillary, who will almost assuredly be the Democratic nominee, is supportive of the deal. Unsurprising, as Clinton was a fellow architect of the Arab Spring, and her personal aide Huma Abedin is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood through her immediate family.
For Americans at all concerned with the future of their country, it should be very clear that the Democrat Party stands with terrorists. Choose wisely in 2016.
