Bloomberg Won't Rule Out Spending A Billion Dollars to Defeat Trump

 

 Article by Bronson Stocking in "RedState":

While campaigning in Texas, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave an interview in which the former New York City mayor would not rule out spending a billion dollars in his efforts to stop President Trump from winning reelection.

"You know how much money a billion dollars is?"  Bloomberg responded. "It’s a lot of money to me. It’s a lot of money to anybody."

Bloomberg plans on spending big this year even if the candidate fails to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

“It depends whether the candidate needs help," Bloomberg said, "if they’re doing very well, they need less. If they’re not, they’ll need more."

While the billionaire has some ideological differences with fellow Democratic rivals Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg said he would throw his money behind either candidate should they face off against the president this November.

"I really don’t agree with them," Bloomberg said, "but I’d still support them, yes, because compared to Donald Trump that’s easy."

Michael Bloomberg is self-funding his own bid for the White House, and the candidate has already spent more than $200 million on advertising. While the Democratic candidates are focused on the early caucus and primary states, Bloomberg has concentrated his efforts on Super Tuesday when 14 states pick their nominee in early March.

The next Democratic debate takes place in Iowa on Tuesday, but because Bloomberg has self-funded his campaign, the candidate has failed to meet the donor requirements necessary for him to appear on stage. The 2020 Democratic caucuses in Iowa take place Feb. 3rd.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/01/11/bloomberg-wont-rule-out-spending-a-billion-dollars-to-defeat-trump-n2559376

The Endless Counter-Revolution

 

 Article by Bob Bennett in "RedState":

To truly understand the impeachment effort of the House, we have to study the history of the party perpetrating it. Democrats, the party of the Left, have a long history of anti-Americanism, anti-freedom, and anti-independence.

Driven by an evident distaste for America and its culture, their mission for the last hundred years appears to have been to thwart the American Dream, and to deny Americans freedom and independence. 

Their political methods have always featured deception,distortion and smearing of their opponents; their domestic policies comprise mindless and annoying policies that have delivered economic ruin to blue states and cities. Their foreign policy initiatives have been marked by empathy for enemies like the Soviet Union, Cuba and Iran. Democrats’ policies degradethe culture through contrarian policies and division.

We can trace the Party’s history back to slavery and segregation, which they invented and fought to preserve. Their division of the races lives on today in the slums of blue states, where crime and substandard schools forever deny black Americans access to the American Dream.

Though segregation was defeated decades ago, today the Left, and many Democrats foster renewed strife between the races by pushing propaganda that white Americans enjoy special privilege and that police are racists who seek to hunt down blacks.

The Left Destroys America in bizarre new ways.

Democrats tactics are more destructive ever before. In foreign policy, they not only side with enemy nations like Iran, they oppose the president’s efforts to limit infiltration of illegal aliens, who could include terrorists, into America and to track those that are already here. Trump’s initiatives to keep terrorists out with a travel ban on terror-ridden nations were countered by leftist courts, in spite of his statutory power to bar entrance to aliens he deems a threat. 

The Department of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)conducts terror investigations of visa holders before and afterthey enter the country. It also combats illegal immigration, prioritizing the identification, arrest, and removal of criminalaliens. 

Democratic lawmakers loudly call for abolishing ICE and have even launched a bill to accomplish that. 

Domestically, the Left causes chaos by blunting law enforcement. The previous administration forced consent decrees on police departments, hobbling cops around the Nationand spewed anti-police propaganda which launched the hate-cops movement; See “White House race-baiting” here.

Today, Democratic cities are decriminalizing some crimes and eliminating bail on others. They foster the deranged anti-law enforcement movement: During the 2018-2019 school year, the BLM@School program held its second national week of action in some 30 different cities.

The war on our children

The Left has long weakened family structure with welfare incentives, and it’s opposed religion at every level. It now seeks to destroy America’s children directly. It systematically teachesa negative version of American history in the schools, where italso indoctrinates children in the gay lifestyle and transgenderism.

If the policies of the Left and the Democrats are allowed to continue, they will ultimately undo the American Revolution by destroying the Republic it created. Unfortunately, their entire party is now engaged in an effort to preserve established Democrat policies by perpetual resistance to the elected president and defaming him with impeachment.

The impeachment will cause permanent damage

Even though a Senate trial will surely exonerate him, the Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump on such inconsequential charges is an existential threat to the free country we’ve been blessed with. It reveals, beyond all doubt, none of us—even the president—can expect due process when charged. Conviction by accusation will henceforth be the rule; we’ve already seen that with Judge Kavanaugh’s summary conviction by unproven claims. The Dems have tasted blood and now talk of impeaching him. They also talk of impeaching Trump a second time if he survives the current impeachment.

The fundamental right to express oneself is no more: a careless violation of leftist speech tenets, particularly racial ones, can spell job loss and disgrace. It can generate violence as well. Heather MacDonald, author of “The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe,” was barred from speaking at Claremont McKenna College by violent protesters. The event had to be viewed over closed-circuit television. Similar incidents are occurring more and more often.

Notably, Ms. MacDonald had indirectly violated race tenets: many of the protesters chanted, “Black lives matter.”

The Left’s endless counter-revolution will eventually eradicateAmerica’s freedoms. Stay tuned:  It’s only a matter of time before those committing such transgressions will face arrest and imprisonment in a reprogramming camp. Or they’ll simply be beaten to death in the streets by a new Red Guard. 

https://www.redstate.com/diary/blbennett/2020/01/11/763851/ 

Official Calls on Congress and Media to Look into Obama Admin’s Dealings with Soleimani

Debra Heine for American Greatness

A former Bush White House official is calling on congress and the media to look into the Obama administration’s former correspondence with deceased terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani. He also urged former senior members of the Obama administration to divulge all they know about the messages and agree to have them declassified.

Michael Doran,  a senior director in President Bush’s National Security Council, declared on Twitter that he “must become a whistleblower” and reveal that “the Obama admin sent letters – plural – directly to Soleimani.”

Doran told American Greatness that he was poking fun at how the Democrats’ had “packaged and marketed” their so-called “whistleblower,” but was dead serious about his contention that the Obama administration had corresponded with the designated terrorist.

He provided no specific details about the correspondence, but said on Twitter that he knew for “a fact” that the letters were sent.

“[John] Kerry would have us believe that the JCPOA [Iran Nuclear Deal] contained rather than enabled Iran,” Doran wrote, linking to the former Sec. of State’s oped Thursday in the New York Times. “In response to this ludicrous and reckless contention, I must become a whistleblower. I know for a fact that the Obama admin sent letters – plural – directly to Soleimani.”

Doran, a foreign policy expert at the Hudson Institute, went on to challenge the former Obama officials to reveal and declassify their known correspondence with Iranian leaders Ali Khamenei and  Hassan Rouhani.

“Now that the public has a better understanding of who Qassem Soleimani was, it has a right to understand the messages in context,” Doran wrote.

He went on to argue that if President Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky required public scrutiny, “then surely we are justified in seeing the messages to Soleimani.” Doran added: “Obama officials, we know, have nothing to hide. They say they’re proud of their Iran “containment” policy, so why would they pose any obstacle?”

In his NY Times piece, Kerry went out of his way to declare that Suleimani “was a sworn, unapologetic enemy of the United States, “a cagey field marshal who oversaw Iran’s long strategy to extend the country’s influence through sectarian proxies in the region.”

Soleimani was the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“Qasem Soleimani was the architect of terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere which killed hundreds of United States personnel, including with weapons and improvised explosives provided directly by the IRGC-QF,” a Senate resolution praising the successful mission to eliminate the terror mastermind states.

” … Soleimani planned or supported numerous other deadly terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, including the 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubeir while he was in the United States and the December 31, 2019 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, as well as planned attacks in Germany, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Kenya, Bahrain, Turkey, and elsewhere.”

Kerry stressed in his piece that Soleimani “won’t be mourned or missed by anyone in the West, but added. “Occasionally, when American and Iranian interests aligned, as they did in fighting ISIS, we were the serendipitous beneficiaries of his relationships and levers, as were the Iraqis. But this was a rare exception.”

German chancellor Merkel says Berlin will host Libya peace talks

January 11, 2020
MOSCOW (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Libyan peace talks will be held in Berlin, as Turkey and Russia appealed to the north African nation’s warring factions to enter a ceasefire.
“We hope that the joint efforts by Russia and Turkey will lead to success, and we will soon send out invitations for a conference in Berlin,” Merkel said on Saturday during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
She stressed that the United Nations would lead talks if a meeting were to take place in Berlin, and that Libya’s warring parties would need to play a major role to help find a solution.
The aim was to give Libya the chance to become a sovereign and peaceful country, Merkel said.
Putin expressed support for the process, saying it was a “timely” idea and necessary to bring the conflict in Libya to an end.
The comments came days after Turkey and Russia urged Libya’s warring parties to declare a ceasefire.
Fayez al-Serraj, head of Libya’s internationally recognized government, said he welcomed the peace initiative by Russia and Turkey.

“The condition is the withdrawal of the attacking party, which does not seem willing to do so”, he said after holding talks with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in Rome on Saturday.
Libyan forces loyal to eastern-based commander Khalifa Haftar said this week they had taken control of the strategic coastal city of Sirte in a rapid advance preceded by air strikes.
Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army was also considered responsible for a deadly drone attack on a military academy in the capital Tripoli.
Conte said on Saturday he expressed his “consternation” to General Haftar for the January 4 attack in Tripoli, after meeting him in Rome earlier this week.
“We are working hard as a government for the immediate goal of a ceasefire and to steer the conflict towards a political solution,” Conte said.
Turkey backs al-Serraj’s Tripoli-based Government of National Accord and has said it will send military advisers and possibly troops to reinforce its support, while Russian military contractors have been deployed alongside General Haftar.
Asked if he was aware of the presence of Russian mercenaries in Libya Putin said: “If there are Russian citizens there, then they are not representing the interests of the Russian state and they are not receiving money from the Russian state.”

https://www.oann.com/category/world/

McConnell just ate Pelosi and Schumer's lunch

Scott Jennings analysis at CNN

(CNN) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer have been bested by Mitch McConnell yet again. The two Democrats attempted to create impeachment leverage where none existed by withholding the Articles of Impeachment passed last month against President Donald Trump.

But like your Aunt Frieda threatening not to bring her awful fruitcake to Christmas Dinner, their plan didn't work. Nobody wanted it in the first place.

McConnell won this round against his Keystone Cops opposition because he has something Schumer and Pelosi don't: a reasonable argument.

The Senate majority leader has insisted from the beginning that if the House were to impeach Trump, the Senate should treat him the same way it treated Bill Clinton in 1998. So, McConnell has steadfastly argued for the same rules package that passed the Senate 100-0 in the Clinton iteration. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" makes a pretty sensible argument. 

The Democrats have raged against his position. This is different, they say. They are right -- this is different. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were bipartisan, and the ones against Trump aren't.

Given the hyper partisan nature of this impeachment against Trump, McConnell's offer for the Clinton rules should have been greeted by Democrats with open arms. But instead they have demanded to treat a Republican president different from the way a Democratic president was treated not so long ago under the guise of producing a fair trial.

It's the height of hypocrisy for Schumer to lead this charge. He used his impeachment vote in his 1998 Senate campaign as a political weapon, promising donors and voters that supporting him would lead to Clinton's acquittal. In fact, some might even call what Schumer did a quid pro quo -- you support me, and I'll vote to acquit your president. Today, he tears into McConnell on a near daily basis for not being an impartial juror. What a joke. Schumer voted for the Clinton rules package back then and opposes it now because, well ... I guess opposing Donald Trump is a helluva drug.

Democrats have repeatedly made their feelings on Trump known. Just Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren said: "I am willing to listen to the Trump administration put on a defense ... (but) I don't see how it's possible not to vote for an impeachment."

She's not alone, of course, but her words are just the latest gut punch to Schumer's claims that the Senate should turn into some episode of Perry Mason. Even Schumer himself said back in 1998 that the Senate is "not like a jury."

The days of Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that "leverage" over McConnell failed spectacularly. No Republicans were harmed, pressured, or otherwise inconvenienced in the making of this sad, sad film.

Under the rules pushed by McConnell, same as for Clinton, the US Senate will begin the impeachment trial by listening to presentations from the House managers and the President's lawyers. Then there will be a question and answer period for senators to get information from the presenters.

And then the Senate can decide what it wants to do about witnesses. Maybe they will want to hear from some. Maybe they won't. Even if they do, don't bet on a quick resolution. No matter what former National Security Adviser John Bolton says about being willing to testify under subpoena from the Senate, it is likely the White House would invoke executive privilege to try to prevent his testimony.

What's more, if he's so interested in telling his story now, why does he need to wait for a subpoena? Bolton could simply write down everything he knows and send it to Congress right now if he wanted. But he hasn't done that, I suspect because he wants the appearance of looking like he wants to talk without the actual responsibility of doing it.

Bolton's announcement won't change McConnell's thinking on how to process this impeachment, and underscores what a blunder it was for Pelosi and Adam Schiff to have failed to subpoena Bolton in the first place.

And now McConnell has exposed them for what they are -- desperate partisans who aren't interested in using impeachment the way the founders intended, but rather as just another tactic to be deployed in the hopes of trapping some Republican senator in a vote that can be used in an attack ad.

They failed to convince a single Republican in the House that impeachment was necessary. They failed to pressure Mitch McConnell's conference to do their homework for them.

And they will fail to remove President Trump from office when all is said and done, instead delivering him to a perch of exoneration from which he will bludgeon them for weeks.

This could not have gone more poorly if the Democrats had tried. Any Republican senator on the ballot this year knows it would be suicide to join Pelosi or Schumer's hapless crusade now. Better to let the people decide Trump's fate in November than allow the Washington partisans to try in January.

Scott Jennings is a CNN contributor, . The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.

Anyone want to debate the Rise of Skywalker?

Ex-Navy SEAL Jack Carr: Trump got Iran to stand down because of THIS

Jack Carr analysis at Fox News

Over the past week, the American people have been told that our president’s actions in Iraq towards Iran were pushing us into another war in the Middle East.

The House of Representatives even approved a largely symbolic measure Thursday night to limit the president’s authority as commander-in-chief.

Hashtags for “World War III” and “draft” started trending online as millennials worried about conscription, prompting the New York Times to write an article on the subject.

Time magazine even published a guide to help parents ease their children’s fears regarding the situation.

Somewhere in the hysteria are lessons for both sides, lessons memorialized over two-thousand years ago during the Warring States period in ancient China.

I found out about the death of Iranian commander Gen. Qaseem Soleimani along with the rest of the world. My reaction was personal. I didn’t celebrate. I didn’t cheer. I didn’t gloat.  Instead, I remembered.

I remembered driving the road where he was killed. I remembered the time I spent at the recently besieged U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. And, I remembered the friends I lost to IEDs, particularly to the Explosively Formed Penetrators, or EFPs.

I remembered that Gen. Soleimani led the effort that resulted in the deaths of my friends.

Iranian political and military leadership, including Gen. Soleimani, neglected one of the most ancient maxims in the history of warfare: know thy enemy. 

President Trump is not the type of American politician to which Iran's leaders had become accustomed over the past 40 years. This president actually did what he said he would do. U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iraq, Iran and the greater Middle East changed with the new administration.

In formulating their response, it appears Iranian leadership opened a copy of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and took its lessons to heart.

The capabilities of U.S. intelligence services and military forces, particularly special operations, have grown and evolved exponentially since 9/11. We’ve had almost two decades of constant warfare to learn and adapt. There are a variety of options on the table in dealing with Iran that were not available forty years ago.

The current administration has stated they are not interested in nation-building, regime change or getting pulled into another war in the model of an Iraq or Afghanistan.

What options does that leave?

Iran put serious thought into that question before they launched missiles into the Iraqi desert this week.

Recognizing the opportunity presented in Iraq following the U.S. led invasion in 2003, Iran set its sights on facilitating an eventual U.S. withdrawal. Their weapon of choice was the EFP.

A basic and effective weapon, EFPs consist of pipes, explosive chains, and metal plates that, when detonated, turn into molten slugs or “penetrators.”  The high-velocity force of the charge enables them to slice through armored vehicles like butter.

They were smuggled into the country from Iran across centuries-old ratlines, predominately to Shiite militias and Badr Brigade splinter groups. Their ability to defeat the world’s most technologically advanced armor challenged U.S. superiority on the battlefield and would kill and maim scores of our servicemen and women. 

For a minor investment in personnel and material, Iran was able to wear down American resolve for a war with no clear end in sight.

This rudimentary, inexpensive, and relatively small tactical weapon gained strategic significance, so much so that my primary mission as a Task Unit Commander in the most heavily Iranian-influenced section of Iraq throughout the tumultuous withdrawal of U.S. forces was to pressure the enemy threat network, which is a polite way of saying our mission was to dismantle and destroy Iranian-backed IED cells facilitated by Gen. Qaseem Soleimani.

More recently Iran has been pushing the limits to find out where the Trump administration would draw the line. They shot down a U.S. UAV, attacked oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and were behind the Saudi Aramco drone strike.

They then escalated tensions through their actions against coalition bases in Iraq culminating with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. With the events of Benghazi still fresh in memory and images of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran forever burned into the American psyche, Iran found just how far they could push. The line in the sand for the Trump administration is the killing of U.S. personnel and attacking a U.S. Embassy.

After finding this red line, the leadership in Iran responded to the targeted killing of one of their top generals in a way that would allow them to save face domestically and in the greater region without bringing about their demise by provoking a massive U.S. military response.

Soleimani was an enemy combatant who had effectively been at war with the U.S., Iraq, and Israel since 1979. He was instrumental in building, supporting and directing proxy forces with international reach whose tactics relied heavily on instruments of terror. 

He was targeted by the U.S. not just for what he had done, but for what he was planning to do as a clear and present danger to U.S. diplomats, soldiers, citizens and U.S. interests abroad.

Taking him off the board is a significant blow to a regime that is pursuing a policy of cold war-type proxy military actions against Western nations, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, while continuing to fill the vacuum left in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

There have been times in our history when the U.S. has responded to attacks as what Mao Zedong famously labeled “a paper tiger.”

There have also been times when we have fought in a way that caused Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to remind the world that, "the paper tiger has nuclear teeth."  Which America is the Iranian regime going to encounter if they continue to rattle the cage? They would be wise to know their enemy.

Iranian National With Machete, Pick Ax Detained on Bridge Near Mar-a-Lago

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

Authorities in and around President Donald Trump’s home, Mar-a-Lago, in Florida are no doubt used to dealing with threats and crazy people. 

But with the uptick in tension because of trouble with Iran and the reported threats made by Iranian officials who offered a bounty on Trump, they are no doubt in a heightened state of alert. 

Not sure what the guy they arrested was doing, but given the facts, doesn’t sound like anything good.

According to the Daily Mail, a man was detained by police in Palm Beach on the Flagler Memorial Bridge on Friday. 

He had a machete, a pick ax and $22,000 in U.S. currency. 

The bridge is about four miles from Mar-a-Lago. 

Police have not yet commented on the case and are reportedly cooperating with federal authorities. 

Authorities also apparently found the man’s car at the airport and checked it with a bomb unit, according to reports. Fortunately, they gave an all clear on that. 

Trump is not currently at Mar-a-Lago and it is not known if that was the man’s objective. 

Iranian officials reportedly put an $80 million bounty on Trump and an Iranian advisor to the President Hassan Rouhani appeared to suggest a threat Trump’s properties as well. 

A Florida security guard was also arrested last week for threatening Trump over the killing of IRGC terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) tweeted that Iran might attack Trump’s properties and that might provoke Trump into war so therefore he should divest.

Six Times The Mainstream Media Completely Botched Coverage Of Iran And Death Of Soleimani

Chrissy Clark reporting for The Federalist

Viewers and readers of mainstream media outlets this week might assume America is on the brink of World War III. Of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, President Trump’s actions in Iran proved to be critical in re-establishing American deterrence.

Nevertheless, journalists and mainstream media outlets did their best to conjure reports of apocalyptic, World World III level threats, and to place blame for their causes at the feet of Trump. 

Here are five times, just this week, the mainstream media completely botched the coverage of both Trump’s work in Iran and the killing of terrorist Quds force leader Qasem Soleimani.

1. Calling Soleimani’s Death An “Assassination”

In 2011, when Obama took out al-Queda terrorist Osama bin Laden, his death was celebrated in the United States. After all, he was the mastermind behind the horrific 9/11 attacks in New York City. But, in 2020, when Trump took out Quds force terrorist leader Soleimani, the New York Times decided to deem his death as an “assassination.”

The Boston Globe published an op-ed making the case that the US killed bin Laden, but assassinated Soleimani. 

2. Soleimani Was A “Revered Military Figure.”

According to the Washington Post, the best way to label the brutal terrorist Soleimani is to highlight his military ranking. The Washington Post referred to Soleimani as a “revered military figure.” 

The New Yorker published a eulogy reflecting on the violent terrorist days as a strapping, young bodybuilder. 

“Sulemani, a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows, gained notice during the eight-year war with Iraq, in the nineteen eighties,”  the New Yorker reads.

3. MSM Runs With Propaganda From Iranian State-Run Media

Mainstream media coverage highlighted commentary from Democrats who called what Trump did to Soleimani an “act of war” despite military intelligence of attacks that Soleimani was planning against the US. Media parroted this talking point, saying that Trump is escalating an already tense situation into war. This talking point come from the authoritarian, government-run news media in Iran.

Media reports shared the Iranian narrative that Iranian citizens were saddened by the death of Soleimani. NBC News showcased the “huge crowds” that turned out to allegedly mourn Soleimani’s death. CNN also reported, “crowds swarm[ed] Tehran to mourn slain Iran military leader Soleimani.” These reports conveniently omit the fact that most of this crowd was forced to attend Soleimani’s mourning. 

One Iranian journalist, Masih Alinejad wrote that the government forced students and officials to attending Soleimani’s funeral by busing students in and ordering businesses closed. “According to videos sent to me by people inside the country, the authorities are making little kids write essays praising the fallen commander. First-graders who didn’t know how to write were encouraged to cry for Soleimani.”

4. World War III Is Looming

CBN News reported, the U.S.-Iran showdown has left some wondering, will we have World War III? In fact, the media’s affect on U.S. citizens was so prominent that the Selective Service’s website actually crashed.

“Due to the spread of misinformation, our website is experiencing high traffic volumes at this time. If you are attempting to register or verify registration, please check back later today as we are working to resolve this issue,” the Selective Service Twitter account said.

5. Media Reported Iraq Government Voted To Expel U.S. Troops

Media outlets reported that the Iraqi government voted to expel United States troops from Iraq.

“On Friday, Iraq’s caretaker prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said that he had asked U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to send a delegation to Iraq that could establish a plan for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country,” reported the Washington Post.

In reality, Iraq’s prime minister resigned in December due to Iraqi protests stating the Mahdi government was controlled by Iran. The majority in the Iraqi government is Shiite controlled, and considered anti-American, where as the minority Sunni and Kurd populations have a more favorable sentiment towards U.S. troops. The Sunni and Kurd MPs in the Iraqi government actually boycotted the vote designed to expel U.S. troops.

The vote was also non-binding, but that wasn’t fitting to the mainstream media narrative, which left that fact often omitted.

6. MSNBC Falsely Reported American Casualties

After the U.S. killed Soleimani, Iran responded by firing ballistic missiles at Iraqi air bases which housed U.S. troops. There were no American or Iraqi casualties from these missiles. This didn’t stop MSNBC from falsely reporting Iranian propaganda that 30 Americans were killed from the missiles.

“Iran’s state media is claiming that 30 U.S. solider have been killed in this attack,” said MSNBC’s Ali Arouzi.

MSNBC aired Iran state media’s false claim that 30 U.S. soldiers had been killed tonight pic.twitter.com/DnEkMq3x7f

— JERRY DUNLEAVY (@JerryDunleavy) January 8, 2020

Here’s Just How Dumb Nancy Pelosi’s Gambit of Roadblocking Impeachment Was

Bonchie reporting for RedState

Sometimes real life mirrors parody, and in the case of Nancy Pelosi’s gambit of refusing to hand over the articles of impeachment she pushed to pass, it certainly does.

In fact, while many of us had been under the impression that Pelosi had gotten the idea from Lawrence Tribe, a deranged Twitter Harvard professor who spouted off about not giving the articles to the Senate early on, where she really got the idea from is even more laughable.

Apparently, Pelosi decided to blow up her own charade after watching a felon  on CNN. That’s how dumb her move of roadblocking impeachment was.

Who’s John Dean? He’s the legendary grifter who planned the Nixon era watergate coverup. Once he was caught, he then proceeded to rat out everyone he talked into following his scheme in order to save his own skin,  thereby parlaying his criminal actions into a career as an “impeachment expert” for the next five decades. CNN has him on regularly, because it doesn’t matter how sketchy your past is, if you are trashing Republicans, they’ve got a place for you.

Dean has coincidentally managed to write a book opining that every Republican president since Reagan should be impeached. Oddly enough, he never wrote such a book about Clinton or Obama.

For Pelosi to take Dean’s idiotic advice and follow through on it is actually surprising, as she’s always been painted as much better tactician than that. But she had lost control of the situation long ago, practically being shoved off the cliff of impeachment by her left-wing base and numerous talking heads.

Such a move to withhold the articles never made any sense at all. It allowed Trump to move past the scandal, McConnell to ignore it, and for any chance at momentum to evaporate. A prosecutor doesn’t threaten to not charge someone if they won’t plead guilty because that would be pretty stupid. But that’s essentially what Pelosi did and it has now cost her any opportunity of making further political hay out of the matter.

Sure, the news networks will foam at the mouth once the trial starts, but for all intents and purposes, this is over. The American people have moved on and Trump is enjoying one of the best stretches of his presidency. Pelosi was probably never holding a winning hand, but you’d still think she’d be smart enough not to pour gasoline on the table and toss a match. Her strategy was just monumentally dumb.

Serendipitous Timing – Dow Hits 29,000 During Kudlow Interview

The BLS released the December jobs report earlier today showing a stable 145,000 new job gains last month, and the unemployment rate remaining a very low 3.5%.

During an interview discussing the health of the U.S. economy in 2020 with National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, the DOW Jones industrial average crossed 29,000 for the first time in history.

 

Treasury’s Role in Financing Iranian Terror

 
 



 Article by John A. Cassara in "The American Thinker":

There are reports that some of the $1.7 billion that Obama gave to Iran as part of the Iran deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been traced to Iran-backed terror groups, including Qassem Soleimani’s Quds Force, Iran’s principal foreign intelligence and covert action arm and part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.   What is not discussed is that the money could not have been funneled to Iran without active support from actors within the Treasury Department. 

As a former Treasury Special Agent, the suspect actions of some of my ex-colleagues saddens and dismays me.  Their actions also hypocritically counter both our anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist finance programs and the international financial systems and safeguards that Treasury worked hard to implement and protect. 

Since 1979 Iran has conducted virtual acts of war and terror against the United States and our allies. The State Department designated Iran as the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.   Iran is also one of the most corrupt regimes in the world.  

So why did some Treasury officials move to obfuscate, if not launder, the money that Obama wanted delivered to the mullahs in Iran? Why did Treasury participate in a quid pro quo or act of bribery?  Why would they engage in subsequent deception and cover-up? 

The short answer is Treasury willfully became blind and politicized. It wasn’t just the Department of Justice and John Brennan’s CIA that were sullied during the Obama administration.  

In 2018, columnist Mark Theissen discussed some of Treasury’s suspicious activities in his article, “Obama took Lying to New Heights with the Iran Deal.” 

• Obama failed to disclose to Congress secret side deals on inspections when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill.
• Treasury secretly tried to help Iran use U.S. banks to convert $5.7 billion in Iranian assets, after promising Congress that Iran would not get access to the U.S. financial system.  Treasury officials then apparently lied to Congress about what the administration had done.
• Senate investigators found that the Treasury Department “granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system” including unlimited future Iranian deposits at Bank Muscat in Oman until the license expired.
• After issuing the license, Treasury explicitly denied to Congress that it had done so.
• Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) "encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds." Senate investigators found "both banks declined to complete the transaction due to compliance, reputational, and legal risks associated with doing business with Iran."
• In response to Congressional inquiries, Treasury officials declared "The U.S. Department of Treasury is not working on behalf of Iran to enable Iranian access to U.S. dollars elsewhere in the international financial system, nor are we assisting Iran in gaining access to dollar payment systems outside the U.S. financial system. The Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system."  The facts contradict Treasury’s statement.
• Treasury participated in approximately 200 international "roadshows" where it encouraged foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran "as long as the rest of the world left the United States out of it."
•  

The Obama administration also signed a secret document lifting sanctions on two Iranian state banks that were previously blacklisted for their involvement in financing Iran's ballistic missile program.  This occurred the same day Tehran released four American prisoners.  In prior years, Treasury was vehemently opposed to the same banks for their alleged role in financially backing Iran's missile program. 

President Obama had the right to conduct and implement his foreign policy.  Certainly, politically attuned attorneys in Treasury and elsewhere provided rulings and legal cover for the JCPOA.  President Trump exercised the same right to rescind the JCPOA, an agreement he called “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

There is conflicting information about the specifics of the $1.7 billion sent to Iran.  There has never been a full and transparent accounting showing how Treasury effected payment (e.g., manner of wire transfers, use of foreign banks, foreign currencies, flights of pallets of cash to Iran?).  The U.S. military and intelligence community has been able to follow some of the money as it was routed to Iranian-backed terror groups but we lack details.  How did they track it?   Were the money transfers hidden, disguised or laundered?  Were additional parties or conduits involved?  Were waivers or exemptions granted to skirt sanctions?  Was the U.S. government subsequently able to follow the money trail to corrupt Iranian officials?   The money has certainly not been used to better the lives of the Iranian people.

There are also charges and counter-charges about Iran’s right to compensation.

Before the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran’s government put $400 million for military equipment into the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) account. In 1981, Iran filed a claim at The Hague to have that money returned. 

The Obama administration contended that the $1.7 billion sent to Iran represented the $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest and that the money legally belonged to Iran.  That’s simplistic and doesn’t tell the whole story.  In 1981, the US filed an $817 million counterclaim alleging that Iran violated its obligations under the FMS program.  Some observers feel that it is Iran that owes the U.S., as the list of sponsored attacks, victims, and damages against Americans is long, bloody, and costly.

In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a law stipulating that Iran’s FMS account could not be refunded until court judgments against Iran for damages from terrorist acts against American citizens were resolved to America’s satisfaction.  Obama ignored the law. To date, U.S. courts have ruled Iran owes nearly $55.6 billion to American victims of its terror.

There are also still questions about the JCPOA agreement’s promises to lift sanctions on Iran’s economy in exchange of Iran scaling back its nuclear program.  It is estimated  the JCPOA resulted in the release of between  $50 - $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets in the international financial system. Commentator Mark Levin looked at the numbers and said, “Obama is the biggest funder of terrorism the world has ever seen.”

Treasury is justifiably proud of innovative tools such as sanctions and designations it developed to fight the War on Terror. It is sad and ironic that the same Department of Treasure facilitated some of Iran’s terror.

The Treasury’s Office of Inspector General should conduct an internal review of Obama’s Treasury regarding the above.  Judicial Watch, a nonprofit group promoting government transparency, could get involved.

The best course of action would be for President Trump -- while his impeachment plays out for his alleged “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” -- to order the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and State, the National Security Council, and elsewhere to release all documents, including emails, touching upon the Obama
administration’s deliberations on paying Iran’s claim, any linkage to the JCPOA, and possible side deals. President Trump should also order a full accounting of the form and method of the $1.7 billion payment to Iran.

Americans deserve full transparency and accountability about the Obama Treasury Department’s role in providing money to the Iranian terror regime.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/treasurys_role_in_financing_iranian_terror.html#ixzz6AjMVkc89