3 members likely abused national security to unmask Trump campaign staff

Jamie White | Infowars.com – MARCH 12, 2018

A group of nearly 50 Obama administration officials have formed a think tank called National Security Action to attack President Trump’s national security platform.

The group didn’t mince words in their mission statement:

“National Security Action is dedicated to advancing American global leadership and opposing the reckless policies of the Trump administration that endanger our national security and undermine U.S. strength in the world.”

Specifically, the group’s “liberal foreign policy goals” include injecting climate change into foreign policy, denouncing Trump’s leadership, advocating for open borders and mass immigration and perpetuating the phony Russian collusion narrative.

Obama’s former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton campaign aide Jake Sullivan are among the founders of the group.

“This organization uses the acronym NSA, which is ironic,” wrote Fox News contributor Fred Fleitz on Sunday.

“Three of its founding members – Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Power – likely were involved in abusing intelligence from the federal NSA (National Security Agency) to unmask the names of Trump campaign staff from intelligence reports and to leak NSA intercepts to the media to hurt Donald Trump politically.”

Its mission statement is laughable given ISIS rose to power, North Korean missile development surged, Russia annexed Crimea, and Libya collapsed – all under Obama’s watch.

Meanwhile, since Trump was elected, the military reclaimed 98% of the territory taken by ISIS, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un is poised to broker an unprecedented peace deal with the U.S., and U.S-Israel relations have been restored after the president recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Former Officials Give Conflicting Accounts of Kerry State Dept’s Handling of Trump Hoax Dossier

by AARON KLEIN  14 Feb 2018

TEL AVIV – Seeming discrepancies between the claims of two former officials in John Kerry’s State Department about actions taken involving the infamous, 35-page largely discredited anti-Trump dossier raise immediate questions about the State Department’s possible role in the sordid affair.

The dossier, which contains wild and unproven claims about Trump’s campaign and Russia, was authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the controversial Fusion GPS firm and was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The dossier was reportedly utilized by the FBI to launch its probe into Trump. According to House Republicans, the questionable document was used by Obama administration officials to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The political origins of the dossier and issues relating to Steele’s credibility as a source were kept from the FISA court, a House Intelligence Committee memo documents.

Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who worked under the Clintons and served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under Kerry, described in a recent Politico podcast interview what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele’s dossier information at the State Department.

She said that she offered advice to “those who were interfacing with” Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries that Steele “should get this information to the FBI.” She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.

In a second interview, this one with CBS’s Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

Here is a transcript of the relevant section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as “my friend” and referred to her by her nickname “Toria”:

Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?

Nuland: I first heard — and I didn’t know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages — I think it was late July, something like that.

Glasser: That’s very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking about on Russia?

Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of — not the business of the State Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics. So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate whether they thought it was credible.

Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?

Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he’s on the record and he had the same advice.

Nuland stated that Kerry “was also aware” of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that she told “those who were interfacing” with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch Act.

Nuland’s Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following exchange in which she stated her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):


VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, “This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.”

And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our — we can’t evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess we’re in today.

Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry’s State Department and the dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a letter released last week and authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The Grassley-Graham criminal referral contains redacted information that Steele received information from someone in the State Department, who in turn had been in contact with a “foreign sub-source” who was in touch with a redacted name described as a “friend of the Clintons.”

Numerous media reports have since stated that the source of information provided to the State Department that was in turn passed onto Steele was Cody Shearer, a controversial figure tied to the Clintons who is also an associate of longtime Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal. According to sources who spoke to CNN, Shearer’s information was passed from Blumenthal to Jonathan Winer, who at the time was a special State Department envoy for Libya working under Kerry. Winer says that Kerry personally recruited him to work at the State Department.

It is Winer’s version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland.

In an oped last week published in the Washington Post, Winer identified Nuland as the State Department official with whom he shared Steele’s information. Winer writes that Nuland’s reaction was that “she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.” He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.

Winer wrote at the Washington Post (emphasis added):

In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did not provide details but made clear the information involved “active measures,” a Soviet intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other countries.

In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the “dossier.” Steele’s sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.

I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.

That was the extent of Winer’s description of Nuland’s reaction upon being presented with Steele’s dossier claims. Nuland’s public claim that her “immediate” response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.

In Winer’s Washington Post oped, he writes that Steele had a larger relationship with the State Department, passing over 100 reports relating to Russia to the U.S. government agency through Winer. Winer wrote that Nuland found Steele’s reports to be “useful” and asked Winer to “continue to send them.”

He wrote:

In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served as Senate counsel. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me whether the State Department would like copies of new information as he developed it. I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele’s reports. She told me they were useful and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to find them useful. None of the reports related to U.S. politics or domestic U.S. matters, and the reports constituted a very small portion of the data set reviewed by State Department experts trying to make sense of events in Russia.

Last month, Nuland was appointed CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which describes itself as “an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies.”  “As CEO, Ambassador Nuland will lead CNAS’s efforts to develop bold, innovative, and bipartisan solutions to the most pressing national security and defense issues,” the Center said in a statement.

She previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Ned Ryun on Roy Moore: ‘I Strongly, Strongly Suspect Somebody out of the McConnell Camp Planted the Story’


American Majority founder Ned Ryun talked about Roy Moore and the Alabama Senate race with Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon and SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, broadcast live from the Restoration Weekend event.

Bannon asked Ryun about celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred’s involvement in the Roy Moore case, representing a woman who accuses Moore of assaulting her in 1977 when she was 16 years old.

Ryan said Allred is “basically a human vulture when you look back at some of the things she’s been involved in.”

“Remember the incident with Arnold Schwarzenegger?” Ryun asked. “She brought all these women in front of him, said they’re going to sue, they’re going to file suit against Schwarzenegger. Guess what? After the election, absolutely nothing happened.”

“I think a real turning point was that press conference when they pulled out the yearbook and the signature,” he said of Allred’s entry into the Moore controversy, referring to an interview with MSNBC’s Katy Tur where Allred did not come off well.

Ryun said this interview demonstrated that the best way to respond to sensational allegations is to “just throw facts back at them.”

“I’m remembering clearly, you remember this, the incident where I just brought up the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One. This is back in the spring. Couldn’t believe the reaction,” he said.

“Back to Alabama, we were talking in the break about this poll. This is John Kerry’s pollster who did this poll that just came out recently,” Ryun said, referring to a Fox News poll that showed Democrat Doug Jones with an eight-point lead over Republican Roy Moore.

“Why is Fox News using John Kerry’s pollster?” Bannon asked incredulously.

“Because John Kerry’s pollster has an agreement with the other company, Schoen Company, which is Karl Rove’s,” Kassam replied.

Ryun cited an observation the late Christopher Hitchens made in 1992, that “polls these days are not made to truly understand public opinion, but they’re meant to shape public opinion; they’re used as a weapon now.”

(As Kassam pointed out, Hitchens’ poetic way of phrasing this was to say that “opinion polling was born out of a struggle not to discover the public mind, but to master it,” and, in particular, to develop a weapon against organized-labor populism.)

“Pull all the Band-Aids off in D.C., and I think that at the end of the day, you’re going to see some things that will undermine the corrupt consultant class as the Band-Aids get ripped off on this,” Ryun predicted. “I think people need to start asking about behavior at the party committees. It’s time that we actually say, ‘Let’s have an honest conversation, a wide variety of thoughts.’”

Bannon interpreted this to mean that Ryun was accusing the D.C. “consultant class” of concealing a good deal of inappropriate behavior toward women.

“That’s what I am implying,” Ryun replied. “I think this might, ultimately, even though there are going to be some interesting moments moving forward, I think this will be a good thing for the populist movement.”

Ryun said there was no doubt in his mind that the allegations against Moore were part of an “organized hit,” as Bannon put it.

“I’ve been in D.C. almost 20 years. And, again, I don’t have hard proof, and I will say this clearly: I do not have hard proof, but I strongly suspect it’s a very short list of people, all who are associated with Mitch McConnell – whether it’s Josh Holmes, whether it’s Karl Rove, might even be Steven Law – I don’t know, but I strongly, strongly suspect somebody out of the McConnell camp planted the story.”

“It was planted. This came with the blessing of Mitch McConnell at some point, that he was going to take a political shot at Roy Moore,” he declared.

Bannon asked for Ryun’s thoughts on Restoration Weekend and his role as a presenter at the event.

“It’s so important. You bring together just some great people – obviously yourself, Raheem; you’re going to have Congressman Devin Nunes as the keynote speaker. You’ll be speaking, I know, later today,” Ryun replied. “It’s just great where people come from all over the country, spend three days together, be able to interact with people like you and like Devin Nunes.”

“I’m really excited to introduce Congressman Nunes,” he added. “He has been the rock star on unmasking Fusion. So I’m excited to be here. He’s a rising star. Keep an eye on him. You know, the thing is, he took it on the chin this spring. They were going after him, undermining his credibility. He didn’t stop.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern.



Frontpage Mag – NOVEMBER 14, 2017

It was the cackle that cost her an election.

The time was the 80s and the First Lady of Arkansas was chatting with Roy Reed. Reed was a New York Times bigwig, a civil rights hero and is currently a speaker for the Clinton School of Public Service.

Back then, Reed was working on a profile of the Clintons for Esquire. The profile was never published. The tapes of the interviews were stowed at the University of Arkansas until they were dug up in ’14.

And there’s Hillary Clinton laughing on tape about how she saved a 12-year-old girl’s rapist.

Kathy Shelton had been raped and beaten into a coma when she was twelve years old. Her rapist wanted a “woman lawyer.” Hillary Clinton took his case as a favor and used every dirty trick to get him off. Even though she admits on the tape that she knew her client was guilty, she accused his victim of being “emotionally unstable” and fantasizing about older men. And she used the little girl’s bloody underwear as the pivot of a blatant lie that got her client off with less than a year in prison.

All of that is bad enough.

It reminds us that there is nothing that Hillary Clinton won’t do to win whether it’s accusing an abused child of being a mentally ill slut or accusing her election opponent of cavorting with urinating Russian prostitutes. And that despite her best efforts to appear human, she has nothing resembling a soul.

But there’s the Clinton cackle. You can hear it throughout the tape. Even years later in the governor’s mansion, Hillary thought that getting a 12-year-old girl’s rapist off the hook was the funniest thing ever.

Roy Reed, the great media hero of the civil rights movement, never wrote about it. There were no outraged stories in the New York Times or Esquire. Just like Harvey Weinstein’s associates. They knew.

They knew and they said nothing.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the last Democrat presidential candidate to have deeply troubling links to pedophiles.

Her husband was much worse.

Bill Clinton took dozens of rides on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express. The top Democrat donor’s plane earned its nickname because of its association with the abuse of young girls. Like Hillary’s client, the tastes of Bill’s bosom buddy allegedly ran to twelve year old girls. An FBI investigation found 40 victims.

And the Democrat in charge made sure that justice was served. Epstein spent a year under “house arrest” during which he was “let out on work release six days a week for up to 16 hours a day.”

Work release meant taking private jets to New York and to his private island in the Caribbean. That was the island known as “Orgy Island” which Bill Clinton had frequently visited. Clinton had even allegedly ditched his Secret Service escort for some of the flights.

One of Epstein’s victims had also alleged that Al Gore had been a visitor to Orgy Island.

Epstein took credit for being “part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative.” And for flying Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey, currently accused of multiple sexual assaults on minors, out to Africa on the Lolita Express.

Like Epstein, Kevin Spacey was a Clinton pal.

Spacey has said that he “did a great number of things for” Bill Clinton at the White House and “privately.” The secret of their “close friendship,” was that Spacey “took him as he was.”

“And I think that may be part of the reason why we became close,” the accused abuser said.

But, Spacey claimed that he had a good time with both Clintons.

So much for the Clintons. But nobody, not even Democrats, are surprised by Clinton sleaze. They react to it the same way that they do to the latest Islamic terrorist attack. They cringe, close their eyes and wait for everyone to forget it ever happened.

The Clintons, and Gore, might have bookended the last 25 years of the Democrat road to the White House, but what about Obama?

And John Kerry?

“Things felt a bit different Tuesday on the John Kerry campaign bus,” an enthusiastic CBS reporter moped.

“There was a huge void,” he reported. The “void” had been left by the departure of Peter Yarrow who had endorsed and campaigned with Kerry back in ‘04.

“For a moment, one could feel what it was like back in the ’60s, hanging with a folk music icon and a Vietnam vet-turned-antiwar activist,” the CBS piece rhapsodized.

Yarrow played ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’ while Kerry mimed smoking pot.

Peter Yarrow was a good friend. He had played at Kerry’s wedding and was his daughter’s godfather. He had also received a presidential pardon from Jimmy Carter for making sexual advances on a 14-year-old girl while naked.

Yarrow used the Harvey Weinstein defense. “In that time, it was common practice.”

Not only did Kerry campaign with Yarrow, but he brought him to the Middle East for proposed “peace” concerts.

Yarrow also performed for Obama volunteers. And he has been writing anti-Trump songs. The title of one of these is, “The children are listening.”

They certainly are.

Two weeks after the ’14 election, Terry Bean was busted in Portland. Bean was the co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the most effective gay rights lobby in the country, whose donors included Harvey Weinstein.

Bean was a big donor to Obama, Kerry and Gore.

At the Human Rights Campaign, Obama had directed a remark to “my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean.” Bean had raised over $1 million for Obama’s political career.

Bean was accused of having sex with a 15-year-old boy. Bean’s boyfriend, who had been brought along to the White House to meet Obama, was also arrested. The boyfriend’s mother accused Bean of using him to “get young kids” by grooming them with gifts of alcohol and Viagra.

According to prosecutors, the Obama backer had engaged in this sort of behavior as far back as ’79 when he had sex with a 16-year-old boy and plied him with alcohol and drugs. The victim, who is now a middle aged doctor, had come out so that Bean would not be able to “keep on abusing young boys.”

Despite denying the charges, Bean attempted to settle out of court with the boy. The prosecutor stated that Bean had offered the victim at least $200,000.

That’s a good deal of money. But only a fifth of what Obama got.

The boy declined to testify. Bean walked free.

Since then, Bean appears to have maxed out his donations to Hillary Clinton. There is no evidence that Hillary or her people have returned them.

But that’s business as usual.

Every Democrat nominee for the White House in the last 25 years has had links to pedophiles. Some were donors and others were clients or friends. But the Clintons, Kerry, Gore and Obama were all tainted by their associations. And they have never apologized or expressed a word of regret.

Not to their victims or to anyone else.

And if you catch them in private, at the right moment, you just might hear them laughijong about it.

The Deciding Vote for Obama’s Iran Deal Was Bob Corker


The Beltway press tried to make the passage of President Obama’s nuclear sellout to Iran look like a moment of high political drama, but you could tell their hearts weren’t really in it. Everyone knew this was a done deal from the very beginning, thanks to the efforts of the true “deciding vote,” Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee.

Democrat Barbara Mikulski might have been the 34th vote from her party that made it impossible for the Senate majority to stop the deal, but Corker was the key figure in turning Congressional rules upside-down and rendering the majority powerless.

Everything since Corker’s deal has been mere theater, with Corker himself an occasional star performer. “From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I’m sorry. Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you’ve been fleeced,” he drawled at Secretary of State John Kerry during a congressional appearance, knowing, as he spoke, that his objections were meaningless, his criticism pure posturing.

Even more hammy were Corker’s hilariously inaccurate predictions that his rules could actually halt the Iran sellout. “Look, I don’t ever want to overcommit and under-deliver,” he said in April. “We are moving in a very positive direction, and we’ve worked through some issues that I think have given me a lot of hope… I feel like were going to present a bill tomorrow that keeps 100 percent of the integrity of the process relevant to the nuclear agreement in place.”

He was confident that process would result in President Obama’s deal dying on Capitol Hill–a confidence shared by no one capable of counting how many Democrats had survived the 2014 midterm bloodbath.

As hilariously lame and awkward as Kerry’s sojourns to Congress were, the Secretary could rightfully complain that it was all a gigantic waste of his time anyway. The fix was in. The odds that a handful of Democrat Senators could not be persuaded to spare their President a historic embarrassment were incredibly small. No one ever really thought Obama would have a hard time getting 34 members of his Party to meet the absurdly low threshold Corker arranged.

This left the Democrats with plenty of room to indulge little “conscience” dramas from a few Senators with Jewish and/or right-leaning constituencies to mollify, notably Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.

That is one reason Corker’s deal was so foolish. Even if the Iran sellout could not be stopped — because Obama went outside the American political system to work with China and Russia at the United Nations, cutting American voters and their representatives out of the loop entirely — it was still important to make this painful for the Democrats. Instead, Corker made it as painless as possible with his “bipartisan” arrangement, leaving the Democrats plenty of room to indulge members like Schumer, who had to pretend they were concerned about national security and the fate of Israel.

It also became easier for the Obama Administration to conduct its charade of “selling the deal.” Every salesman relaxes when he knows a sloppy pitch is good enough to get the paperwork signed.

The key element of Corker’s “bipartisan compromise” is that it became necessary for Congress to aggressively kill the deal, instead of voting to support it. NPR accurately compared this to the way debt ceiling increases work.

Instead of persuading the Senate to approve a deal that would shape the future of the Middle East and impact American national security for decades to come, it became necessary for the Senate to aggressively disapprove the deal. Obama could veto the disapproval, and needed to convince only 34 members of his own Party to declare they would not vote to override his veto.

In theory, it is also possible for 41 senators to filibuster congressional disapproval and spare President Obama the trouble of breaking out his veto pen — an outcome made significantly more likely by the sure and certain knowledge that his veto would be sustained anyway, although that might require a few of those scam-artist Democrat “conscientious objectors” to drop their act and vote to support the Iran deal. It would be a delicious final humiliation for the Republicans if Obama can make that happen, and it would give him a considerable political boost, because he could stage a few tearful welcome-back embraces for Democrats who “came home.” Public polling on the Iran deal is still dismal enough to make it hard to pull off, however.

Politico’s post-mortem on the Iran saga portrays Corker as President Obama’s man on the Republican side of the aisle, a slightly tetchy player on a team quarterbacked by Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland, who became the top Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrat after the interestingly-timed corruption probe of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, an opponent of the Iran deal.

“The low-key Cardin engaged in a furious round of negotiations with gregarious Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, prompting something that was once viewed as almost unthinkable: a bipartisan deal for Congress to review an Iran nuclear deal – with the blessing of President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Politico writes. Cardin served as “liaison” between Obama and Corker, ostensibly a “blunt-spoken Tennessee Republican,” who was “burning up the phones over the two-week congressional recess, keeping at bay presidential hopefuls like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as he sought to find a middle ground on the highly charged issue.”

And that is just what Republican voters wanted when they crawled over broken glass to give Republicans a seemingly impossible Senate majority in 2014, right? Democrats still effectively running the Senate even though they are in the minority, and a beaming Nancy Pelosi blessing polite arrangements to give Barack Obama everything he wants, at minimal political cost?

This is all a mirror image of the way President Obama’s hapless team got taken to the cleaners by tough-talking Iranian negotiators, who knew from Day One that Obama would give them nearly anything to get a deal, and played their cards accordingly. Those negotiations also produced a great deal of tough-guy theater from Kerry and Obama, but the Iranians saw no reason to play along. At least the White House occasionally pretended to be frustrated with the Corker Republicans, and worried about the fate of its precious deal.

(A frequent complaint is that any significant congressional involvement in the deal will make the Iranians think America is impossible to deal with – something the Iranians never say about their legislature, which they take pains to describe as a respected institution, no matter how things actually work in the theocracy.)

The Iranians are guilty of many evils, but at least they never seemed interested in staging Failure Theater performances for the global media. That is all the Republican leadership has offered its voters throughout most of the Obama era, perpetually fearful that any stiff legislative battle would drain their account of the political capital they refuse to spend.

Defenders of the Corker arrangement say the fix was really in when Obama made it clear he would cut the American people out of the deal and impose it through international arrangements, but a fighting party would call a threat like that and force the President to carry it out – making him bleed politically with every step, shouting from the mountaintop to warn those marginalized Americans of how their representation had been cast aside like garbage, to be replaced by foreign councils.

A fighting party would have made this process as difficult as possible on their opponents, rather than working out bipartisan compromises to grease the wheels, asking for little but a few spotlight moments to voice their objections along the way. The GOP leadership supposedly believes this Iran deal is a dangerous mistake that puts the future of the world at risk, does it not? Then why did they make this deal as easy to pass as an automatic debt-ceiling increase, instead of fighting like wildcats and making the Democrats pay for every inch of ground they shoved this dead weight across?

Senate Republicans made themselves irrelevant to a process they decided they could not actually stop.  Democrats never seem to think that’s a smart strategy, even when they’re in the minority. The inevitable round of “we tried to stop Obama’s dangerous nuclear deal!” GOP fundraising letters will not go over well, if Republican voters have truly gotten sick of this crap, and insist on a party that fights like the Democrats do.

Iran ‘needs just 5 days’ to return to uranium enrichment if US backs out of nuclear deal

Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 11.06.10 AM

Tehran needs only five days to increase uranium enrichment to a level sufficient to make a nuclear weapon, Iran’s atomic chief has warned. The warning comes as US President Donald Trump seeks to renegotiate the 2015 nuclear deal.


“If there is a plan for a reaction and a challenge, we will definitely surprise them,” the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tuesday, as quoted by AP. “If we make the determination, we are able to resume 20 percent enrichment in at most five days,” he said on national television.


Salehi underlined that Iran is not keen on such a scenario, saying that “definitely, we are not interested in such a thing happening. We have not achieved the deal easily to let it go easily. We are committed to the deal and we are loyal to it.”

In 2015, Iran struck a landmark deal with the US, France, the UK, Russia, China and Germany, under which it agreed to cap its uranium enrichment at 5 percent, as well as to reduce its stockpile of the material in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

“Our biggest priority is to maintain the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), but of course not at any price,”AFP cited Salehi as saying.

The top nuclear official’s warning follows comments from President Hassan Rouhani saying that Iran could backtrack on the 2015 nuclear agreement “within hours” and reach “conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations” of the long-awaited deal.

READ MORE: Iran has the right to develop its missile program

“The world has clearly seen that under Trump, America has ignored international agreements and, in addition to undermining the [nuclear deal], has broken its word on the Paris agreement and the Cuba accord… and that the United States is not a good partner or a reliable negotiator,” Rouhani said, following the introduction of the latest round of US sanctions in early August.


Trump has been weighing up leaving the 2015 nuclear deal or renegotiating it, branding it “the worst deal ever.” Struck by the previous administration under Barack Obama, the deal has drawn strong criticism from Trump, who sees it as a capitulation to Iran.

“Those who want to tear up the nuclear deal should know that they will be ripping up their own political life,” President Rouhani warned, adding that Tehran wouldn’t “remain silent about the repeated US violations of the accord.”

Trump signed a legislation on a new raft of penalties, targeting Iran along with Russia and North Korea, after Iran successfully fired its Simorgh rocket, designed to deliver satellites into orbit, as part of the national space program. Washington, however, considered the action a violation of the UN Security Council Resolution, saying the technology could be used to carry nuclear weapons.

Moscow criticized the sanctions as “illegitimate,” with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressing hope the sides wouldn’t abandon the 2015 agreement.

Col Tony Shaffer – Obama IRAN Deal Has US FINANCING Enemies, N KOREA NUKES


By Rick Wells

Lt. Col Tony Shaffer joins David Asman of the Fox Business Network for a discussion of the Iran and N Korea nuclear development programs, their risks, the complicity of the Obama regime and the role that they played in crafting much of the serious threats we face today and in the future.

Asman recaps the goodies that Obama and John Kerry loaded Iran up with as part of this insane nuclear deal, including the release of hundreds of billions of dollars of oil revenue over time, which “gave them a standing in world power far beyond what they should have.” There’s the “airplanes full of cash” plus “We, the United States taxpayers, are subsidizing Iran’s nuclear operations by purchasing heavy water, which is a nuclear component.” 

Shaffer says we should also add to those considerations, with all of this returned revenue, Iran is increasing their defense budget by $800 million or more, “and most important to the overall narrative is they’re helping fund North Korea’s continued research in both miniaturization of nuclear weapons as well as ballistic missile technology.

He believes that is the reason President Trump is saying they’re not living up to the spirit of the deal, “they’re outsourcing their research to the North Koreans.” That’s also had the effect of enabling North Korea to rapidly develop their nuclear program, due to all of the infusion of the money and the technology from the Iranians.

Asman points out and Shaffer agrees that we are empowering Iran in their nuclear development. He recalls a theory in the Obama regime that by allowing Iran to modernize and attain greater wealth and power, even to potentially include nuclear weapons, that they’d come around more to our way of thinking.

Shaffer notes that that line of thinking went back to the Carter administration and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Now they’ve become more emboldened to become troublesome to our Arab allies we have in the region, they’ve destabilized Yemen, using Hezbollah and the IRGC to advance their “Shia view of the world” and helping North Korea become a destabilizing factor as well. Shaffer makes the point, “We help fund this, we fund it. We are funding our own enemies.” Nice job Obama, Kerry.

They also discuss the threat posed by nuclear miniaturization through terrorism, another gift to the Iranians from Valerie Jarrett, Hussein Obama and company.