Daily Archives: October 7, 2015

United States, 11 Partners Approve the Still-secret TPP Pact

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. FOR THE NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE

Despite recent wrangling and threats to withdraw, on October 5 the U.S. trade representative joined 11 trade ministers from around the Pacific Rim to announce the successful conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region. Most importantly, the agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens,” the negotiators said in a joint press release.

Although the TPP was agreed to in principle, the precise text of this “ambitious, comprehensive” document remains a mystery.

The statement issued from Atlanta — site of the most recent round of negations — included a commitment to “work to prepare a complete text for public release,” although notably no timetable for that disclosure was announced.

Rather than rely on Congress for approval of the trade pact, the USTR and his colleagues “look forward to engaging with stakeholders on the specific features of this agreement.”

That sort of disregard for constitutional separation of powers and related checks on power is indicative of the entire plan, which would subvert U.S. sovereignty in the name of “integration” with Pacific nations party to the pact.

Integration is a word that is painful to the ears of constitutionalists and those unwilling to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a committee of globalists who are unelected by the American people and unaccountable to them. Integration is an internationalist tool for subordinating American law to the globalist bureaucracy at the United Nations.

Economic and political integration will push the once independent United States of America into yet another collectivist bloc that will facilitate the complete dissolution of our country and our states into no more than subordinate outposts of a one-world government.

As with the multitude of similar trade pacts the United States has formed, the ultimate aim of the TPP is the creation of a regional super government, thus the stonewalling of federal lawmakers who dare seek to assert some sort of oversight.

In the case of the TPP, the zone would be called the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Members of the proposed “free trade” bloc include all the current TPP participants: Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Vietnam, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Mexico, Chile, Canada, and the United States. The regional trading partnership is intended to establish “a comprehensive free trade agreement across the region.”

The ultimate goal of the TPP isn’t just the creation of an FTAAP, though. Supporters of the deal insist that the TPP is a “trade agreement designed to achieve broad liberalization and a high degree of economic integration among the parties.”

Although the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to keep the details of this destructive document a secret, a few proposed paragraphs have surfaced.

In November 2013, portions of the TPP draft agreement published by WikiLeaks contained sketches of President Obama’s plans to surrender American sovereignty to international tribunals.

Another WikiLeaks disclosure in January 2014 revealed that the president was attempting to surrender sovereignty over U.S. environmental policy to international bureaucrats interested in lowering those standards to mirror those of our TPP partner nations. Naturally, the green lobby criticized this concession, organizing demonstrations opposing the agreement.

U.S. copyright laws, Internet freedom, and web-based publishing would also be obliterated by the TPP, and although it hasn’t been widely reported, the TPP would give the global government sweeping surveillance powers, as well.

Although the American people (and the people of all nations involved in the pact) are prevented from seeing or commenting on the treaty being ostensibly negotiated on their behalf, multinational corporations have seats at the trading table.

While the TPP grants corporate giants such as Walmart and Monsanto the power to bypass Congress and the courts, the elected representatives of the American people are kept from even seeing the draft version of the agreement.

As unbelievable as it may seem, something even more sinister could be lurking within the shadowy recesses of the TPP.

In June, this reporter wrote, regarding the potential use of so-called fast track trade authority by the president to implement civilian disarmament:

Consider this: If Congress grants the president the power to unilaterally negotiate and contract trade agreements with foreign powers, these “executive agreements” can cover any topic that the White House considers “trade.”

That includes firearms.

If the TPA passes, then the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) would not need to be subject to senatorial debate. In fact, it would not be up for debate at all. TPA calls for a simple up or down vote on such presidentially brokered international agreements.

Within two weeks of that warning, Congress capitulated to President Obama, granting him power beyond that which the Constitution allows. That power, then, might be the crowbar with which he removes guns from the hands of Americans.

In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that the TPP requires the federal government to disarm its citizens in the name of “safety.”

The New American’s senior editor William Jasper is well aware of the danger of disarmament in the now completed TPP. He writes:

This is not an “out there” question; it should be a genuine concern of all who treasure the Second Amendment. Constitutional champion Michael Hammond, the longtime executive director of the Senate Steering Committee, has warned that “there is ample time to insert firearms import bans (with the force of statutory law)” into the TPP and/or TTIP. “Barack Obama has been rabid in his zeal to destroy the Second Amendment community,” Hammond notes. “Over and over again, he has experimented with a wide variety of schemes to ban guns by regulatory fiat: eliminating credit, banning ammunition, compiling a gun registry, encouraging state bans, reclassifying common guns, banning the import of guns, and so forth. Hammond, who is now general counsel for the Gun Owners of America, notes that despite Obama’s notorious anti-gun record, the Republican “leadership” in Congress “didn’t see fit to even purport to prohibit the Obama administration from using a trade agreement to impose a statutory gun import ban.”

Finally, the joint statement issued by the TPP trade ministers claims that the agreement will “promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs.”

In a comprehensive constitutional review of the reasons Americans should oppose the TPP, Jasper exposes this fallacy, as well:

As with NAFTA and every other pseudo-free trade agreement, there are many politicians, lobbyists, and think tanks making pie-in-the-sky claims that TPP and TTIP will usher in new prosperity and a wave of good-paying jobs. We’ve been there before. In 1993, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released its influential study, “NAFTA: An Assessment,” which predicted that “with NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico will continue to outstrip Mexican exports to the United States, leading to a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of about $7 (billion) to $9 billion annually by 1995.” It also predicted that the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico would increase to $12 billion annually between 2000 and 2010. The actual result was quite different.

In 1993, the year before NAFTA went into effect, the United States had a $1.66 billion trade surplus with Mexico; by 1995, the first year after NAFTA had entered into force, that changed to a $15.8 billion deficit. By 2000, that annual deficit had soared to $24.5 billion, and by 2007 it hit $74.7 billion. For 2014, our trade deficit with Mexico dipped to only $53.8 billion. In 1993, the year before NAFTA, we imported around 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico. By 2005, our imports of Mexican-made vehicles had tripled to 700,000 vehicles annually, and in 2012, Mexico’s export of vehicles to the United States surpassed 1.4 million. Chrysler, Ford, and GM transferred major production facilities (and jobs) from the United States to Mexico. Our trade deficits with Canada have followed a similar path since adoption of NAFTA.

The PIIE authors and other pseudo-free trade propagandists had cherry-picked data and simply invented statistics to fraudulently sell their product: NAFTA. If they were car salesmen, they would have gone to jail for fraud and misrepresentation. Instead, they are back doing the same thing, concocting rosy statistics to sell the TPP and TTIP.

Americans who study the subject realize that the redrawing of national boundaries and domestic legal processes completed in secret this week by the globalists sitting around the TPP negotiating table in Atlanta is an attack on American laws, American courts, American freedom of expression, American sovereignty, and the American Constitution.

The American people must unite in firm opposition to the TPP and convince Congress to tear down the wall of secrecy built and maintained by globalists seeking to shield their attack on our law and liberty from congressional oversight.

Assuming the TPA-empowered president gives them a chance to vote on the agreement, Congress must be convinced to reject the TPP. If they are not given that chance or if they are allowed to vote on the TPP and they approve it, then such an act might finish the integration — economic and political — begun by NAFTA and it may be the last straw in the already weakened broom of American sovereignty.

 

 

 

© 2015 The New American. All rights reserved

Outlaw Islam or DIE! Lessons from history tell the truth about Islam

It’s time to resurrect the spirit of the Crusades and send the Barbarians straight to hell before Islam takes over the world. These refugees from Syria are the filler for the Globalist agenda to destroy the Christian world and wipe out the people of the Bible.

crudzades

US Policy in Syria Makes No Sense

My Comments: McCain, Carly Fiorina, and Hillary Clinton all are promoting “no-fly zones

By Patrick Buchanan

Having established a base on the Syrian coast, Vladimir Putin last week began air strikes on ISIS and other rebel forces seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.

A longtime ally of Syria, Russia wants to preserve its toehold on the Mediterranean, help Assad repel the threat, and keep the Islamic terrorists out of Damascus. Russia is also fearful that the fall of Assad would free up the Chechen terrorists in Syria to return to Russia. In intervening to save Assad, Putin is doing exactly what we are doing to save our imperiled allies in Baghdad and Kabul. Yet Putin’s intervention has ignited an almost berserk reaction. John McCain has called for sending the Free Syrian Army surface-to-air missiles to bring down Russian planes. Not only could this lead to a U.S.-Russia clash, but U.S.-backed Syrian rebels have a record of transferring weapons to the al-Qaida affiliate.

The end result of McCain’s initiative, sending Stingers to Syria, could be airliners blown out of the sky across the Middle East. Hillary Clinton wants the U.S. to create a no-fly zone. And Friday’s Wall Street Journal endorsed the idea: “Mr. Obama could make Mr. Putin pay a price . . . In Syria the U.S. could set up a no-fly zone to create a safe haven for refugees against . . . Mr. Assad’s barrel bombs. He could say U.S. planes will fly wherever they want, and if one is attacked the U.S. will respond in kind.” U.S.-Russian dogfights over Syria are just fine with the Journal. Saturday’s Washington Post seconded the motion, admonishing Obama: “Carve out safe zones. Destroy the helicopter fleet Mr. Assad uses for his war crimes.” Has the War Party thought this through? Establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, which means shooting down Syrian fighter-bombers and helicopters, is an act of war. But when did Congress authorize the president to go to war with Syria? When last Obama requested such authority — in 2013, when chemical weapons were used — the American people arose as one to say no to U.S. intervention. Congress backed away without even voting. Unprovoked air strikes on Syrian government forces would represent an unauthorized and unconstitutional American war. Does the Party of the Constitution no longer care about the Constitution? Is a Republican Congress really willing to give Barack Obama a blank check to take us to war with Syria, should he choose to do so? Is this what America voted for in 2014?
A no-fly zone means U.S. warplanes downing Syrian planes and helicopters and bombing antiaircraft defenses at Syrian airfields. To Damascus this would mean the Americans have committed to the defeat of their armed forces and downfall of their regime. The Syrians would fight — and not only the Syrian army. For Russia, Hezbollah and Iran are all allied to the Damascus regime, as all believe they have a vital interest in its survival. How would Russia, Iran and Hezbollah respond to U.S. air strikes on their ally? Would they pack it in and leave? Is that our experience with these folks? Today, the U.S. is conducting strikes on ISIS, and the al-Qaida affiliate. But if we begin to attack the Syrian army or air force, we will be in a new war where the entire Shiite Crescent of Iran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah, backed by Russia, will be on the other side. We will have taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shiite sectarian long war. How long such a war would last, and how it would end, no one knows. Whatever one thinks of Putin’s policy in Syria, at least it makes sense. He is supporting an ally, the Assad regime, against its enemies, who seek to overthrow that regime. It is U.S. policy in Syria that makes no sense. We train rebels at immense cost to fight Assad, who cannot or will not fight. We attack ISIS, which also seeks to bring down the Assad regime. And we, too, want to bring down Assad. Who do we think will rise if Assad falls? Do we have a “government in a box” that we think we can fly to Damascus and put into power if the Syrian army collapses, the regime falls and ISIS approaches the capital? Have we forgotten the lesson of “Animal Farm”? When the animals revolt and take over the farm, the pigs wind up in charge.

For months, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia has called on Congress to debate and decide before we launch any new war in the Middle East. One wishes him well. For it is obvious that the same blockheads who told us that if the Taliban and Saddam and Gadhafi fell, liberal democracy would arise and flourish, are now clamoring for another American war in Syria to bring down Assad. And who says stay out? Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both of whom also opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is something to be said for outsiders. Patrick Buchanan has been a senior adviser to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He also was the founding member of NBC’s “The McLaughlin Group,” and CNN’s “Capital Gang” and “Crossfire.” His latest book is “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” For more of his reports, Go Here Now.

Xylitol Can Kill Your Pet

7 Do our loved ones & friends KNOW ?

  • Note: Taken from Health Sciences Institute e-Alert – Jenny Thompson – 10/6/15

    Dear Reader,

It can happen in an instant.

Your dog fishes a piece of discarded chewing gum out of the garbage — or gobbles a candy you’ve dropped on the floor.

And the next thing you know, he’s fighting for his life.

That’s what happened to a little dog named Doodle in Nevada. And to Luna, a young golden retriever in Wisconsin. And Billy, a Welsh Corgi from California.

They all died after eating an artificial sweetener called xylitol that’s showing up in thousands of products — including some you’d never expect.

It can kill our pets in a matter of minutes. And that’s why you need to know about three steps you can take — starting today — to keep your beloved pooch from becoming the next victim.


Deadlier than chocolate

Miles is one lucky little puppy.

When his owner dropped a package of Ice Breakers gum on the ground, the floppy-eared mixed breed did what just about any dog would do.

He ate it.

Fortunately, veterinarians were able to pump Miles’ stomach before the xylitol in the gum could destroy his liver. But plenty of other pups haven’t been so lucky.

By the time Samantha Caress rushed her golden retriever, Luna, to the vet after he got into a container of xylitol chewing gum, his liver was so badly damaged there was nothing that vets could do for him.

Now we’ve known for years that certain foods, like chocolate, can be incredibly toxic to our pets. And any time we have chocolate in the house, I make sure to keep it far away from our dog, Django.

But experts are now waring that xylitol, a low calorie sweetener made from the bark of birch trees, may be far more dangerous than chocolate — and at lower amounts.

Xylitol can put your dog in a coma by causing a dangerous drop in his blood sugar in as little as 10 minutes. And even if that doesn’t kill them, xylitol can attack and shut down your dog’s liver.

And the problem is that we’re starting to see xylitol everywhere.

You’ll find it in chewing gum, sugar-free candies, toothpastes, and even plenty of foods that have been labeled “all natural.” Worse still, there are now a few types of peanut butter with xylitol on the market — and lots of pet owners use peanut butter to get their pooches to take pills.

Now, given how fast xylitol products can kill our beloved pets, you’d think there’d be some warnings on food packages.

Well, good luck with that.

Jeni Reiser, who owns Miles, sent a letter to Hershey’s, the company that makes Ice Breakers gum.

And they gave her a Hershey’s Kiss, all right — as in “kiss off.”

The owner of Doodle, the little dog who died from eating a small amount of discarded gum with xylitol, even started a petition at Change.org asking the FDA to demand such warnings on xylitol products.

But our government can barely lift a finger to protect us — so you can bet they’re not coming to our dogs’ rescue any time soon.

As always, we’re going to have to take matters into our own hands. So here are three simple precautions you can take to keep your pets safe:

  1. Check the labels on all sugar-free foods in your home — especially gum, candies, and peanut butter — and keep them in cabinets and drawers your dog can’t access.
  2. If you think your pet has ingested anything containing xylitol, remember that time is of the essence. Bring him to an emergency animal hospital immediately.
  3. Be alert for signs of xylitol poisoning. They include vomiting and symptoms of low blood sugar, such as weakness, stumbling while walking, and seizures.

While xylitol is equally deadly to cats, the fact that felines aren’t as likely to scavenge for foods has kept the numbers of poisoned kitties low. But you should still be aware of the possibility should your cat become mysteriously sick with similar symptoms.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson


Sources:
“Veterinarians warn sweetener in some peanut butters a danger for dogs” Andrew J. Polk, September 14, 2015, KVIA, kvia.com

“Dog dies after eating sugar-free gum with xylitol” Atlanta-Journal Constitution, ajc.com

Bill Clinton White House suppressed evidence of Iran’s terrorism

By John Solomon for http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjA2MzQwNTg=

Bill Clinton’s administration gathered enough evidence to send a top-secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the deadly 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, but suppressed that information from the American public and some elements of U.S. intelligence for fear it would lead to an outcry for reprisal, according to documents and interviews.

Before Mr. Clinton left office, the intelligence pointing toward Iran’s involvement in the terror attack in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen and wounded hundreds was deemed both extensive and “credible,” memos show.

It included FBI interviews with a half-dozen Saudi co-conspirators who revealed they got their passports from the Iranian embassy in Damascus, reported to a top Iranian general and were trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), officials told The Washington Times.

The revelations about what the Clinton administration knew are taking on new significance with the recent capture of the accused mastermind of the 1996 attack, which has occurred in the shadows of the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

Ahmed al-Mughassil was arrested in August returning to Lebanon from Iran, and his apprehension has provided fresh evidence of Tehran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the attack and their efforts to shield him from justice for two decades, U.S. officials said.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh told The Times that when he first sought the Clinton White House’s help to gain access to the Saudi suspects, he was repeatedly thwarted. When he succeeded by going around Mr. Clinton and returned with the evidence, it was dismissed as “hearsay,” and he was asked not to spread it around because the administration had made a policy decision to warm relations with Tehran and didn’t want to rock the boat, he said.

“The bottom line was they weren’t interested. They were not at all responsive to it,” Mr. Freeh said about the evidence linking Iran to Khobar.

“They were looking to change the relationships with the regime there, which is foreign policy. And the FBI has nothing to do with that,” he said in an interview. “They didn’t like that. But I did what I thought was proper.”

Mr. Freeh made similar allegations a decade ago when he wrote a book about his time in the FBI. He was slammed by Clinton supporters, who accused him of being a partisan, claimed the evidence against Iran was inconclusive and that the White House did not try to thwart the probe.

But since that time, substantial new information has emerged in declassified memos, oral history interviews with retired government officials and other venues that corroborate Mr. Freeh’s account, including that the White House tried to cut off the flow of evidence about Iran’s involvement to certain elements of the intelligence community.

Chief among the new evidence is a top-secret cable from summer 1999 showing that Mr. Clinton told Iran’s new and more moderate president at the time, Mohammad Khatami, that the U.S. believed Iran had participated in the Khobar Towers truck bombing.

“Message to President Khatami from President Clinton: The United States Government has received credible evidence that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (IRGC) along with members of Lebanese and Saudi Hizballah were directly involved in the planning and execution of the terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers military resident complex,” reads a declassified version of the cable obtained by the National Security Archives group.

“The United States views this in the gravest terms,” the cable added. “We acknowledge that the bombing occurred prior to your election. Those responsible, however, have yet to face justice for this crime. And the IRGC may be involved in planning for further terrorist attacks against American citizens. The involvement of the IRGC in terrorist activity and planning aboard remains a cause of deep concern to us.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton declined to comment on the record for this story.

Today, there is little doubt in U.S. circles that Iran and its Saudi Hezbollah arm participated in the deadly Khobar Towers attack. Shortly after Mr. Clinton left office, an indictment was issued against Mr. Mughassil that cited the IRGC’s assistance. And in 2006 a federal judge ruled in a civil case brought by families of the Khobar victims that Iran was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars for its role in the attack.

The revelations about what Mr. Clinton knew about Iran’s involvement and what was kept from the public could have implications on the campaign trail for his wife Hillary’s emerging Iran policy. Seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the controversial nuclear deal she helped start with Iran as secretary of state but also declared she wouldn’t hesitate to use military force if Tehran cheats.

It was the specter of public pressure for such a military engagement, however, that concerned her husband’s White House after a link to Iran in the Khobar Towers case was established.

Former aides told The Times that Mr. Clinton originally ordered the military to create a contingency plan for a formidable retaliatory strike on Iran, and in 1997 gave permission to the CIA to conduct Operation Sapphire that disrupted the activities of Iranian intelligence officers in several countries.

But with the 1997 election bringing about a new moderate leadership in Tehran, Mr. Clinton tried instead to handle the matter privately in summer 1999, hoping that a new Iranian leader at the time would renounce terrorism and cooperate in the Khobar case after signaling a desire to moderate relations with America.

But Tehran responded with a harsh denial, backed by its more radical theocratic ruling elite, and it even threatened to make public the cable Mr. Clinton had sent the Iranian leader. At the same time, the Iranians also made clear in their response that they did not harbor ill will or intention against the United States at the present time.

The threat of going public alarmed top U.S. advisers, who feared the disclosure would lead to public pressure inside the United States to retaliate against Iran militarily or diplomatically, contemporaneous memos show.

“If the Iranians make good on their threats to release the text of our letter, we are going to face intense pressure to take action,” top aide Kenneth Pollack wrote in a Sept. 15, 1999, memo routed through White House aide Bruce Riedel to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Mr. Riedel, who was instrumental in facilitating the top-secret cable to Iran, and Mr. Pollack are now both scholars at the Brookings Institution. They did not return calls and emails Monday seeking comment. But in his 2014 book, Mr. Pollack unequivocally linked the Khobar attack to Iran.

“The 1996 Khobar Towers blast was an Iranian response to an $18 million increase in the U.S. covert action budget against Iran in 1995,” Mr. Pollack wrote. “The Iranians apparently saw it as a declaration of covert war and may have destroyed the Khobar Towers complex as a way of warning the United States of the consequences of such a campaign.”

Flow of intel restricted

Former Clinton aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the evidence pointing to Iranian involvement had become substantial by 1999. Still, some in the administration worried it was not solid enough to warrant military action, and might have been exaggerated by Saudi Arabia and its Sunni-Shia rivalry with Iran. They argued that working for moderation with Mr. Khatami was a better alternative than blaming it for an attack that happened under an earlier regime, the former aides said.

Others believed there was little doubt Tehran was involved but worried about the American public’s appetite for a military action against Iran and the possibility it would unleash a wider terror war, the former aides explained.

Whatever the case, the White House opted to downplay the concerns, suggesting in public that the evidence linking Iran was “fragmentary” or uncertain. Behind the scenes, steps were also taken to restrict the flow of any further evidence that Iran assisted the Khobar attack, according to interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials.

At the time, the FBI and the State Department’s intelligence arm were gathering significant new cooperation from Saudi authorities that pointed toward Iranian involvement. But suddenly the flow of information was stopped, officials told The Times.

“We were seeing a line of traffic that led us toward Iranian involvement, and suddenly that traffic was cut off,” recalled Wayne White, a career intelligence officer inside the State Department from 1979 to 2005 who served as deputy director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia.

Mr. White and other colleagues first disclosed the stopped flow of intelligence during an oral history project for a career diplomats group, and he agreed to recount the details to The Times. During the Clinton administration, his team was responsible for intelligence inside State for Iran, Iraq, the Middle East and North Africa, and was taking a lead role in the Khobar probe as well as evaluating other regional terrorism threats.

When the intelligence flow stopped on Iran’s involvement in Khobar, Mr. White said he made a “very heated demand up the chain of command.”

“We did not sit idly by and accept this,” he said in an interview. “When we found out we and the originating agency were being denied intelligence, we went upstairs to the front office to find out what was happening and to let them know we were outraged.”

Mr. White said his team tried several different ways to try to get intelligence flowing again, including seeking a deal to restrict the information to the secretary of state or a senior deputy. Eventually, he said, he learned the blockade had been ordered by Mr. Clinton’s top national security aide.

“We later found out the stream had been cut off by Sandy Berger, and the original agency producing the intelligence was struggling to work around the roadblock,” he said.

Mr. Berger, who later was convicted of trying to smuggle Clinton-era classified documents about terrorism out of the National Archives, now works for a consulting firm in Washington. His office said he was unavailable for comment.

Mr. White’s account was confirmed to The Times by foreign diplomats and several U.S. law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the matter, including former FBI Director Freeh.

Mr. Freeh said when his agents returned from Saudi Arabia in 2000 with clear-cut statements from the co-conspirators about Iran’s involvement, he went to see Mr. Berger and was instructed not to disseminate the information.

“He asked, ‘Who knows about this?’ And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ ‘So, who knows about it?’ he says. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘the attorney general of the United States, me, you, about 50 FBI agents and the Saudi government,'” Mr. Freeh recalled.

“‘Well,’ he said, ‘it’s just hearsay.’ And I said, ‘Well, with all due respect, it’s not hearsay. It would be a statement by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy and would come into court under the rules of evidence,'” he added.

Mr. Freeh said he first began encountering resistance to making a case against Iran when he first wanted to send the agents to Saudi Arabia a year earlier.

“What we were told by the Saudis was the only way that we can do this is if your president asks the king or the crown prince for this access,” he said. “And if so, we can probably deliver it at that level. But we can’t do it at your level.

“So we spent a number of months, more than a number of months, writing talking points for the president. We’d give them to Sandy Berger, and the president would then have whatever meetings he would have with the king or crown prince. And the word kept coming back to us that he never raised the talking points.

“I’d go back to the White House and say we are told the talking points, the requests, weren’t raised. And we would get a variety of different answers,” he continued. “But the bottom line was we couldn’t get the president to raise this. So what I did was I contacted former President George H.W. Bush. He had a very good relationship with the Saudis. I explained to him what my dilemma was and asked if he would contact the Saudis. And he did.”

Mr. Freeh said he witnessed another example of the Clinton administration showing deference to Iran that he feared risked national security.

“They were encouraging me not to do surveillances on the cultural teams and athletic teams that were starting to come in from Iran,” he said. “And I refused as director, saying we had good evidence that the Iranians had put their agents on these wrestling teams and they were coming into the U.S. to contact sources.”

Mr. White said his intelligence analysts didn’t want Iran to have been behind the Khobar Towers attack because it would have serious long-term ramifications for America. But once the evidence established a link, it was wrong for the information to be cut off for political reasons, he said.

“It polluted the entire intelligence process, which is not supposed to be interfered with in any way with political priorities,” he said. “You cannot provide your intelligence community selective intelligence without corrupting the process, and that was an outrage.”

2A: White House Announces Gun Control Executive Orders

fuckface

This isn’t a drill. The White House just announced that President Obama is preparing new gun control executive orders in response to the Oregon Umpqua community college shooting. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton said during a town hall event that if Congress won’t pass her gun agenda, she will implement it by executive order.

Yes, she said she is willing to implement a universal registration program and ban semi-automatic weapons by executive order. We’ll deal with that witch if and when we need to. But right now, we have a much more serious problem. It is no coincidence that these executive orders were announced just days after Obama hinted that gun bans and confiscations were the only way to stop mass shootings. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what Obama has in store. Please, FaxBlast Congress and demand that they stop Obama’s radical new gun control executive orders before it is too late! Our last article created quite a stir. People accused us of lying in saying that Obama wanted gun bans and confiscations. But that is exactly what he is calling for.

He brought up the United Kingdom and Australia as model examples of how gun control can stop mass shootings. Well, guess what? Both countries ended up banning semi-automatic firearms and then having police confiscate the guns. Fact. This isn’t the first time Obama has evoked Australia as a gun control model.

He made the same policy recommendation on a radio show earlier this summer. We know that this is Obama’s goal. In his eyes, the only way to combat gun violence is to take a large number of guns away from a large number of people. Just like they did in Australia and the United Kingdom. In 1996, Australian police confiscated 650,000 firearms, or roughly 20% of the country’s civilian arsenal at the time. In 1997, Great Britain confiscated 162,000 pistols from licensed gun owners. Do you know what that means for the United States?

If Obama copied Australia and you own five guns, say goodbye to one or more of them and don’t even think of getting your money back. Frankly, Obama’s solution would be to confiscate much more than 20% of the country’s guns. And now, we have White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest announcing that the push to implement new gun control measures by executive order is “ongoing.”

This comes on the heels of an announcement that Obama’s new Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also planning to implement new gun control regulations. All this is happening behind the scenes. This President works around the clock to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. The wheel of gun control never stops turning. Aside from death and taxes, new gun control is the only other constant in Obama’s America.

Don’t let Obama implement any more unconstitutional gun control executive orders! Demand that Congress halt this tyrant in his tracks! I know that there are tons of things going on that grab your attention on a given day. Especially with politics, there are dozens of battles being fought at any given time. I know that. But this is literally a matter of life and death. If Obama gets his way and is allowed to implement his gun control executive order, there is no doubt that law-abiding Americans will be disarmed. Obama’s plan is completely unconstitutional but we cannot afford to just wait for the courts to rule on this.

Congress must intervene and put a stop to this and the only way that happens is if you demand it. The President is counting on the majority of Americans not paying attention. That is the only way to sneak his gun control through. But now that you know, you have a responsibility and obligation to do something about it! Please, FaxBlast Congress and demand that they stop Obama’s radical new gun control executive orders before it is too late! Sincerely, Joe Otto Conservative Daily

Pelosi: Whether An Unborn Child Is A Human Has ‘No Basis’ In Policy

by Ian Hanchett FOR BREITBART.COM

House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to answer a question on whether an unborn child is a human being and stated such a question has “no basis” in public policy on Thursday.

Pelosi responded to a question on whether “an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver is a human being” by dismissing “ideological questions.” After the reporter asked what species an unborn child is if it’s not a human, Pelosi responded, “I am a devout, practicing Catholic. A mother of five children. I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect, and I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here.”

 

Montana Law Taking on Federal Militarization of Police Now

MONTANA

By Mike Maharrey

HELENA, Mont. (Oct. 1, 2015) – Today, a law that will heavily diminish the impact of federal programs militarizing local police in Montana went into effect.
Introduced by Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer (R-Superior), House Bill 330 (HB330) bans state or local law enforcement from receiving significant classes of military equipment from the Pentagon’s “1033 Program.” It passed by a 46-1 vote in the state Senate and by a 79-20 vote in the state House. Gov. Steve Bullock signed the bill into law in April.
Schwaderer told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle he was a surprised Bullock signed the bill. He said he feared the governor would cave in to law enforcement lobbyists who opposed the legislation and veto the bill.
“I’m incredibly pleased. In the latter part of the session you see so much partisanship so it’s heartening to see that both Democrats and Republicans could get behind it. It’s no lightweight bill. It substantially changes policy in a way that strengthens the civil liberties of Montanans.”
The new law prohibits state or local law enforcement agencies from receiving armored drones, weaponized, or both; aircraft that are combat configured or combat coded; grenades or similar explosives and grenade launchers; silencers; and “militarized armored vehicles” from federal military surplus programs.
But, as The Guardian reported last fall, handouts of such equipment from the Pentagon aren’t the only way the federal government militarizes local police. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants used to purchase such equipment amount to three times the value of the equipment given away by the Pentagon.
HB330 closes this loophole by banning law enforcement agencies from purchasing such military equipment with federal grants. They could continue to purchase them, but would have to use state or local funds, and the agencies would have to give public notice within 14 days of a request for any such local purchase.
“This foundation sets a massive precedent in Montana and the country as to what kind of society we want to have,” Schwaderer said of his bill. “If you get to the point where you need a grenade launcher, we’ve got the National Guard.”
Last March, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law that, while not as comprehensive as the Montana bill, prohibits receipt of equipment from the 1033 program without an express authorization from the local governing body. This made his state the first to take a step towards stopping the federal militarization of police.
“By making it a local decision, the New Jersey law is a great first step, but the Montana law takes things to the next level,” Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said. “It closes loopholes and covers almost all the bases. The next step would be to expand the equipment banned, and we’re hopeful that good people in Montana will work on that next session.”

FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY

Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military grade weapons, including automatic assault rifles, body armor and mine resistant armored vehicles – essentially unarmed tanks. Police departments can even get their hands on military helicopters and other aircraft.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) runs the “Homeland Security Grant Program,” which in 2013 gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”
Local agencies almost never have the funds needed to purchase this kind of equipment, and federal money is the only way they can afford it. By banning purchases with federal funding, HB330 would effectively nullify the effect of such federal “grant” programs.

COMMAND AND CONTROL

“Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the Founders,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’”
In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”
By stripping state and local police of this military-grade gear and requiring them to report on their acquisition and use, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.
“Sunshine is the salve of good government,” Schwaderer said.
That is exactly what HB330 will start to bring to Montana.

TAKE ACTION

For other states: Take action to push back against federal militarization of your police HERE.

TLB recommends you visit Tenth Amendment Center for more great/pertinent articles.

Regards,

Kirk

Citizens Newswire is a free, volunteer digest of news & views you won’t hear on TV.
It spans a wide array of topics regarding the future of our world. Unsubscribe using
the following link, or by emailing me a request.
Kirk@SilentNoMorePublications.com
http://www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
To unsubscribe or change settings, go to:
http://silentnomorepublications.com/mailman/listinfo/cn_silentnomorepublications.com