House, Senate Bill Seeks White House Confirmation of Payment To Iran To Free US Navy Vessel

This frame grab from a Jan. 12, 2016, video by the Iranian state-run IRIB News Agency, shows detention of American Navy sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, Iran. 

(IRIB News Agency via AP) ** FILE **

[From article]
A bill aims to force the Obama administration to confirm within 60 days whether or not it gave a $1.7 billion “ransom payment” to Iran in January in exchange for 10 U.S. sailors captured in its waters.
The No Impunity for Iranian Aggression at Sea Act was filed jointly this week by two Republicans, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, as a way of determining why $1.7 billion was released to Iran on Jan. 14. The payment was made one day after members of two U.S. Navy patrol boats were freed from captivity.
[. . .]
The legislation seeks to determine whether it was diplomacy or $1.7 billion in taxpayers’ cash that resolved the conflict. The White House maintains that payments to Iran were not linked to the sailors’ release.
“After the Iranians captured 10 U.S. Navy sailors, President Obama mentioned these brave men and women only in passing in his last State of the Union address,” Mr. Pompeo told the Free Beacon on Wednesday. “Since then, instead of investigating whether the Iranians violated the Geneva Convention and the right of innocent passage, the Obama administration has only offered apologies and then fired an American Naval officer. There has been no criticism of the Iranians, no public explanation of why these Americans were forced on their knees, hands on their heads, or why they were forced to confess — nothing from President Obama that would send a signal that this is an unacceptable way to treat American sailors.”
[. . .]
“I think that’s going to be huge cause for concern for most Americans. That’s why I’ve encouraged members of Congress to get that [classified military] briefing so they do know exactly what did take place.”
In addition to holding U.S. sailors captive, Iranian authorities forced the crew to apologize on state-run television. The service members strayed into Iranian waters when their navigational systems failed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/mike-pompeo-john-cornyn-bill-to-force-obama-to-adm/

Bill would force Obama to admit to $1.7 billion ‘ransom payment’ to Iran
White House denies charge despite funds released 1 day after U.S. sailors freed by regime
By Douglas Ernst 

The Washington Times

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Iran, 1979, Began Muslim Terror Disruption Campaigns

[From article]
The facts are, notwithstanding the forever continuing Palestinian/Israeli war, that the Middle East was kept relatively peaceful and political Islam and its terrorism was kept under control in a secular Iran until 1979.
It was President Jimmy Carter and the Western European leaders, with the total support of the Western media and socialist elites as the likes of Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky, who decided to support the radical Shi’a Ayatollah Khomeini in taking over peaceful modernity-seeking Iran and establishing political Islam. Unfortunately, the same people are still supporting Islamic clerical imperialism as their child.
The sequence of pugnacious events in the Middle East since the advent of political Islamic domination of Iran in 1979 is evidence that many Middle Eastern problems are related to the ideological policies of the Islamic imperialist regime in Iran. It is the mullah’s goal to establish the Islamic kalifate through interference, intrusions, and promotion of terrorism in the internal affairs of the neighboring countries.
[. . .]



Khomeini considered Iran a platform and a financial source for launching his expansion of the Islamic kalifate throughout the world, beginning in the Middle East. I was there and heard his terrifying speech every day.
He established an Islamic military made up of thugs and hoodlums called the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps -- not to defend the country but to protect, guarantee, and expand Political Islam in Iran and abroad.
Khomeini began by announcing a war against Israel as soon as he took control of Iran; calling it a "Zionist entity" and surrounded it by financing and arming the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hizb’allah in Lebanon.
He encouraged and financed Hizb’allah’s terrorism to destabilize the Lebanese Christian government and take the control of Lebanon.
He instigated eight years of brutal and bloody war with Saddam Hussein to remove Sunni power over the Shi’a population of Iraq. Khomeini’s successor Khamenei selected the Iraqi Shi’a mullah Moqtada al Sadr to establish a Shi’a movement against Saddam Hussein, financed and armed by the Iranian regime.
[. . .]
By 2003, the Revolutionary Guards had infiltrated the Shi’a community of Iraq through Moqtada al Sadr, the anti-American rabble-rouser puppet of Iran whose goal was to remove the Sunnis from military and government positions.
The Bush Administration was able to successfully arbitrate a reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shi’as, bringing them together and under control.
[. . .]



U.S. State Department 2012 reports maintain that Iran remains an active state sponsor of terrorism and increased its terrorist-related activity in 2011. “Weapons are smuggled into Iraq and used to arm Iran's allies among the Shiite militias, including those of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.”
The Sunnis of Iraq were forcefully isolated and, in the absence of the American military, created a disgruntled angry Sunni population, that, joined by the defeated Al Qaida, became ISIS.
[. . .]



While the children of Iran are living in hunger and poverty, Khamenei has been financing and arming Hamas, Hizb’allah, Moslem terrorism in poor African countries, and interfering in the internal affairs of Yemen, not to mention influence buying in South American countries.
It is, by all documents and reports, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards that have been instrumental in creating the current atmosphere of chaos throughout the Middle East.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/_it_was_1979_not_2003_that_unleashed_political_islam_.html

May 20, 2016
It was 1979 (not 2003) that Unleashed Political Islam
By Manda Zand Ervin

Updated: Smartest Man in The White House, Boasts Of Fooling Voters, Taxpayers About Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted May 18, 2016 10:48 PM ET; Last updated May 25, 2016 5:11 PM ET


Updated May 25, 2016 5:11 PM ET

http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
By John Podhoretz
New York Post
May 5, 2016 | 8:39pm
* * *

http://nypost.com/2016/05/09/obamas-storyteller-backs-off-boasts-about-selling-iran-deal/

Obama’s storyteller backs off boasts about selling Iran deal
By David K. Li
May 9, 2016 | 1:40pm
New York Post

* * *

http://townhall.com/news/around-the-web/2016/05/10/state-dept-faces-questions-over-missing-tape-amid-scramble-over-wh-aides-iran-boast-n2160987

State Dept. faces questions over missing tape, amid scramble over WH aide's Iran boast
Townhall.com Staff
Posted: May 10, 2016 12:20 PM

* * *

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/10/state-dept-faces-questions-over-missing-tape-amid-scramble-over-wh-aides-iran-boast.html

State Dept. faces questions over missing tape, amid scramble over WH aide's Iran boast
Published May 10, 2016

FoxNews.com

* * *

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-obama-staff-laugh-at-you-can-keep-your-plan-pledge/article/2590943

Former Obama speechwriters laugh at 'you can keep your plan' promise
By T. BECKET ADAMS (@BECKETADAMS) 

5/10/16 4:45 PM

* * *

Posted May 18, 2016 10:48 PM ET
[From article]
What a surprise! It was revealed from the highest level that the Obama White House has been downright deceptive and had lied to the American public and media about the nuclear deal with Iran, as well as carrying on secret bilateral negotiations with Iran.
In spite of arguments by the Obama administration to the contrary, it has been clear from the beginning that the nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed on July 14, 2015, will not stop the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.
[. . .]
In spite of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 of July 20, 2015 that calls on Iran not to launch tests of ballistic missiles, this was the third test by Iran. One of the two missiles fired in March 2016 carried the slogan "Israel must be wiped out."
By chance, the ballistic missile testing coincided with the publication of the extraordinary revealing article by David Samuels in the New York Times on May 8, 2016 on Ben Rhodes, the Boy Wonder of the Obama White House, the single most influential voice next to the president shaping American foreign policy.



Rhodes is officially the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications in the Obama administration, but he is really the spin-doctor narrating or fabricating fantasies or half-truths to the mainstream media that he arrogantly seems to despise. The willingness of the media to consume and disseminate the inaccurate information given them has long been known, but the full extent to which the media was spun has now been revealed.
The main revelation was that Rhodes presented the story of negotiations on the nuclear deal with Iran as having started in 2013 due to the fact the moderates in Iran, led by Hassan Rouhani, had won the election and became president. The moderates therefore were influential and were willing to make a deal with the United States. The media believed this, though it was disputed by well-informed individuals such as Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense, who denied any such division between hard and soft Iranians. Rhodes, with evident contempt, regards previous decision makers on Iran and Iraq – the Washington foreign policy establishment, or The Blob, as he calls it, which includes Hillary Clinton – as "morons."


Ben Rhodes, Novelist, White House National Security Deputy

Rhodes's spin was false. The negotiations with Iran had in fact started earlier in 2012, before Rouhani was elected. The White House deliberately spun the view that Iran moderates wanted peace with the U.S. and with Middle East neighbors. What is important is his contempt for the media as well as for the Washington establishment. Rhodes observed that news bureaus today do not have foreign bureaus, as they used to have, and they therefore call the White House to find out what is happening.
The result is that most of the news outlets are reporting on world affairs from Washington. Rhodes said the average reporter he talks to is 27 years old and literally knows nothing. The White House therefore shapes the news and has particular journalists it can use for spreading it and validating what the White House gives them to say. As Samuels writes, "[t]he way in which most Americans have heard the story of the nuclear deal … was largely manufactured for the purpose of selling the deal."
The consensus in the U.S. today is that the Iran deal was a major political blunder. Of the two main adversaries during the discussion, most informed commentators would agree that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed the deal, was right, and President Obama was wrong.
[. . .]



Two factors are involved in the White House attempt to prevent Netanyahu from speaking. The first expressed by the media was on the wisdom of the invitation, because Netanyahu was going to criticize the Obama policy. Though most of Congress expressed opposition to the negotiations, there was a genuine difference of opinion on them. President Obama believed and still appears to believe that a deal in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions was the way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu disagreed on the whole idea and believed that Iran was not negotiating in good faith. Iran has a record of secret uranium enrichment facilities, and Israel was in danger. Netanyahu argued that the sanctions on Iran, the removal of which was the real reason for Iran's willingness to negotiate, should not be removed – in fact, should be increased.
The second factor was the White House spin, which the media highlighted, that the invitation was unconstitutional. Either Rhodes or someone else in the White House invented something called the "presidential protocol." The White House spokesperson on January 20, 2015, slightly off the point, informed the media that the typical protocol would suggest that "the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he is traveling there." The media, though few of whom if any were constitutional lawyers, claimed that such an invitation had no precedent in American history.
One may disagree on whether the invitation was unwise or inopportune, but it was not unconstitutional. There was no breach of any constitutional provision.
[. . .]
The New York Times incorrectly reported that Netanyahu had accepted the invitation to speak before the White House had been informed. This was not true, and the NYT had to issue a correction. Netanyahu did not formally accept the invitation until after the White House had been informed. It was not true, as Earnest had said, that the White House did not know about the invitation until Boehner announced it publicly. The spin converted the difference of opinion on an important issue into a diplomatic row with constitutional implications. In reality, Boehner had earlier in 2011 invited Netanyahu to speak and had informed the White House, which never responded.
Many in the media bought the White House spin and deception that to oppose the nuclear deal was to support Israel against the Obama administration. That made the State of Israel a partisan issue, while in the past support for Israel has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. The White House and the mainstream media owe Netanyahu an apology for their fallacious and dishonorable presentation of a controversial issue.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/when_obama_lies_to_the_media_and_laughs_doing_it.html

May 11, 2016
When the White House Lies to the Media, and Laughs Doing It
By Michael Curtis

* * *



[From article]
Ben Rhodes is perhaps the weirdest foreign policy adviser in the history of the White House. His path to his current position as deputy national security adviser for strategic communications was, as this New York Times profile informs us, "perhaps not strictly believable, even as fiction."
Forget his title. Ben Rhodes is "the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself," according to the Times. What makes that so bizarre is that Rhodes has no background in foreign policy at all. He was a failed short story writer who wandered into the orbit of Obama aides almost by accident and served as a speechwriter during the campaign.
But he helped the administration identify friendly reporters and nonprofits who could be counted on to carry a completely false and misleading "narrative" about the Iran deal.
And it worked.
[. . .]



What the Samuels piece shows is that the Obama administration chose to attempt to get its way not by winning an argument but by bringing an almost fathomless cynicism to bear in manipulating its own clueless liberal fan club.
It's amazing how Rhodes sees himself and his role. He refers to the foreign policy establishment as "the blob," and at bottom, he believes he and Obama are the only smart ones in the room.
Samuels's profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He's a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother's connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies—what Rhodes and others call a "narrative"—that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.
[. . .]
All you have to do to discover the extent of their flim-flamming is to look at the talking points about the agreement after the preliminary deal was agreed to in April and compare it with the final agreement in July. The dishonesty in selling this deal to Congress was so profound that we still don't know yet how Iran is interpreting parts of it.
Samuels's profile is very long and, at times, strains credulity that such a creature could become a top adviser to the president. But it also unintentionally reveals how easily the Washington press corps can be manipulated into doing the president's bidding. There was very little objective analysis of the Iran deal, nor any attempt to reconcile what was in the deal with what the administration was claiming in public.
If there had been, it's doubtful that the deal would have gone through Congress.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/ben_rhodes_admits_administration_lied_to_sell_iran_deal.html

May 6, 2016
Ben Rhodes admits administration lied to sell Iran deal
By Rick Moran

Three Leading Democratic Party Deceivers

Three Musketeesr of Mendacity
Photo: Zuma Wire (left); David McGlynn (center); Getty Images
[From article]

The unholy trinity comprises the leaders of the Democratic Liars Club. Whether born or convicted, the president of the United States, his would-be successor and the mayor of New York are, to borrow a phrase, “people of the lie.”
This is not to accuse them of being merely imperfect humans. It is to say they are chronically dishonest and concoct such significant lies that they deserve zero public trust.
The latest clincher is the admission of a top White House aide that much about the Iranian nuclear deal was a fabrication sold to a lazy, gullible press corps. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes boasts that most reporters were too dumb to know or care they were being misled.
“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes told The New York Times. “They literally know nothing.”
He said that much of what passed for independent analysis of Iran in the media was a regurgitation of White House talking points. “We created an echo chamber,” he gloated. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Rhodes thus joins the infamous Jonathan Gruber, the administration insider caught conceding that ObamaCare was designed to exploit the “stupidity of the American voter.” If people understood the plain meaning, Gruber said, the law would not have survived.
The twin admissions mean Obama’s self-described legacy accomplishments — the Iran deal and the Affordable Care Act — are fraudulent to the core. Even worse, Obama himself led the charge for both scams, insisting that anyone who opposed the Iran deal wanted war, and that under ObamaCare, “you can keep your doctor.”
The implications are enormous and resolve any doubts that Obama is a con man in a league of his own. Instead of getting the Nobel Peace Prize, he is worthy of the Joseph Goebbels Award for proving Goebbels’ claim that “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Unfortunately, both the Iran deal and ObamaCare will outlast Obama’s term and do lasting damage to America, and in the case of Iran, the whole world. They make Watergate look like amateur hour.
[. . .]
It is a reflection of Washington’s hollowed-out morals, and Obama’s personal corruption, that Clinton has not been charged in the e-mail scandal. Her failure to protect national-security secrets make her unfit for any office, yet millions of Americans are ready to entrust her with their well-being and safety.
[. . .]
The latest report has the feds investigating his 2013 campaign, which comes on top of probes focused on possible financial shenanigans in 2014, 2015 and this year. In short, much of his career is suspected of being one long crime wave.
Like his pals in the Democratic Liars Club, de Blasio fights truth with imaginary victimization. “How convenient that when we’re doing a lot of work to help everyday people, there’s all sorts of efforts being made to obscure that work,” he said of the probes.
That disinformation echoes Obama’s nasty tendency to accuse dissenters of ignorance and corruption or, when that fails, racism. Clinton, of course, retreats behind charges of sexism and, when that fails, claims to spot a vast right-wing conspiracy.
[. . .]
I am not making a case that Trump is the second coming of Reagan, yet they share the distinction of stoking the enthusiasm of the party’s rank-and-file despite powerful internal resistance. Reagan was regarded by top Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater as a dangerous simpleton.
[. . .]
Worse things are said about Trump, and defectors include the 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, and some GOP senators. House Speaker Paul Ryan says he’s not ready to endorse Trump, and both former Presidents Bush may not support him.
The resistance seems genuine and can be respected on one condition: that the dissenters acknowledge they are playing with fire.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/07/meet-the-democratic-liars-club/

Meet the Democratic Liars Club
By Michael Goodwin
New York City
May 7, 2016 | 9:43pm

Parallel Government Abuses, Iran and The Current White House

[From article]
Put simply, if a citizen dares to disagree with the theocratic ruler of Iran, the punishment that follows is severe and unforgiving.
At any rate, although Washington D.C. is 6,300 miles away from Iran, after being led for eight years by a Supreme Leader whose favorite pastime is issuing infallible decrees, the seat of American government is beginning to resemble an Iranian theocracy.
For instance, when differing opinions arise that contradict the sacred text concerning gun control, abortion, and climate change, although the president doesn’t respond by beheading anyone in a public square, he does find a way to overtly impugn the credibility of those whom he feels spread corruption.



Now, judging from what Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to say at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations, Obama’s future method of response may become more official.
Apparently, Obama’s Justice Department is in the process of deciding whether or not to take civil action against beliefs held by those Iran would call “gross offenders of the moral order.” Lynch had this to say about how climate “deniers” in the fossil fuel industry could possibly face lawsuits:
This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.
Based on the Attorney General’s remarks, it’s hard to believe that what was once a Constitutional right to individual thought and belief, may now be one step closer to an Iranian-style regulation overseen by a hierarchy of American mullahs.
[. . .]
In America today, it seems that the only way to prevent being monitored by a western version of the Iranian “religious police” is to go green, relinquish the guns, and to stand, in unflinching unanimity, with the proprietors of the baby body parts chop shop.
And if that’s where America is headed, then Ballistic Barack testing his DOJ arsenal is just as harrowing in it’s potential to do harm as an Iranian missile.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/barack_goes_ballistic_.html

March 13, 2016
Barack Goes Ballistic
By Jeannie DeAngelis

White House Using Taxpayer Funds To Support Teeny, Tiny Amount of Iranian Terrorism

It's Just This Little Bit of Money

That honorable small insignificant number. This small amount of money is insignificant, a small percentage of ($150 billion) the money going to Iran. Like the small number of Muslims who support terror to implement Sharia Law. Only about 10 percent? Of 1.6 billion Muslims? Huh? 160 million and a larger percentage supports Sharia Law Over the US Constitution. Chump change?

[From article]
When asked about whether some the $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran would go to terrorist groups, Kerry reiterated that, after settling debts, Iran would receive closer to $55 billion. He conceded some of that could go to groups considered terrorists, saying there was nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that.
"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," he said in the interview in Davos, referring to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. "You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented."
[. . .]
Nothing the U.S. could do to prevent the Iranians from using the money to attack America or our interests? That's idiotic. Of course, we could have foregone the pleasure of inking a deal with Iran in the first place. That would have kept the money out of their hands, and who knows? The sanctions may have eventually brought down the government.
Instead, we have empowered the radical America-haters and enabled Iranian ambitions to dominate the region. It may work out to be the most spectacular blunder in the history of diplomacy – if anyone is left around to write about it.
That Kerry felt compelled to state the obvious about Iran funding terrorists while claiming there's nothing we can do about it shows how clueless he and the president truly are about the ramifications of giving fanatical Muslims the means to inflict harm on the U.S.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/kerry_some_iran_sanctions_cash_will_end_up_in_the_hands_of_terrorists.html

January 22, 2016
Kerry: Some Iran sanctions cash will end up in the hands of terrorists
By Rick Moran

Saudi Arabia Manipulated Oil Markets, Outsmarted Itself

[From article]
The economic devastation you see all around, as markets collapse, is due in no small part to the KSA's manipulations – manipulations that have throttled progress for decades.
However, the Saudis have made a major blunder this time. Technology is still making fracking cheaper. So a considerable number of frackers are waiting out the storm. Once the Saudis raise prices, American exploration will be back online quickly. The KSA is fighting a losing battle.
Worse yet, any increase in prices will also help Iran's budget. It seems the KSA is stuck at the bottom of the price graph, damned no matter what its monarch does.
In five years, the KSA's foreign reserves are expected to be emptied out. Already, the KSA is dropping internal subsidies on electricity and domestic gasoline. The local people are upset. Upset Muslims means violent revolution.



For over forty years, this blight of a tribe has caused recessions, caused depressions, and damaged the planet's economy. They got wealthy by re-impoverishing an emerging Third World, starting with the artificially created 1973 oil crisis. They have used their oil wealth to sponsor terrorism (as has Iran). Rather than investing wisely in industry to pick up market slack to become a modern diversified economy, they have invested instead in subsidizing mullahs, arming Salafist extremists in Syria, and exporting Islam around the world.
Now they have no options. Any increase in prices will restart American, European, and Chinese frackers. Failure to increase prices will bankrupt them. As a further blessing, we Americans will no longer have to hear the caterwauling idiocies of environmentalist Chicken Littles screaming about "peak oil."



What the USA can do is protect its fracking industry by severely taxing any oil imports under $50 a barrel. This may upset some free marketers, but the price of oil is rigged. We should rig it in our favor, and insulate ourselves from Saudi manipulations.
Good riddance to the KSA – a corrupt, vicious regime! May their next chief export be bottled camel urine. I wish America had never gotten involved with them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_end_of_saudi_arabia.html

January 20, 2016
The End of Saudi Arabia?
By Mike Konrad

White House Policies Promote Terrorism, Certain To Bring War

Kathryn Steinle, Murdered By Illegal Alien Previously Deported Multiple Times; White House Remains Silent 

[From article]
Despite Obama’s misrepresentation to the American people that these criminals were not dangerous, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, many with violent criminal records, have been released from jail including illegals “charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide.” A House Judiciary Committee report revealed that between 2009-2011, the Obama administration released criminal illegal aliens who were later charged with 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes. Kathryn Steinle’s murder last summer by an illegal alien with seven prior felony convictions was inevitable.



The administration often justifies its actions by claiming it is required to do so by law. However, given Obama’s penchant for unconstitutionally seizing legislative authority, he could easily have issued an executive order preventing the release of these violent criminals into the population-at-large. Instead, his power grabs are reserved for granting illegal immigrants amnesty and limiting law-abiding Americans’ ability to purchase guns -- while ignoring the welfare of the citizenry.
Coming from the man who has admitted Muslim immigrants by the hundreds of thousands annually and who is obsessed with increasing those already staggering numbers with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees (despite terrorists hiding among them), these policies are not surprising. But, they are no less scary and this past week the administration hit a new low.
First recall the Beau Bergdahl fiasco. Obsessed with closing Guantanamo Bay, Obama began releasing dangerous detainees almost immediately upon entering office. Ignoring the threat that these terrorists pose, Obama jumped at the opportunity to trade the Taliban Five for traitor Beau Bergdahl. Deceiving the American people, Obama used Bergdahl’s parents as props in his Rose Garden victory speech ignoring the minor detail that Bergdahl was a deserter who placed his entire platoon in jeopardy. Just like his announcements that Benghazi was caused by a video and the Iran nuclear deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Obama lied to Americans understanding the complicit media would fail to vet his actions. He shipped the Taliban Five to Qatar for one year of “supervision” before allowing them to reunite with their murdering colleagues and resume their terrorist activities – as they are now doing.
Fast forward to last month when Obama renewed efforts to close Gitmo and announced the upcoming release of 17 detainees. In a must read Wall Street Journal column, Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn explained the dangers of releasing Gitmo detainees, 75% of whom are deemed “high risk” (“likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies”) and why Obama’s faux claims that Gitmo serves as a recruitment tool are simply false
[. . .]
Nearly 200 former detainees have returned to jihad or are suspected of having done so, and they include senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
[. . .]



State Department spokesperson John Kirby’s claim that “The safety and security of American citizens overseas is our highest priority” is insulting.
Not wanting the Iranians to feel left out that al Qaeda and the Taliban are getting their murderers back (whom our brave military personnel risked their lives to capture), Obama just released Iranian prisoners as part of a cynical deal to bring home Americans that Iran has been holding for years. This was not a “prisoner swap” -- the Americans had not broken any laws -- they were hostages. And despite administration claims that the timing was purely coincidental, it was anything but, with one journalist proclaiming, “the administration pulled an ace from its sleeve.”
Aaron David Miller observed
The story of the day Saturday was not implementation of the nuclear accord but the prisoner swap…. It’s ironic that the issue that both Washington and Tehran wanted to keep separate from the nuclear negotiations, and negotiated in secret, developed positively as the nuclear talks progressed and ultimately overshadowed implementation of the controversial accord. The episode shows the difficulty of separating the deal on Iran’s nuclear program from its other activities.
I disagree with Miller’s conclusion. This episode shows the cynicism of the Obama administration believing that by orchestrating this exchange, Americans won’t notice the $150 billion released that will help Iran rebuild its military, expand its regional hegemon and global terrorism, and wreak havoc far and wide. Obama knew the media would cover the release rather than Iran’s continued support of Assad and Hezb’allah, ballistic missile tests, firing rockets at a U.S. aircraft carrier, and kidnapping and humiliation of U.S. sailors.
Obama knowingly used American hostages as pawns in a dangerous game. The timing of the exchange was planned in order to direct attention away from the horrific terms of the deal and portray Obama as some sort of diplomatic Svengali outmaneuvering the Mullahs. It was wholly predictable and I suggested as much over the summer.
While we celebrate the return of American citizens, we cannot ignore the fact that seven dangerous Iranians were released and the arrest warrants of 14 others were rescinded. Of the 21 Iranian criminals, two are heads of the IRGC air force used to supply Assad and Hezb’allah. According to Democrat Brad Sherman, “The seven people being released from American custody will provide Iran with significant expertise in how to evade missile and nuclear control sanctions and how not to get caught next time.”
Furthermore, Obama sent a message to the world that the U.S. will negotiate with terrorists and pay for the release of hostages (in addition to the $150 billion, Oman paid Iran $500,000 for each of the Americans and, in a sudden settlement of a decades-old claim, Obama paid Iran an additional $1.7 billion). That message was received loud and clear by Iran, the regime with a thirty-year record of taking American hostages. The day after the “prisoner swap,” three Americans were kidnapped in Baghdad presumably by Shiite militias with ties to Iran.
Obama’s disdain for the world’s Jewish population was also on full display this week. The one Iranian hostage who was not released was Robert Levinson, an American Jew working for the CIA who has been missing for eight years. Josef Olmert observed:
[Levinson was] abandoned to his fate, betrayed by those who cooked up the deal with the Mullahs, and it happened, because he is Jewish. Because one Jew would never be allowed to stand on [sic] the way of the ‘historic’ agreement with Iran.
Obama also pressured Interpol to end the prosecution of 14 Iranian terrorists accused in the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Jewish Center in Buenos Aires. In Obama’s eyes, Jewish lives don’t matter.
So implementation day has come and gone and what does America get in return for providing Iran $150 billion, freed criminals, a strengthened economy, and a clear path to a nuclear weapon? We get a heightened risk of terror at home and abroad and national security risks for years to come. And according to the Foundation of Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz, we will get war:
War will have to come unless we’re willing‪ to concede Iran a nuclear weapon. And I think the idea of having the leading state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons is something that no U.S. president will be able to countenance.



Obama’s final months in office will see the continued release of dangerous criminals and terrorists and the only thing Americans can do is sit back and watch it play out. Obama will have American blood on his hands well beyond his final days in office

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obama_dealing_terror_.html

January 19, 2016
Obama Dealing Terror
By Lauri B. Regan

White House Continues To Give Away The Store To Iran

[From article]
The deal led to the release of four Americans being held in Iran: Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian as well as Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, the official said.
While an official confirmed Obama issued seven grants of clemency in the deal with the Iranians, spokespeople at the Justice Department and the White House did not immediately release the names of those spared in the U.S. legal system.
However, Iran’s Fars news agency released seven names, which correspond with U.S. court records on pending or recent cases.
Obama appeared to have granted rare, pre-trial pardons to three men awaiting trial in Houston for violating U.S. export laws by shipping high-tech equipment to Iran: Bahram Mechanic and Tooraj Faridi of Houston and Khosrow Afghahi of Los Angeles.
On Saturday, prosecutors moved to drop charges against Matin Sadeghi, a fugitive in the same case who was being sought in a wanted poster available on the FBI website. A court filing said the move was undertaken “based on significant foreign policy interests of the United States.” Until Saturday, Obama had never granted a pre-trial pardon to anyone, nor had his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

[. . .]

Three people already serving prison time appeared to have had their sentences cut short through the president's commutation power Saturday: Arash Ghahreman of New York, serving a six-and-a-half-year sentence for planning to send fiber optic gyroscopes and electron tube to Iran and due for release in 2020; Nader Modanlo of Potomac, Md., serving an eight-year sentence for providing satellite services to Iran and due for release in 2021 and Ali Saboonchi of Parkville, Md., serving a two-year sentence for providing high-tech industrial parts to Iran and due for release in November of this year.
Prosecutors in San Diego also moved Saturday to dismiss charges against another individual charged in the same case as Ghahreman, Koorush Taherkhani, as well as a company, TIG Marine Engineering Services. Prosecutors called Taherkhani and the company “fugitives.”
[. . .]

"The United States also removed any Interpol red notices and dismissed any charges against 14 Iranians for whom it was assessed that extradition requests were unlikely to be successful," the official said.
A hacker who admitted to breaking into the computers of a Vermont-based engineering firm also was on the list of those winning clemency from Obama in the Iran deal. Nima Golestaneh was extradited from Turkey to the United States in February to face the charges in federal court in Burlington, Vt.
Just last month, Golestaneh pled guilty to wire fraud and unauthorized access to computers. He was awaiting sentencing next month. Now, that sentencing will apparently not take place, but as of mid-afternoon Saturday there was no indication in the court’s docket of any action by Obama or the Justice Department.

[. . .]

And in 2010, the U.S. and Russia brokered a prisoner swap that led to 10 people charged with acting as agents for Russia being given unusually short sentences of "time served." They were immediately flown to Vienna and exchanged for four people being held in Russian jails.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/01/iran-deal-obama-grants-clemency-to-seven-217879

Obama grants clemency to seven in Iran deal
By Josh Gerstein
01/16/16 03:38 PM EST

Evaluating Middle East Conflicts, And Their Effects on US Interests

[rom article]
Like every regime in the Middle East, the Saudis look out for their own national interests first. And their goals here are to first force us to choose between them and Iran, and then to conscript U.S. power on their side in the coming wars of the Middle East.
[. . .]
The Turks, too, look out for number one. The Turkish shoot-down of that Russian fighter-bomber, which may have intruded into its airspace for 17 seconds, was both a case in point and a dangerous and provocative act.
Had Vladimir Putin chosen to respond militarily against Turkey, a NATO ally, his justified retaliation could have produced demands from Ankara for the United States to come to its defense against Russia.
[. . .]
Do U.S.-Turkish interests really coincide today?
While Turkey’s half-million-man army could easily seal the Syrian border and keep ISIS fighters from entering or leaving, it has failed to do so. Instead, Turkey is using its army to crush the Kurdish PKK and threaten the Syrian Kurds who are helping us battle ISIS.
[. . .]
“We have no permanent allies … no permanent enemies … only permanent interests” is a loose translation of the dictum of the 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston.
[. . .]
no nation should be able drag us into a war not of our own choosing.
In cases where we share a common enemy, we should follow the wise counsel of the Founding Fathers and entrust our security, if need be, to “temporary,” but not “permanent” or “entangling alliances.”

http://buchanan.org/blog/will-mideast-allies-drag-us-into-war-124529

Will Mideast Allies Drag Us Into War?
Tuesday - January 5, 2016 at 12:48 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Confused Politicians Express Misguided Thoughts on Middle East

[From article]
The terrorist attacks in Paris, the downing of the Russian airliner in Sinai, the ISIS bomb that exploded in the Shiite sector of Beirut, are ISIS’s payback. But they could also be signs that the ISIS caliphate, imperiled in its base, is growing desperate and lashing out.
[. . .]
If Putin wants to enlist in the war against ISIS, sign him up.

http://buchanan.org/blog/is-putin-our-ally-in-syria-124284

Is Putin Our Ally in Syria?
Monday - November 16, 2015 at 11:33 pm
By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Kissinger: Middle East Shambles

[From article]
That geopolitical pattern is now in shambles. Four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign. Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have become targets for nonstate movements seeking to impose their rule. Over large swaths in Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army has declared itself the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL) as an unrelenting foe of established world order. It seeks to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a caliphate, a single Islamic empire governed by Shariah law.
ISIS’ claim has given the millennium-old split between the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam an apocalyptic dimension. The remaining Sunni states feel threatened by both the religious fervor of ISIS as well as by Shiite Iran, potentially the most powerful state in the region. Iran compounds its menace by presenting itself in a dual capacity. On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy, even invoking the safeguards of the international system. At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria; Hamas in Gaza; the Houthis in Yemen.
[. . .]



The fate of Syria provides a vivid illustration: What started as a Sunni revolt against the Alawite (a Shiite offshoot) autocrat Bashar Assad fractured the state into its component religious and ethnic groups, with nonstate militias supporting each warring party, and outside powers pursuing their own strategic interests. Iran supports the Assad regime as the linchpin of an Iranian historic dominance stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. The Gulf States insist on the overthrow of Mr. Assad to thwart Shiite Iranian designs, which they fear more than Islamic State. They seek the defeat of ISIS while avoiding an Iranian victory. This ambivalence has been deepened by the nuclear deal, which in the Sunni Middle East is widely interpreted as tacit American acquiescence in Iranian hegemony.
These conflicting trends, compounded by America’s retreat from the region, have enabled Russia to engage in military operations deep in the Middle East, a deployment unprecedented in Russian history. Russia’s principal concern is that the Assad regime’s collapse could reproduce the chaos of Libya, bring ISIS into power in Damascus, and turn all of Syria into a haven for terrorist operations, reaching into Muslim regions inside Russia’s southern border in the Caucasus and elsewhere.
[. . .]



Whatever the motivation, Russian forces in the region—and their participation in combat operations—produce a challenge that American Middle East policy has not encountered in at least four decades.

American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events. The U.S. is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights; with Saudi Arabia over Yemen; with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives. The U.S. proclaims the determination to remove Mr. Assad but has been unwilling to generate effective leverage—political or military—to achieve that aim. Nor has the U.S. put forward an alternative political structure to replace Mr. Assad should his departure somehow be realized.



Russia, Iran, ISIS and various terrorist organizations have moved into this vacuum: Russia and Iran to sustain Mr. Assad; Tehran to foster imperial and jihadist designs. The Sunni states of the Persian Gulf, Jordan and Egypt, faced with the absence of an alternative political structure, favor the American objective but fear the consequence of turning Syria into another Libya.
American policy on Iran has moved to the center of its Middle East policy. The administration has insisted that it will take a stand against jihadist and imperialist designs by Iran and that it will deal sternly with violations of the nuclear agreement.
[. . .]

 

In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be treated as your friend no longer applies. For in the contemporary Middle East, it is likely that the enemy of your enemy remains your enemy.
[. . .]
If nuclear weapons become established, a catastrophic outcome is nearly inevitable. A strategy of pre-emption is inherent in the nuclear technology.  
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513-lMyQjAxMTI1MjE2NzIxMDcwWj

A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse
With Russia in Syria, a geopolitical structure that lasted four decades is in shambles. The U.S. needs a new strategy and priorities.
By Henry A. Kissinger
Oct. 16, 2015 7:18 p.m. ET

Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal Violates Two US Laws

[From article]
Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.
[. . .]



In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
[. . .]



What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.
[. . .]



As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.
[. . .]



Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”
[. . .]



One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.
[. . .]
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law
By James Rosen

Published October 08, 2015

FoxNews.com

White House Fake Smiles Don't Hide Failures in Middle East

[From article]
Barack Obama keeps a special big smile for times when the people he hates most really get screwed. He smiled that great big smile again recently when he said how much he loves the Jews – right after selling Israel out to its most dangerous enemy in history.



Human monsters with nuclear weapons are a completely new factor in the world. We've seen plenty of monsters before, but not equipped with Armageddon weapons. That's what Obama has achieved in his historic presidency.



Don't doubt that he has done so purposefully, starting before he took office, when he sent Ambassador William G. Miller to Tehran to tell the mullahs not to make any agreement with George W. Bush, because they'd get a much better deal from Obama.
None of this is coincidence. It was planned with malice aforethought. Obama's delighted "screw you" smile is truly demonic. It seems to show that he is not just a narcissist, but a malignant narcissist who enjoys inflicting catastrophes on others. Bill Clinton is also a supreme narcissist, but I don't remember him actually laughing at times like these.
[. . .]



Among their enablers are two American presidents: Jimmy Carter, who knowingly allowed a mass-murdering priesthood to take power in Iran, and Obama, who surrendered six decades of U.S. anti-proliferation efforts to the thugs.
There will be consequences.



Russia and China immediately moved strategic forces to Syria. That's one instant result of this administration's delusional cowardice. Nobody can predict where the Russo-Chinese strategy will go, but it's obviously been planned for months. Russian marines immediately went into action in support of Syria's President Assad, assisting Hezb'allah. You don't move thousands of soldiers into battle without extensive planning.
[. . .]



The lightning move by Russian and Chinese naval task forces is being followed in Asia as well, where Japan is re-arming for the first time since World War II. China and North Korea still harbor dreams of revenge against Japan. The American cop has left the beat.
[. . .]
Russia and China are not going to leave until they've taken care of their own strategic threats. Or they may simply stay as the new arbiters of the Middle East.
Iran can now claim to have America and Europe in its pocket, as well as Russia and China. That could be extremely dangerous.
[. . .]
The Iranians have constantly played Russia against China. But now Putin has drawn China into his orbit.
[. . .]
We are being sabotaged from within, and our strategic enemies understand that very well.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/crucifying_israel_obamas_brave_new_world.html

October 5, 2015
Crucifying Israel: Obama's Brave New World
By James Lewis

American Foreign Affairs Crumbling, Putin Takes Charge

Vladimir Putin

[From article]
Under Obama and the Left, America has retreated from the world. We have abandoned our allies, all the way from Japan and South Korea to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Obama has supported the paleofascist Ikhwan (brotherhood) in the Sunni Arab world, and Iran in the Shi'ite half of Islam. China has snatched a major part of the South China Sea, with its undersea mineral wealth. Russia is gradually pushing Europe back from the East.



While Obama was distracting you with Mohammed the bomb-faking kid, Russia made a major anti-Iran, anti-Obama move in Syria, sending a reported 2,000 personnel to take over a large Syrian airbase in Latakia, along with the naval port of Tartous.
[. . .]



Assad will owe his survival to Uncle Putin, not the theocracy of Iran.
Putin has an alliance of convenience with Tehran, but Russia has centuries of experience fighting Muslim enemies, all the way to the end of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Putin has battled Muslim rebels in Chechnya and doesn't need a rising nuclear Caliphate next door, an hour's flight from Russia’s borders.
Putin is nobody's friend. He is a Russian nationalist, with a close domestic alliance with the Orthodox Church, just like the czars.
[. . .]



By rescuing the Saudis and Israel from Iranian aggression, Putin is piling up IOU's in the fast-changing world of energy politics. The world price of oil is collapsing with the spread of shale exploitation, and there is no way to stop it. China is becoming a shale producer in the South China Sea.
[. . .]




Western Europe keeps importing hostile Muslim populations from Pakistan, Africa, and the Middle East. The Germans just collapsed in the face of a phony invasion by thousands of "refugees," many men of military age, who did not bother to hide their hatred for their new welfare hosts. Europe's flabbiness is an open invitation to aggressors, both Russia and Islam, and Russia seems more rational.
[. . .]



Only Russia has the will and the military capacity to resist jihad by infiltration. France just launched a bombing raid against ISIS training camps, which happened to coincide with Putin's troop movement into Syria, which also claims to be a move against ISIS.
Our (former) allies, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, having been backstabbed by Obama, are not saying a word against the Russian move into Syria. They may not trust Putin, but they can make deals with him. They know what he wants. Saudi Arabia can offer oil and price coordination with Russia, and help to control the Chechen rebels. Israel can utilize its new shale discoveries in the Eastern Med, and is a valuable source of badly needed technology; Egypt is in desperate straits in fighting ISIS and the Ikhwan, and can use direct military help in the Sinai Desert. Even Jordan has been directly threatened by the Iranians.
One big name is missing in all this: America.
[. . .]
As long as Obama is in power, things are likely to get worse for America.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/russia_is_the_new_hegemon.html

September 30, 2015
Russia is the New Hegemon
By James Lewis

Iran Increases Funding For Terrorism After Misguided Nuclear Weapons Deal With White House

[From article]
Since the [nuclear] deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah. In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations.
 
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/21/iran-increases-funding-to-hezbollah-hamas-with-support-from-nuclear-deal/

Iran Increases Funding for Hezbollah, Hamas in Anticipation of Nuclear Deal Windfall
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 11:39 AM

Iran Nuclear Weapons Treaty Is Laughable, Except For Its Dangerousness

[From article]
Born out of the realization that the Iran deal similarly does little good and has countless lasting side-effects was Zucker’s latest ad, which mirrors most closely the commercials for erectile dysfunction pill Cialis and portrays President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton negotiating with Iran’s “death to America”-shouting Mullahs.
Thus was born this uproariously funny video that mirrors drug ads in tone and content:
The president's obsequiousness toward the Iranians, Kerry fumbling and bumbling, Hillary's apparent eagerness to please - good satire captures a germ of truth and exaggerates it to painful dimensions. And satire doesn't get any better than this.


Published on Sep 10, 2015
Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker (“Airplane,” “Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun” films among many others) has written and produced this hilarious spoof on the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal. In his trademark style, Zucker skewers the deal’s primary architects – President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry warns of the possible “Side Effects” that may result from the absurd agreement.

https://youtu.be/qNvHAjcHAvs



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/call_your_doctor_and_ask_about_side_effects_from_the_iran_deal.html

September 20, 2015
Call your doctor and ask about 'side effects' from the Iran deal
By Rick Moran