Impeach Obama for Smuggling Cash to Iran From Carter to Obama, it’s time for politicians to pay a price for appeasing Iran. Daniel Greenfield

The Islamic Republic of Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That move came several years after Iran had seized American hostages while demanding $24 billion in cash and gold to be paid into a Muslim bank for their release.

The total, according to Secretary of State Muskie, came out to $480 million per hostage.

Carter eventually reached a deal to release billions to Iran while Muskie claimed that the ransom payment meant that “the United States emerged stronger and Iran emerged weaker.” Such counterintuitive arguments have become a staple of Obama rhetoric which insists that appeasing terrorists somehow weakens them and strengthens us.

Muskie also said the deal would “not to make any arrangement to encourage terrorism in the future”.

That of course was not true. Paying out ransom to terrorists only encourages more terrorism. While the hostages were freed, the terror tactic never went away.

In 1989, Iran was still trying to blackmail President George H.W. Bush by offering to free yet more American hostages in exchange for around $12 billion in assets. The hostages had been seized by terrorist affiliates of Iran which by now had been on the state sponsor of terror list for nearly half a decade.

Carter’s ransom deal blatantly violated the law. His Treasury Department ordered banks to defy the courts which were addressing claims of damages by American companies. While he and his administration insisted that they were not paying ransom because it was Iran’s money (a familiar claim that has been repeated by Obama with his own ransom payment), that’s exactly what they were doing.

It’s how Iran saw it. It’s why Iran kept taking hostages and demanding ransoms.

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation “See no evil” ought to be the motto of the Obama administration. Matthew Vadum

The highly politicized Department of Justice swatted down pesky FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, CNN reported yesterday.

CNN buried the lede, as it frequently does on news stories that make Democrats look bad. The online version bears the innocuous-sounding headline, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

It is not until the 25th paragraph that the article states that an unidentified law enforcement official gave CNN a heads-up earlier this year. As the probe of Clinton’s private email servers was ramping up “several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

At that time, the article continues, the Justice Department “declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case.”

Not even enough evidence to look into the foundation’s affairs?

Not more than a year after the publication of Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, opened the floodgates for investigative reporters to dig into the matter.

As I’ve written before, various lawyers have told me there is already a strong legal case against Mrs. Clinton. The fact that she destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

Cynthia E. Ayers : Fraud, Waste and Sabotage

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Prior to accepting the Task Force position, she served as Vice President of EMPact Amercia, having retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service.

“A few blows from a sledge hammer in the right place, can stop a power station working [sic].”

George Orwell

George Orwell, in his 1942 essay entitled “The Meaning of Sabotage,” discussed the ability of a few within Europe to significantly inhibit the workings of Hitler’s military industrial base. His discription of active, physical sabotage was instructive; but he also explained the concept of “passive sabotage” – a form of willful demolition that is much less recognizable as such. This type of vandalism can be accomplished by slowing processes; encouraging confusion, complexity and chaos; and otherwise “preventing it [e.g. the system, organization, etc.] from working smoothly.”

If Orwell were alive to analyze the current status of U.S. federal bureaucracies, what would his findings be? Can fraud and waste be categorized as vandalism? Do our federal systems work “smoothly?” If not – why?

The extent to which governmental megasystems have become bogged down in red tape, regulatory obstacles, remunerative favoritism, and politically biased tendencies should be obvious, at this point, to even the casual observer. Extensive scandals associated with the VA, IRS, GSA, EPA, OPM, DOJ, and other “alphabet soup” organizations that would have been unimaginable 15 or 20 years ago seem almost as if ripped from the pages of an Orwellian novel. Confusion, complexity and chaos? Yes! Sabotage? Perhaps. Intent may be hard to prove, yet it appears that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

What about waste? In addition to the wasteful spending on vacant buildings and unused property, reports of bad accounting practices and unwanted/unnecessary “stimulus” projects fuel the fire of taxpayer fury. Billions of dollars have been spent on dubious research, programs such as commodity advertisements, subsidies for alternative energy sources, community restoration and entertainment (beach re-sanding, private golf courses, teen centers), “humanitarian” benefits (broadband access, cell phones), and unneeded equipment (jets, airplanes, cars, tanks, office decor). Some estimates include at least a few billion dollars of the huge amounts exported under the label “foreign aid.” Is there waste? Unquestionably.

Peter Huessy: Risking Armageddon for $1 Billion a Year

Everybody is looking for defense dollars. The latest sleuth is Luke O’Brien, an Army “Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Fellow” at the National Defense University. He thinks he has found a $62 billion pot of cash if we just got rid of our land based ICBMs. The money could then be spent on more important conventional military needs.

It is true nuclear modernization of the USA deterrent force will cost $700 billion over the next 25 years according to a study done by the Center for Security and International Studies. At first glance that is a great deal of money. But it averages $28 billion a year for nearly 500 missiles, submarines and bombers, 5-12 types of warheads, the command and control associated with the force, and the nuclear laboratories and facilities supporting warhead production, safety and refurbishment.

This comes to 4.6% of the current defense budget and a projected ½ of 1% of the Federal budget in 2025 at the initial peak of modernization spending.

Now it is also true that to improve military readiness now and restore both our nuclear and conventional deterrent, we need more defense funding in the next five year defense plan, and certainly in the next decade. Otherwise we may end up with a hollow military much as we did at the end of the Carter administration. But killing ICBMs simply doesn’t solve either problem.

In the next ten years the nuclear platforms including nuclear capable bombers, land based missiles, and submarines will cost $135 billion. These funds are roughly divided between sustainment of old systems and modernization for new ones.

The ICBM sustainment is $15 billon while another $7 billion would be for modernization. A modest additional amount is also projected to be spent on ICBM warheads and new command and control systems bringing the total to around $24 billion for the next decade.

Turkey, Europe’s Little Problem by Burak Bekdil

Europe is giving signals, albeit slowly, that it may be waking up from the “Turkey-the-bridge” dream. Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmaier said that his country’s relations with Turkey have grown so bad the two countries have virtually “no basis” for talks.

“Italy should be attending to the mafia, not my son,” said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Typically, he does not understand the existence of independent judiciary in a European country. He thinks, as in an Arab sheikdom, prosecutors are liable to drop charges on orders from the prime minister.

“We know that the democratic standards are clearly not sufficient to justify [Turkey’s] accession [to the European Union].” — Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern.

Nations do not have the luxury, as people often do, of choosing their neighbors. Turkey, under the 14-year rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist governments, and neighboring both Europe and the Middle East, was once praised as a “bridge” between Western and Islamic civilizations. Its accession into the European Union (EU) was encouraged by most EU and American leaders. Nearly three decades after its official bid to join the European club, Turkey is not yet European but has become one of Europe’s problems.

Europe’s “Turkish problem” is not only about the fact that in a fortnight a bomb attack wrecked a terminal of the country’s biggest airport and a coup attempt killed nearly 250 people; nor is it about who rules the country. It is about the undeniable democratic deficit both in governance and popular culture.

In only the past couple of weeks, Turkey was in the headlines with jaw-dropping news. In Istanbul, a secretary at a daily newspaper was attacked by a group of people who accused her of “wearing revealing clothes and supporting the July 15 failed coup.” She was six months pregnant.

Also in Istanbul, a Syrian gay refugee was murdered: he had been beheaded and mutilated. One social worker helping LGBT groups said: “Police are doing nothing because he is Syrian and because he is gay.”

Turkey is dangerous not only for gays and refugees. A French tourist was left bloodied and beaten by Turkish nationalists after he refused to hold a Turkish flag. Grisly footage shows the gang, encouraged by Erdogan to patrol the streets on “democracy watch,” telling the man “You will be punched if you don’t hold the flag.” The tourist is alone and does not appear to speak Turkish.

Is Israel about to Sign a Terrible Deal? by Shoshana Bryen

100% of the money will be spent in the U.S., while Israel is presently able to spend 25% in Israel. This is a subsidy for U.S. defense industries and constrains Israel’s defense choices by forcing the IDF to exclude weapons from Europe and elsewhere.

Without the ability to spend some money in Israel, it will be harder for smaller defense and high-tech industries to keep up.

Israel will be prohibited from asking Congress for additional funds for ten years, effectively removing a bipartisan center of support for Israel’s security from the equation and reducing Israel’s flexibility in addressing rapidly emerging threats.

This could be particularly problematic: an administration that opposes missile defense in principle — as does the Obama administration — could effectively stifle Israel, which protects its people with a layered missile defense system.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between two parties — in this case, the governments of Israel and the United States. It is less than a treaty, more than a handshake. The first MOU was signed in 1981, recognizing “the common bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel and builds on the mutual security relationship that exists between the two nations.” The current MOU, signed in 2007, represented a 10-year commitment. The Obama Administration and the government of Israel have been negotiating a new 10-year agreement that will come into effect in 2017.

UPDATE FROM FRANCE: NIDRA POLLER

The media have a way of wrapping up big stories like the slaughter of a priest in a Normandy church as if there is nothing important left to say or to learn ten days after the incident. The item sinks to the lower depths, small details pop up like junk in the surf. The mayor of Montluçon will not deliver an inhumation permit for Abdelamlik Petitjean; he wasn’t born there, the law doesn’t allow him to be buried there. Or is it “require”? Is the mayor taking advantage of an option? In any case, neither Kermiche nor Petitjean is welcome in our cemeteries. Some Danish Muslims offered to perform the rites for Kermiche.

This media practice of tying the knots and putting a story on the shelf gives the impression that the general population concurs. Not so. As for me, I can’t stop writing about it. My readers have a choice; if you’re no longer interested, you can skip it. I can’t.

The mayor of St. Dié des Vosges has publicly announced that he will not allow Abdelmalik Petitjean to be buried in his commune, even though he was born there. He thinks the terrorist should be buried in an unmarked grave in a secret location. This is one more indication of the climate of opinion today in France.

I receive countless messages from friends in other lands, informing me by attached articles that the Hollande government has flatly announced that there will be more attacks and nothing can be done about it. And the population is duly resigned. Others inform me that Europeans have simply not caught on to this Islamic game. They’ll be suckered until they are conquered. Still others are preparing to celebrate the victory of Marine Le Pen, the only politician in the whole of France who knows the score and can do what has to be done.

Polls are showing that security has jumped to first place in the concerns of French voters, ahead of jobs, the economy, and purchasing power.

What else is new?

Several of Adel Kermiche’s ex-cellmates have spoken up. The young man was a flaming radical. Nothing subtle about him. Unfortunately, former Justice Minister Christiane Taubira—famous for her corn rows, gay marriage bill, and talent for quoting great writers in her impassioned speeches—dismantled the prison intel network set up under the Sarkozy administration. Specialized anti-terrorism judges have complained that they were getting zero information from the penitentiaries. Socialist Youth movement president Bernard Lucas, however, stands with Taubira and the dissident fringe of the Left opposed to their party’s dérive sécuritaire, a sort of hardening of the national security arteries.

First Turkey, Then the World? Erdogan Sets off Western Alarms Chris Mitchell

JERUSALEM, Israel – The recent coup attempt in Turkey shook one of the most important nations in the Middle East to its foundation. The aftershocks, however, could likely have a greater impact not only within Turkey but throughout the region and beyond.

Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his supporters foiled July’s attempted coup, he’s dismissed thousands of soldiers, judges, and teachers. The government also shut down more than 130 media outlets and made many arrests.

Erdogan blamed a man named Fethullah Gullen for the coup. The two were former allies, but after a falling out are now bitter enemies.

In 1999, Gullen fled Turkey and gained asylum in the United States. He now controls a large movement from his Pennsylvania home that includes many supporters inside Turkey. Although Gullen denies any involvement in the failed coup, Erdogan’s purge seems to be targeting many of the cleric’s followers.

Former Israeli diplomat Alon Liel told CBN News Turkey is experiencing “a revolution inside a revolution.”

“Gullen had millions of supporters,” the former Israeli charge d’affairs to Turkey said. “If you accuse anyone of them and see anyone of them as responsible for this failed and stupid coup, what do you do with these millions of people? Will they be able to get work? So how wide is the circle that you are punishing for this coup is a big question. I think we have a revolution inside a revolution.”

Swedish authorities ask residents to give up their country homes for refugees By Rick Moran

Authorities in Norrtälje, Sweden are asking residents with country homes to give them up for newly arrived refugees.

Isn’t it fun to be a socialist?

Breitbart:

The area’s director of social services, Ali Rashidi, told Svenska Dagbladet: “We thought that there are certainly many houses and rooms that can be rented out for the winter. We like many other municipalities have housing needs”.

Mr. Rashidi explained that householders would let houses to the migrants themselves, with ordinary rental contracts. He assured the Swedish newspaper that the municipality would step in, if necessary, to make sure rent is paid in full.

“Most of the people are well-behaved. Besides, refugees get establishment support from the Employment Service, so should have enough to pay the rent,” Mr. Rashidi said.

Asked about homeowners’ fears that migrants with “social problems” could misuse their properties, Mr. Rashidi said officials will act to match up appropriate landlords and tenants.

On Friday, migrants protested against the newly built modular housing in which they live. Around 30 of them marched to Norrtälje’s social services department

almost half of those who have moved in.

Mitt i reported one of the protesters as saying: “We had a meeting the day before and decided that we do not want to continue living under these conditions.”

According to the department, those marching felt “misled” over the accommodation as they had expected to be given their own permanent apartments rather than sharing a kitchen with other migrants.

The migrants’ representatives warned that disappointment over housing issues had led some of the men protesting to experience depression and even suicidal thoughts.

Sweden’s generous asylum and migration policies have led to chronic housing shortages over the decade. The nation of under 10 million people admitted over 160,000 non-EU migrants last year, exacerbating the problem.Swedish public housing organisation SABO reports that almost half a million new homes must be built in the country just to meet demand.

Black Lives Matter’s Jewish Problem Is Also a Black Problem The civil rights group’s newly published platform holds that societal reforms in America are somehow related to the Arab-Israeli conflict By Chloe Valdary

On Aug. 1, the Black Lives Matter coalition (BLM) of groups and partners published a platform of objectives and demands ostensibly constructed to correct heavy-handed policing, educational negligence, and economic inadequacy in black communities.That platform did no such thing.

Instead, organizers offered up a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas in the service of creating a new world order, one in which defunding police, releasing all political prisoners from jail, and redistributing of land are imperative.

Moreover, apparently believing that societal reforms in America’s inner cities are somehow related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, BLM included a section on Israel in its list of demands. With trite talking points, the group called for a divestment from the Jewish state as it is allegedly “complicit in the genocide against the Palestinian people.”

What this means is unpleasant to contemplate. An organization formed to confront systemic prejudice against black Americans—which predates the reestablishment of the state of Israel—is now intimating that such prejudice is caused by the Jewish state’s supposed genocidal tendencies (which, according to census reports, have led to a population increase among Palestinians).

Though I find no intrinsic value in “rebutting” crackpot conspiracy theories, it’s worth demonstrating how far removed BLM is from honoring the legacy of its ancestors by reminding readers just how pro-Zionist prominent leaders in the black community have been throughout history—and how Zionism helped shape black politics in America.

Edward Wilmot Blyden, founder of the 19th-century American Pan-African movement, famously wrote,“[I have] the deepest possible interest in the current history of the Jews—especially in that marvelous movement called Zionism.”

W.E.B. Dubois, founder of the NAACP, declared in 1919, “The African movement must mean to us what the Zionist movement must mean to the Jews, the centralization of race effort and the recognition of a racial front. … For any ebullition of effort and feeling that results in an amelioration of the lot of Africa tends to ameliorate the conditions of colored peoples throughout the world.”