SNAKE HUNTERS

An Informative Weblog

Name:
Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

NINETY Year Old fledgling Editor of Snake Hunters. Combat Veteran of WWII, 10th Mountain Division, Italy. AAU Swim Coach, 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, Calif. Mobile Park, Retail Furniture, Indian Gaming Casinos in San Diego County,Concessionaire/ CO + State Fair. This Editor is.Never "too busy" to confront enemies here at home, , or foreign enemies that hate our 1st Amendment Freedoms. IF YOU WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD... START BY READING THE VIOLENT HISTORY OF ISLAM... Read > Continuum Of Wars < in the Archives, dated March 25, 2010 - Then Print It, and pass along to folks you care about. Read great articles by Marshall Frank & Andrew C. McCarthy. Vigilance Is The PrIce We Must Pay To Save This Republic. Learn more about 'The Enemy Within'; Research 'StealthJihad' - - - > - PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH - YOUR UNWAVERING VIGILANCE WILL PROTECT THIS REPUBLIC - ' *** SUPPORT THE D.A.V. And SUPPORT WOUNDED WARRIORS PROJECT ***

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

RATTLESNAKE LOGIC


A Great Rattlesnake Story!!
As long as we insist on maintaining the "moral high ground" we will NEVER win the war on terrorism! We're in a conflict in which we absolutely INSIST in playing by the rules against a maniacal group who have NO rules!
Rattlesnake Logic....

After the Boston bombing the news media spent days and weeks trying to determine why these men did what they did. They want to know what America did(!) to make these brothers so angry with us. They want to know why these men were not arrested before they did something so terrible. The media is in a tizzy about this new era of homegrown radicals and about why and how they can live among us and still hate us.

A friend of mine from Texas explained it all to me: “Here in west Texas , I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway. In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison. I don’t stop to wonder WHY a rattlesnake will bite me; I know it WILL bite me because it's a rattlesnake and that's what rattlesnakes do. I don’t try to reason with a rattlesnake or have a "meaningful dialogue" with it…I just kill it. I don’t try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me. I just kill them. I don’t quiz a rattlesnake to see if I can find out where the other snakes are, because (a) it won’t tell me and (b) I already know they live on my place. So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

I don’t look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a non-poisonous rat snake...I just kill it. Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time. Also, I know for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush. In my lifetime I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes.

Do I fear them? Not really. Do I respect what they can do to me and my family? Yes!! And because of that respect, I give them the fair justice they deserve....I kill them... As a country, we should start giving more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are telling the world their goal is to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. They have just posted two graphic videos on the internet showing them beheading Americans. They are serious. They are exactly like rattlesnakes. It is high time for us to start acting accordingly!

I love this country . It's the government I'm afraid of!

Look who's new in the White House!

Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S.Department of Homeland Security.
Mohammed Elibiary, Homeland Security Adviser.

Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC).
Salam al-Marayati, Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director.
Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama's Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America Eboo Patel, Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. Not new, but the most influential Muslim in the White House: Valerie Jarrett….has more power over Barack than Michelle!

This is flat-out scary!
The foxes are now officially living in the hen house... Now ask me why I am very concerned!
Do you feel OK with this? How can this happen, and when will we wake up? We are quiet while our Country is being drastically changed!

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Nations Drunk On Hope,
Led By Fools

By: Bret Stephens

The Best Arguments for an Iran Deal The Heroic Assumptions, and False Premises, of our Diplomacy

“Or maybe we won’t be lucky. Maybe there’s no special providence for nations drunk on hope, led by fools.”

In formal rhetoric, prolepsis means the anticipation of possible objections to an argument for the sake of answering them. So let’s be proleptic about the Iranian nuclear deal, whose apologists are already trotting out excuses for this historic diplomatic debacle.

The heroic case. Sure, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is an irascible and violent revolutionary bent on imposing a dark ideology on his people and his neighborhood. Much the same could be said of Mao Zedong when Henry Kissinger paid him a visit in 1971—a diplomatic gamble that paid spectacular dividends as China became a de facto U.S. ally in the Cold War and opened up to the world under Deng Xiaoping.

But the hope that Iran is the new China fails a few tests. Mao faced an overwhelming external threat from the Soviet Union. Iran faces no such threat and is winning most of its foreign proxy wars. Beijing ratcheted down tensions with Washington with friendly table-tennis matches. Tehran ratchets them up by locking up American citizens and seizing cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Deng Xiaoping believed that to get rich is glorious. Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, a supposed reformer, spent last Friday marching prominently in the regime’s yearly “Death to America, Death to Israel” parade.

If there is evidence of an Iranian trend toward moderation it behooves proponents of a deal to show it.

The transactional case. OK, so Iran hasn’t really moderated its belligerent behavior, much less its antediluvian worldview. And a deal won’t mean we won’t still have to oppose Iran on other battlefields, whether it’s Yemen or Syria or Gaza. But that doesn’t matter, because a nuclear deal is nothing more than a calculated swap. Iran puts its nuclear ambitions into cold storage for a decade. In exchange, it comes in from the cold economically and diplomatically. Within circumscribed parameters, everyone can be a winner.

But a transaction requires some degree of trust. Since we can’t trust Iran we need an airtight system of monitoring and verification. Will the nuclear deal provide that? John Kerry will swear that it will, but as recently as January Czech officials blocked a covert $61 million purchase by Iran of “dual-use” nuclear technologies. A month before that, the U.S. found evidence that Iran had gone on an illicit “shopping spree” for its plutonium plant in Arak. That’s what we know. What do we not know?

Also, how does a nuclear deal not wind up being Iran’s ultimate hostage in dictating terms for America’s broader Mideast policy? Will the administration risk its precious nuclear deal if Iran threatens to break it every time the two countries are at loggerheads over regional crises in Yemen or Syria? The North Koreans already mastered the art of selling their nuclear compliance for one concession after another—and they still got the bomb.

The defeatist case. All right: So the Iran deal is full of holes. Maybe it won’t work. Got any better ideas? Sanctions weren’t about to stop a determined regime, and we couldn’t have enforced them for much longer. Nobody wants to go to war to stop an Iranian bomb, not the American public and not even the Israelis. And conservatives, of all people, should know that foreign policy often amounts to a choice between evils. The best case for a nuclear deal is that it is the lesser evil.

Then again, serious sanctions were only imposed on Iran in November 2011. They cut the country’s oil exports by half, shut off its banking system from the rest of the world, sent the rial into free fall and caused the inflation rate to soar to 60%. By October 2013 Iran was six months away from a severe balance-of-payments crisis, according to estimates by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And that was only the first turn of the economic screw: Iran’s permitted oil exports could have been cut further; additional sanctions could have been imposed on the “charitable” foundations controlled by Iran’s political, military and clerical elite. Instead of turning the screw, Mr. Obama relieved the pressure the next month by signing on to the interim agreement now in force.

It’s true that nobody wants war. But a deal that gives Iran the right to enrich unlimited quantities of uranium after a decade or so would leave a future president no option other than war to stop Iran from building dozens of bombs. And a deal that does nothing to stop Iran’s development of ballistic missiles would allow them to put one of those bombs atop one of those missiles.

Good luck. Americans are a lucky people—lucky in our geography, our founders and the immigrants we attract to our shores. So lucky that Bismarck supposedly once said “there is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.”

Maybe we’ll get lucky again. Maybe Iran will change for the better after Mr. Khamenei passes from the scene. Maybe international monitors will succeed with Iran where they failed with North Korea. Maybe John Kerry is the world’s best negotiator, and this deal was the best we could do.

Or maybe we won’t be lucky. Maybe there’s no special providence for nations drunk on hope, led by fools.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Republicans Have Needlessly Undermined their Ability to Resist

By Andrew C. McCarthy

No American concession ever empties President Obama’s appeasement reservoir or satisfies Iran’s appetite. So on drone the negotiations toward a disastrous deal that would end sanctions against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while paving its way to a nuclear-weapons arsenal. In that connection, as Patrick Brennan noted on the Corner Friday, Senator Ben Sasse has penned a letter to the president that makes a compelling case against a key aspect of the contemplated Iran deal. Specifically, on the critical matter of establishing violations by Iran that would theoretically trigger reinstatement of the sanctions, Senator Sasse objects that Obama is foolishly shifting the burden of persuasion. The deal, he argues, would require the United States to prove Iranian violations rather than forcing Iran to prove it is in compliance. So here’s my problem: Since the obviously perspicacious senator grasps how critical the burden of persuasion is, why did he support the Corker bill?

That legislation, co-sponsored by Sasse and enacted as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, shifts the burden of persuasion away from President Obama and onto opponents of the Iran deal, thus making the deal virtually impossible to stop or undo. Sasse could not be more right that, in a dispute, the question of who carries the burden of proof can be just as significant as the question of what must be proved. This is best illustrated by our criminal-justice system. How do we put into action the proud boast that we’d rather see the guilty go free than the innocent wrongly convicted? By imposing the burden of persuasion on the state, not the accused. This establishes apresumption of innocence that often makes all the difference: Even if jurors believe the accused has probably committed the charged crime, they must acquit him if the state fails to carry its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Iran, of course, is not just an accused party; it is an incorrigible recidivist. In overt contempt for our nation and president, Tehran is already in flagrant violation of the “Joint Plan of Action” it agreed to with the administration. The mullahs see that, even as they systematically flout this interim deal, Obama is hell-bent on looking the other way.

It is therefore certain that they will violate the final deal — which will be so frontloaded with carrots (e.g., a $150 billion signing bonus in the form of immediate sanctions relief) that the sticks can be laughed off. So Senator Sasse is right: In the final deal, the burden of persuasion is key. If Iran must prove its compliance to earn concessions, that is one thing; but if the United States must prove violations — not to an impartial jury but to hostile players such as Russia and China, and to Europeans as anxious as Obama to capitulate — then the sanctions are dead and buried.

In light of how crucial the burden of persuasion is, however, would it not have been better to leave in place the one the Constitution imposes on the president? The one that could have prevented Obama from making a legally enforceable deal in the first place? Under the Constitution, the president must persuade a two-thirds supermajority of senators to approve an agreement with a foreign power. That is, as I’ve repeatedly contended in connection with the Iran negotiations, the Constitution’s presumption is against legally binding international pacts. Of course, a president may make a legally non-binding agreement with a foreign sovereign, and he may act on it to the extent allowed by his broad constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs. This, however, does not enable him to ignore valid laws, such as international sanctions, that Congress properly enacts pursuant to its constitutional powers. To undo those, a president must either persuade the Senate to ratify a treaty or persuade the full Congress to repeal the sanctions by ordinary legislation — bills passed by a majority of both houses and signed by the president. Under the Constitution’s burden of persuasion, then, the Iran deal did not have a prayer of becoming law. Senator Sasse is right: In the final Iran deal, the burden of persuasion is key.

Enter the Corker legislation. It undermined the Constitution’s presumption against international agreements by shifting the burden of persuasion: Rather than forcing the president to persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve the deal, it imposes on opponents the burden of persuading two-thirds of the full Congress to reject it. Even worse, this scheme also undermines the Constitution’s legislative process. The Corker legislation authorizes the president to waive sanctions against Iran even if Congress fails to pass, or to get the president to sign, a resolution approving the waiver. In fact, even if Congress passes a resolution disapproving Obama’s Iran deal, the Corker legislation allows Obama to veto the resolution and waive the sanctions anyway. (See “(c) EFFECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN,” subsection (2) describing “statutory sanctions relief” procedure.) Sasse’s letter observes that Obama “administration officials have all but admitted that the sanctions relief will be used by Iran at some level to support terrorism.”

Yup. Sasse warns that “the message [Obama is] sending to other countries is that they can cheat and defy the international community and get away with it.” Indeed. The senator forcefully adds that in the absence of “anywhere-anytime inspections and verification measures, full disclosure of previous weaponization efforts, gradual and conditional sanctions relief, and automatic snap-back of sanctions” — all of which Iran has rejected with the Obama administration’s apparent acquiescence — “Congress should reject the deal and ensure that both sanctions and military action remain on the table.”

Exactly. So, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and seemingly unified against Obama’s awful Iran deal, what was the point of supporting and enacting legislation that has made it exponentially harder for Congress to reject the deal, preserve the sanctions, and keep the military option on the table? It is good that Senator Sasse recognizes the importance of the burden of persuasion.

The problem is that President Obama recognized it back when the Corker bill was being considered. That’s why he signed it. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421047/iran-deal-ben-sasse-letter

Saturday, July 11, 2015

OFFENDED by the OFFENDED


by Marshall Frank

I’m offended.

I’m a straight white male born of east European ancestry, a taxpaying American citizen now retired after gainful employment for 40 years with no handicaps or religious affiliation. I have no standing to be offended.

But I am. I’m offended by people constantly being offended. Seems that every conceivable minority group who is “offended” gets just what they are looking for: attention from news media and politicians. News organizations cash in with stories while politicians wave their wet fingers in the air to cash in voting blocs.

I don’t care if Donald Trump ever becomes president, but I will defend his right to freely express viewpoints as a public figure just as I would Sen. Bernie Sanders who openly espouses his politics as socialist. “Socialism” was once a dirty word in American politics, as was “communism,” and for good reason. No more.

Times have changed. Socialists are often applauded today in liberal circles, but anyone who exclaims being offended over illegal aliens committing crimes in our country is branded a “racist.” Donald Trump became an overnight threat to his opposition within Democratic and Republican circles when he quickly rose to No. 2 in the polls. When making general statements about the flow of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, everyone — including his enemies — knew exactly that his message concerned out-of-control illegal immigrants committing violent crimes in America. That’s telling the truth, nothing else. Plenty of statistical data supports that assertion. But in today’s America, criminal supporters get offended while the truth tellers are rebuked.

Thousands of horror stories exist to support Trump’s assertion, like illegal alien Francisco Sanchez, recently arrested for randomly shooting and killing an innocent woman in San Francisco. Sanchez had seven felonies on record, plus five deportations, all of which achieved nada for law-abiding citizens. Statistics are alarming. According to the FBI:

•83 and 86 percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix and Albuquerque are for illegals, respectively
•75 percent on the Most Wanted lists in these cities, and L.A., are illegal aliens.
•Illegals account for 25 percent of the federal prison population, plus 48.2 percent in New Mexico.
•630,000 illegal alien felons fill state and federal prisons daily, costing $1.6 billion annually
•Per Huffington Post, 80 percent of women coming across the border are raped in the process.

As the saying goes, never pass up a good crisis. This crisis has been manufactured against Mr. Trump, much like black conservative Herman Cain experienced in 2008 when he rose near the top in the polls. A pair of females suddenly emerged to “expose” Mr. Cain as a notorious flirt/sexist. Score one for the offended.

Now, the Hispanic anti-conservative sector has flexed its offended muscles, because being offended has rewards. Being offended is in vogue, particularly for gays and lesbians, illegal aliens, Muslims, blacks, Asians, women, Native Americans and others. Purveyors have even formed an agenda against a professional football team for a nickname it’s had for 80 years.

It’s impossible for Anglo white males to be offended — they have no political niche. Evangelical Christians are mostly conservative, so when they’re offended, who will listen? Then there are Jews. More than 60 percent of religion-based hate crimes are directed toward Jews, while 13.7 percent target Muslims (FBI; 2013). Yet, we hear little blustering about “offensiveness” from the Jewish community, but offending Muslims draws headlines.

While politicians mutter the same old mantra about needing immigration reform, Trump came out more forceful than others. Fact: All the blah blah from both sides of the aisle about immigration for the past 20 years has accomplished zero. So, maybe Trump’s approach should be commended, not condemned.

The wall is still unfinished, the border remains porous, border officers are hamstrung, illegals find open arms in sanctuary cities and a good percentage of them commit crimes. The president’s executive orders allowing de facto amnesty to illegals has exacerbated, rather than improved, an on-going criminal dilemma.

All of that offends me. But…who am I?

Pluto And Us

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON — We need a pick me up. Amid the vandalizing of Palmyra, the imminent extinction of the northern white rhino, the disarray threatening Europe’s most ambitious attempt ever at peaceful unification — amid plague and pestilence and, by God, in the middle of Shark Week — where can humanity turn for uplift?

Meet New Horizons, arriving at Pluto on July 14. Small and light, the fastest spacecraft ever launched, it left Earth with such velocity that it shot past our moon in nine hours. A speeding bullet the size of a Steinway, it has flown 9 1/2 years to the outer edges of the solar system.

To Pluto, the now-demoted “dwarf planet” that lives beyond the Original Eight in the far distant “third zone” of the solar system — the Kuiper Belt, an unimaginably huge ring of rocks and ice and sundry debris where the dwarf is king.

After 3 billion miles, New Horizons will on Tuesday shoot right through Pluto’s mini-planetary system of five moons, the magnificently named Charon, Styx, Nix, Hydra and Kerberos.

Why through? Because, while the other planets lie on roughly the same plane, Pluto and its moon system stick up at an angle to that plane like a giant archery target. New Horizons gets one pass, going straight by the bull’s-eye. No orbiting around, no lingering for months or even years to photograph and study.

No mulligans. And no navigating. Can’t do that when it takes 4 1/2 hours for a message from Earth to arrive. This is a preprogrammed, single-take, nine-day deal.

For what? First, for the science, the coming avalanche of new knowledge. Remember: We didn’t even know there was a Pluto until 85 years ago when astronomer Clyde Tombaugh found a strange tiny dot moving across the star field.

Today, we still know practically nothing. In fact, two of the five moons were not discovered until after New Horizons was launched. And yet next week we will see an entirely new world come to life. “We’re not planning to rewrite any textbooks,” said principal investigator Alan Stern in a splendid New York Times documentary on the mission. “We’re planning to write them from scratch.”

Then there’s the romance. The Pluto fly-by caps a half-century of solar system exploration that has yielded staggering new wonders. Such as Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons, with its vast subterranean ocean under a crust of surface ice, the most inviting potential habitat for extraterrestrial life that human beings will ever reach.

Yes, ever. Promising exoplanets — the ones circling distant stars that we deduce might offer a Goldilocks zone suitable for water-based life — are being discovered by the week. But they are unreachable. The journey to even the nearest would, at New Horizons speed, take 280,000 years. Even mere communication would be absurdly difficult. A single exchange of greetings — “Hi there,” followed by “Back at you, brother” — would take a generation.

It’s the galactic version of the old Trappist monastery joke where every seven years one monk at one meal is allowed one remark. A young novice arrives and after seven years a monk stands up at dinner and says: “The soup is cold.” Seven years of silence. Then another monk stands and says: “The bread is stale.” Seven years later, the now-aging novice rises and says: “If you don’t stop this bickering, I’m outta here.”

Which is what a conversation with Klingons would be like, except with longer intervals. Which is why we prefer to scour our own solar system. And for more than just the science, more than just the romance. Here we are, upright bipeds with opposable thumbs, barely down from the trees, until yesterday unable to fly, to communicate at a distance, to reproduce a sound or motion or even an image — and even today barely able to manage the elementary decencies of civilization — taking close-up pictures and chemical readings of a mysterious world 9 1/2 years away.

One final touch. Every ounce of superfluous weight has been stripped from New Horizons to give it more speed and pack more instruments. Yet there was one concession to poetry. New Horizons is carrying some of Clyde Tombaugh’s ashes. After all, he found the dot. Not only will he fly by his netherworldly discovery, notes Carter Emmart of the American Museum of Natural History, he will become the first human being to have his remains carried beyond the solar system.

For the wretched race of beings we surely are, we do, on occasion, manage to soar.


Thursday, July 09, 2015

Is Your Church Abetting Sanctuary Nation?


By Michelle Malkin

The random, heartless murder of a young tourist on San Francisco’s Pier 14 by a five-time illegal alien deportee who benefited from the “progressive” city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

But for decades, feckless government leaders ignored the pleas of families who suffered the bloody consequences of open borders.

For every Kate Steinle who died at the hands of an illegal alien sanctuary beneficiary, there is a Tony, Michael and Matthew Bologna in San Francisco.

A Jamiel Shaw (age 17) or Xinran Ji (age 24) in Los Angeles.
A Martin Kudlis (age 3) in Denver.

An Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, or Natasha Aeriel in Newark.
A Zina Linnik (age 12) in Tacoma.

A Vanessa Pham (age 19) in Fairfax County, Va.
As I’ve reported time and again, liberal “sanctuary” programs in these metropolitan areas have protected, harbored and enabled criminal illegal aliens who disappeared into the deportation abyss. Both Democrats and Republicans, goaded by Big Government and Big Business interests, collaborated to turn America into a collective sanctuary nation. Non-enforcement is the rule, deportation evasion is the game, and the country is a safe haven — for law-breakers from around the world.

Yet, even as born-again tough-on-borders grandstanders now race in front of cameras to condemn these dangerous policies, churches across the country are brazenly thumbing their noses at our immigration laws. And political phonies are doing nothing to stop them.

In Northeast Portland, Ore., the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Francisco Aguirre-Velasquez after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation rules.

In Tucson, Ariz., illegal alien Daniel Neyoy Ruiz took open, public refuge at Southside Presbyterian Church and then First Christian Church to avoid deportation. Fellow illegal alien Rosa Robles Loreto has been living at First Christian for nearly a year.

In Austin, Texas, First Unitarian Universalist church is harboring illegal alien Sulma Franco after the feds denied her deportation appeal.
In Denver, illegal alien Arturo Armando Hernandez Garcia has taken up long-term residence at First Unitarian Society of Denver church.
In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status “in the shadows.”

The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of the 1960s-era sanctuary movement, with top officials openly promoting immigration anarchy and lawlessness among their flock in the name of “humanity” and “compassion.”

As I’ve long noted, it’s one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and asylees, and those abused and mistreated by smugglers. It’s quite another to conspire against an orderly immigration and entrance system that imposes common-sense limits, eligibility requirements, criminal background checks, medical screening and a commitment to assimilation. Catholic groups have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to building shelters for illegal aliens from Central America and way stations in southern Mexico.

The unholy alliance between church leaders and the open-borders lobby extends from the Vatican to Rev. Jim Wallis’ Faith in Public Life (FPL) network, the Los Angeles-based Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) and the George Soros-tied Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ). It’s a web of nearly 100 interfaith committees, campus agitators and “workers centers” steeped in the organizing tactics of Saul Alinsky on behalf of millions of illegal aliens filling the pews and coffers of their abettors.

Capitol Hill’s abdication of its duties to protect and defend our borders is bad enough. But if people of faith choose to sit silently as a “new sanctuary movement” of tax-exempt houses of worship defiantly and recklessly undermines our immigration laws, our national sovereignty doesn’t have a prayer.

Friday, July 03, 2015

THE WORST AGREEMENT IN U.S. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- The devil is not in the details. It's in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama's fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve detente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.

In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized “successful regional power,” Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling—the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting—under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress' attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It has been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.

Inspections

They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become “managed access.” Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.

To give a flavor of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran's lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, “the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate.” Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so—after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?

Coming clean on past nuclear activity

The current interim agreement that governed the last 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran's nuclear program if you have no baseline?

After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponization facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future, “not fixated” on the past. And that we have “absolute knowledge” of the Iranian program anyway—a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back.

Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven't budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?

Sanctions relief

These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we're going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That's 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.

Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It's not the issue, he said. The real issue is “snap-back” sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.

Good grief. Iran won't be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?

Non-nuclear-related sanctions

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What's left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.

And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.

Thursday, July 02, 2015

Agreement?

By Adam Kredo

VIENNA—Iranian officials said Monday that the Islamic Republic’s Central Bank has successfully repatriated 13 tons of gold as part of a package of sanctions relief provided to Iran by U.S. and Western powers.

The gold was transferred to Iran by the government of South Africa, which had been holding onto the assets due to harsh sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to reign in its rogue nuclear program.

The gold appears to have been released as part of a sanctions relief package that will have awarded Iran nearly $12 billion in unfrozen cash assets by the time negotiations wrap up next week.

Iran received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets under the 2013 interim agreement with the United States and was then given another $2.8 billion by the Obama administration last year in a bid to keep Tehran committed to the talks.

The State Department calculates that Iran will have received a total of $11.9 billion in cash assets.

The governor of Iran’s Central Bank announced to the country’s state-controlled media that the South Africans have finally returned the 13 tons of gold.

“A sum of 13 tons of gold that had been purchased before and was deposited in South Africa in the past two years and could not be transferred to Iran due to the sanctions… was delivered to the Central Bank of Iran’s treasury last night,” Central Bank Governor Valiollah Seif was quoted as saying by the Fars News Agency.

Seif said Iranian officials had been working for some time to secure the gold’s release, but that the country was prevented from doing so as a result of the “illogical problems that were created under the pretext of the sanctions.”

“The removal of Iran’s sanctions and gaining access to the country’s financial and gold resources abroad is one of the main objectives of Iran’s negotiating team in the ongoing nuclear talks,” Fars reported.

Meanwhile, Iran’s ambassador to Paris this weekend stressed that his country’s main objective in the talks is to end international sanctions, which had nearly crippled Iran’s economy at their peak.

“Fortunately, the West has come to realize that the weapon of sanctions has not been effective and has been forced to change its approach and recognize Iran’s legitimate rights,” the official was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

Iran’s GDP has grown 3 percent in the last year, prompting experts to warn that ongoing sanctions still imposed on Tehran are not working.

“The report represents the latest sign of improvement in Iran’s economy in part as a result of the partial sanctions relief it received after signing an interim nuclear agreement in November 2013,” according to Iranian expert Saeed Ghasseminejad, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

This rate of growth has enabled Iran to grow its oil sector and halve its rate of inflation.

“The erosion of the sanctions regime raise serious questions over Western countries’ leverage over Tehran in nuclear negotiations, and whether reaching an acceptable nuclear deal is even possible,” Ghasseminejad said.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Supreme Court Disasters

BY THOMAS SOWELL

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year’s Obamacare decision and last year’s ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next President of the United States more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief Justices appointed by Republican presidents have made landmark decisions for which there was neither Constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Chief Justice Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance they want us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?
Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?

Saturday, June 27, 2015

A Prediction You Should Hope is Wrong


by Dan Friedman
In the coming years, it will be harder and harder for Americans to remain indifferent to Islamic terrorism, because so much of it will be close to home disrupting our daily lives and dividing the nation along a deep ideological fault line. We’ve already seen the split that followed in the aftermath of the Texas cartoon contest - as many condemned Pamela Geller as praised her.

That’s only a sample of things to come. As terrorist attacks in our nation become more frequent and more deadly, American thinking will become more sharply divided, pitting one side blaming the victims for being “provocative” against the other side blaming the Islamists for being terrorists. Depending on which worldview prevails, an oppressive atmosphere could settle over the USA – and for all and intents and purposes that would mean the terrorists have won a decisive battle in their Jihad to destroy our society and way of life.
The wild card in all this is the outcome of the 2016 election. It is probably our best (or last) hope.

Americans are not quick studies and are easily distracted. 9/11 was a warning most of us have already forgotten. If we don’t elect a president who loves our Constitution, shares our values, and is willing to do the hard work to reverse Obama’s damage, we will suffer a slow death like the frog in the kettle. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

BHO Creating Nazi Germany With A-Bombs


“You Were Given The Choice Between War And Dishonor. You Chose Dishonor And You Will Have War.”

-- Winston Churchill

[We are on the verge of one of history’s costliest mistakes. A blunder that will make the aftermath of Munich seem like a scraped knee after a trip on the sidewalk. Tragically, the horrible consequences will affect us for generations, compounded by the fact we let this happen in broad daylight right under our noses. In spite of the many warnings, we’ve allowed Obama to risk the destruction of everything civilization has built over the centuries - all in exchange for a few years of “quiet.” What makes this a great sin is that Heaven knows full well Obama did this with little or no resistance from we the people who could have stopped it. Be patient. We will not be disappointed - all Hell will break loose in due course. - D/F Top Copy, NYC]

Jun. 24, 2015


Click here>AP Exclusive: Document outlines big-power nuke help to Iran


By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — The United States and other nations negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to offer high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran if it agrees to crimp programs that can make atomic arms, according to a confidential document obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The draft document — one of several technical appendices meant to accompany the main text of any deal — has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes with little more than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.

With that deadline looming, Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Tuesday rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research and supported banning international inspectors from accessing military sites. Khamenei, in comments broadcast on Iranian state television, also said Iran will sign a final deal provided all economic sanctions now on Iran are first lifted — in a sign the Islamic Republic may be toughening its stance ahead of the deadline.

The West has always held out the prospect of providing Iran peaceful nuclear technology in the nearly decade-long international diplomatic effort designed to reduce Tehran's potential ability to make nuclear weapons. But the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.

Iran denies any interest in nuclear weapons but is prepared to make concessions in exchange for relief from billions of dollars in economic penalties. Beyond a pact limiting Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years, the U.S. and its negotiating partners hope to eliminate any grounds for Iran to argue that it needs to expand programs that could be used to make such arms once an agreement expires.

To that end, the draft, entitled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation," promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.

Reducing the Arak reactor's plutonium output was one of the main aims of the U.S. and its negotiating partners, along with paring down Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium — like plutonium, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

Outlining plans to modify that heavy-water reactor, the draft, dated June 19, offers to "establish an international partnership" to rebuild it into a less proliferation-prone facility while leaving Iran in "the leadership role as the project owner and manager."

The eight-page draft also promises "arrangements for the assured supply and removal of nuclear fuel for each reactor provided," and offers help in the "construction and effective operation" of the reactors and related hardware. It also offers to cooperate with Iran in the fields of nuclear safety, nuclear medicine, research, nuclear waste removal and other peaceful applications.

As well, it firms up earlier tentative agreement on what to do with the underground site of Fordo, saying it will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment.

Washington and its allies had long insisted that the facility be repurposed away from enrichment because Fordo is dug deep into a mountain and thought resistant to air strikes — an option neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out should talks fail.

But because isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium, the compromise has been criticized by congressional opponents of the deal.

A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said China was ready to help in re-engineering the heavy water reactor at Arak; France in reprocessing nuclear waste, and Britain in the field of nuclear safety and security.

He spoke on the eve of Wednesday's new round of nuclear talks in Vienna and demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the confidential talks.

Diplomats say the other appendices include ways of dealing with enrichment; limits on Iran's research and development of advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges and ways of making sure Tehran is keeping its commitment to the deal.

Iran has most publicly pushed back on how much leeway the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have in monitoring Tehran's nuclear activities. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is rebuffing U.S. demands that the IAEA have access to military sites and nuclear scientists as they keep an eye on Iran's present activities and try to follow up suspicions that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapon.

But a senior U.S. official who demanded anonymity in exchange for commenting on the talks said Tuesday that the sides are still apart not only on how transparent Iran must be but all other ancillary issues as well. Separately, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested the talks could go past June 30.

If a deal "requires us to take a couple of extra days ... then we'll do that," he said.

A delay up to July 9 is not a deal-breaker. If Congress receives a deal by then, it has 30 days to review it before President Barack Obama could suspend congressional sanctions.

But postponement beyond that would double the congressional review period to 60 days, giving both Iranian and U.S. opponents more time to work on undermining an agreement.

Earnest indicated that negotiations may continue even if the sides declare they have reached a final deal, in comments that may further embolden congressional critics who say the talks already have gone on too long.

He said that even past that point, ongoing "differences of opinion ... may require additional negotiations."



Tuesday, June 23, 2015

a la Fiorina

by Tabitha Korol

"There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world"

And so began a mythical, deceptive tale by Carly Fiorina, when she spoke in praise of Islam within a mere two weeks of their bombing of the World Trade Center. The concern is not that she was attempting to deceive others, but that she, a person who aspires to the presidency of the United States, was herself deceived regarding the true nature of Islam, and that she has never retracted her statements.

"{Islam's} armies were made up of many nationalities...{Islam} was able to create a continental super-state...within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins," and "the reach of this civilization's commerce..."*

As a religious leader, Mohammed converted few followers. As political and military leader, he was far more successful – torturing and beheading 700 stalwart Medinan Jews, raping and enslaving women, and conscripting the survivors for jihad (holy war). Thus he dominated different creeds and ethnic origins, replenishing his army with many nationalities, and increasing his wealth with booty.

“Within its dominion” is Fiorina’s euphemism for “living under domination.” All non-Muslims, slaves and women were treated with contempt, unequal under law but economically necessary. Although specific enmity was directed against Jews and Christians, the severe “jizya” tax was imposed on “infidels” as humiliation and punishment for rejecting Mohammed. This tax and many other discriminatory laws extended through the centuries to Nestorians, Syrians, and Romans of newly conquered empires, and further to animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Mongols, Greeks, and Armenians (the Armenian Genocide), who suffered torture and death.

Jews held trades and occupations that Muslims judged inferior - including “this civilization’s commerce,” diplomacy, banking, brokerage, espionage, working in gold and silver, and cleaning cesspools. The inevitable deterioration of relations between Muslims and the outside world meant more restrictions and social segregation for non-Muslims (dhimmis), but the subservient and useful survived.

"...It's military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known."

“Peace,” as the absence of discord, existed, depending on the beneficence of the ruling caliphate and internal/external changes, but from the twelfth to thirteenth centuries onward, tolerance decreased; intellectual, social and commercial life depreciated, and ever-increasing restrictions and deprivation for dhimmis were imposed.

"And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. It's architects designed buildings that defied gravity."

The inventions and contributions were made by victims of the Muslim jihadists who invaded the “infidel” world over 1400 years, enslaving, slaughtering, and plundering. Islam is antithetical to creativity, but based on envious resentment of the accomplishments of others. Their greatest achievement was their ability to expropriate every creative, innovative groundbreaking device of Islam’s victims and to fraudulently claim each as their own.

Fiorina’s reference to “buildings that defied gravity,” as in “air-borne,” surely defies logic, but she doubtless refers to the arches, which were already in use in prehistoric times by ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks. With the help of concrete made from lime and volcanic sand, Roman arches could support huge weight, and were soon adopted by Byzantine and Romanesque architects, evolving into the groundbreaking inventions of the Gothic arch and flying buttress in northern (Christian) Europe. Meanwhile, the Muslims also adopted the Syrian styles, followed with Greek, Byzantine and Persian, and later Chinese and Indian, architecture, to develop pointed, scalloped and horseshoe arches for mosques and palaces. Even the vaulted and hemispherical (domed) ceilings were invented by the non-Muslim Romans.

It's mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers and the creation of encryption."

The first positional numerical system was developed in 2nd millennium BCE Babylon, over 800 years before Islam; the first true “zero” was developed by mathematicians in the Indian Subcontinent. Persian and Arab mathematicians are believed to have adopted the Hindu-Arabic numerical system in India. The work of Italian scholar, Fibonacci, was crucial in bringing them to Europe and the world. Francois Viete, French lawyer, mathematician and privy councilor to Henry III and Henry IV, provided the step from “new algebra” to modern algebra.

Only an Islamist steeplechaser could leap from working with numbers to creating computers and encryptions centuries later. English polymath Charles Babbage, mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and mechanical engineer, conceived the first programmable computer (1830). Alan Turing laid the groundwork for computational science; Korad Zuse is credited as “the first freely programmable computer."

The earliest form of cryptography is on stone in Egypt (190 BCE), long before Islam. Ciphers were used by the Spartan military and in the 2000-year-old Kamasutra of India. It wasn't until the 9th century that Arab mathematicians and polymath Al-Kindi worked with cryptography.

"Its doctors examined the human body and found new cures for diseases."

Arabs had no scientific traditions; their scientists were largely Jews who were forcibly converted as a result of Islam's rampaging throughout the Near East, Egypt, and Libya. As a typical example, Jews and Berbers, who lived together harmoniously in North Africa, were overcome by 60,000 Islamic troops in 694, and the descendants of those who survived the massacre became “Arabic” philosophers and scientists.

A great physician, Egyptian Jew, Isaac Israel of Kairouan, immigrated to West Africa. His surviving works on logic, Aristotelian physics, and pharmacology became the standard for medical history, and it was from him that the greatest of “Arab” scientists, Avicenna (980-1037), drew inspiration. Known as the Aristotle of the East, Avicenna wrote in Arabic and became a vizier in Persia, but he was born near Bokhara, then heavily populated by Jews, and was probably of Jewish origin. Even so, physicians who attended lords and kings of Islam and Christendom were largely Jews.

Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration."

Jewish savants were largely responsible for the invention and development of instruments and astronomical tables that facilitated world-girdling sea voyages. The Jerusalem Talmud (tractate Avodah Zarah, Ch.3, fol.,42c) strongly implies the spherical nature of the earth. The astrolabe, used by Islamic astronomers as a guide to the sky and to tell time by the position of heavenly bodies, was introduced into the Arab-speaking world by a “remarkable Jewish genius, Mashala of Mosul, the phoenix of his age.” Astronomical tables, compiled by the Jew, Joseph ben Wallar at Toledo (1396), and in Aragon by Judaic specialists, including Emanuel ben Jacob (aka Bonfils de Tarascon), were used with the astrolabe.

The Jews were among the most notable cartographers, the most advanced being a Jew forcibly converted to Christianity. Christopher Columbus’s cartographers and other companions may have been conversos. The most reputable astronomer of the day, Abraham Zacuto (1452-1515), instructed Columbus on using the perfected astrolabe, also used by Vasco de Gama and Amerigo Vespucci.

In all these areas, Fiorina makes the absurd leap from recognizing Muslims as merely a people who used a product to being an innovative people who "paved the way" for the future. She made a similar leap of dissonance when she made corrupt trade agreements with Iran in violation of US trade sanctions, resulting in 30,000 workers laid off at Hewlett-Packard, and jobs shipped to China. We could remark in passing that, at the same time, her salary and perks also leaped – they more than tripled.

"When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive and passed it on to others."

How much creativity, ingenuity and innovation might we have had from those 400 million people slaughtered by jihadists over 1400 years? What greatness is Islam passing on to civilization now, beyond a high illiteracy rate, great intolerance and aggression? Their history is one of perpetual massacre, encouraged in their Qur’an and taught from early childhood. Their culture is one of unrest, riots and wars; and women’s fears of female genital mutilation, forced marriages, rape, and death for male honor. Their homes are microcosms of the greater tyrannical regimes.

Had Muslims the knowledge to be kept alive, how might it have been done? Of the 1.4 billion Muslims, 800 million are illiterate (60 percent cannot read). In Christendom, the adult literacy rate stands at 78 percent. Of the ten most literate countries, not one is Islamic. Muslims are the world’s poorest, weakest and illiterate. The combined annual GDP of 75 Muslim countries is under $2 trillion; America’s is worth $10.4 trillion. Muslims are 22 percent of the world population, yet produce less than five percent of global GDP, and diminishing all the time.

Over the past 105 years, 1.3 billion Muslims produced eight Nobel Laureates (only two won for physics and chemistry); compare this with a mere 14 million Jews (0.23% of the world population) who produced 170 Nobel Laureates.

Islam’s militaristic, supersessionist ideology that began 1400 years ago has remained unchanged. We know of no event that sparked the glory they claim, and no catastrophic event that might have forced a decline. Carly Fiorina is severely misinformed about the civilization that embraces our death and destruction and she confuses politically-correct theories for hard facts – no point from which to hold the highest-ranking position in the United States of America.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT
A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

by Marshall Frank

If black folks thought that opportunity, conditions and lifestyle were going to improve under the first black president, they must be sorely disappointed.

The statistics are overwhelming. Just about every economic, cultural, familial and criminal justice indicator points out that life is not better for blacks since Obama became president, unless you want to factor in the number of minority appointees he’s promoted into federal judgeships and other cushy government jobs.

Lauren Burke, a black columnist for BlackPress USA, reported in her article of January 2015: During Obama’s first 6 years in office, average black unemployment soared to 14 percent, compared to 10 percent in January of 2009 when Obama took office. There’s more:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, youth unemployment (ages 16-24), this time in 2014, was 14.3 percent. For blacks in that age group, it was nearly 25 percent.
Ninety-two percent of black males in Chicago, ages 16-19, are unemployed.
The Huffington Post reported that 72 percent of black babies in the U.S. are born to unwed mothers, i.e. fatherless homes. According to the Moynihan Report, that figure stood at 23.6 percent in 1965. So much for the war on poverty.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 the black poverty rate stood at 28.1 percent compared to 25.5 percent in 2005.
Single parent homes among blacks living below the poverty rate stands at 47.5 percent, while married couple families with kids stand at 8.4 percent.
In 2013, Non-Hispanic black males represented 37 percent of America’s prison inmates, above that of non-Hispanic whites (32%) and Hispanics, any race (22%).
The murder rate by blacks vs whites in the U.S. is striking. According to the 2013 FBI crime report, calculating per 1,000,000 members of the perpetrator’s race, is as follows:
Blacks killed by blacks: 58.94 per million

Blacks killed by whites: 0.77 per million

Whites killed by blacks: 9.83 per million

Whites killed by whites: 10.22 per million

According to these figures, blacks kill at a rate six times higher than non-blacks, while they represent only 13 percent of the population.

So how has the first black president faired at improving race relations, crime rates, economics, family life and opportunity for the blacks of America? Apparently, not very well.

While the president maintains a heavy schedule of fund raising, ceremonial commitments, vacations, speeches, political photo-ops, and over 220 games of golf, I’m one American who wonders why he hasn’t paid more attention to the plight of black America other than demonizing police officers.

If improving life for blacks was such a priority, why hasn’t the president and his wife, as well as members of his constituency, penetrated deep into black communities of America to learn more about the plight of real people. Instead, he’s lent his ear to the politically divisive rhetoric of haters like the Al Sharptons of this country. Barack Obama could be a lightning rod leading people of the black community – adults and kids—into making better decisions, following the path of education, developing self-worth and a sense of responsibility, to encourage men and women to marry and become stable families for kids, to stay away from drugs and gangs and criminal behavior. He could have empowered morality like never before. President Obama has had a unique opportunity in black America which no prior president ever had.

He should be visiting the bowels of urban America; Chicago south, Baltimore, L.A., Washington D.C., Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, and many more, teaching not preaching; role modeling, not blathering; leading not dividing. These should all be substantive missions, not politically motivated photo-ops showing him shooting hoops.

He could pass up a few of those fund raisers and golf games, and show up in Milwaukee, Boston and Harlem, minus hordes of journalists, to be with regular black people and to sincerely open his heart and mind, listening more than speeching. The impression he could make in the black community would be astronomical. He could make a huge difference.

With true leadership from a black president, awestruck young men and women would start cleaning up their act, with improved parenting and providing for their kids. Instead of bragging about his drug use as a young man, he could show remorse and impart the dangers and downsides of using. He could sit at a family table, breaking bread while listening to the hearts and feelings of black America from the proverbial horse’s mouth. He could give up half of those golf games and visit one city after another, talking to people in rehab centers, prison inmates, gang leaders, ministers, moms, dads, doctors, teachers, and yes, police officers.

But he has not. He’s done nothing other than broaden dependence on welfare entitlements, teaching people that there’s a lot of free stuff to be had out there. I doubt that visiting real people in real neighborhoods ever entered his mind. All the complaints about police, guns, racism and such, will not lower the poverty rate one iota, nor reduce crime among black youths, nor help young blacks find worthwhile employment.

Yes, Mr. President, you’ve had a golden opportunity. And you’ve blown it.
BlackMurdersChart

Click here: Employment and Unemployment Among Youth Summary

Click here: Is Black America Better Off Under Obama? | BlackPressUSA

Click here: Racial Double Standard: Black Unemployment Under Obama | The Federalist Papers

Click here: Black Single Mothers Are ‘Biggest Impediment’ To Progress, Journalist George Will Says (VIDEO)

Click here: The Moynihan Report (1965) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

Click here: BlackDemographics.com | POVERTY

Click here: The Obama Golf Counter – I will not rest until…

Click here: President Obama has now attended at least 400 fundraisers since taking office | Daily Mail Online

Monday, June 15, 2015

THE BLACK DILEMMA

The Black Dilemma -
FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN

This would be considered a Racist newspaper article by the politically correct Liberals in the USA. Ian Duncan is a "middle of the road" Reporter in political philosophy. He witnessed the chaos in Baltimore and has tried to understand it. What he is trying to rationalize is why after 150 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, have only a very few ( he refers to the DuBois 10% ) Afro-Americans have made it into the mainstream. How does the Government rationalize the incredible success of immigrant children from Asia, India and Latin America with less benefits, pulling themselves up into the middle and upper classes when an estimated 60% of the Afro Americans are unable to lift themselves out of poverty and being on welfare generation after generation. As always, I don't agree with everything Ducan writes, but he does raise a continuing fundamental problem of how a majority of Afro Americans are going to be productive members of Society.

“The Baltimore Sun” is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper. This very well written assessment of the situation in USA comes as something of a surprise.. some objective observations about other races that have come to the USA and successfully integrated into our society.

This article will obviously be called racist, and will upset the liberals, but they should really think about the message and this deeply rational point of view.



The Black Dilemma...

"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The liberal elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015


Sunday, June 14, 2015

The Hill-Billy Cash Pump

By Janet Tassel
Hillary Clinton: We knew her as a grim, charmless harridan; a pear-shaped harpy. Now, after reading Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash (HarperCollins, New York, May 2015), we see the ultimate Hillary, one of the world's truly scary women. Think Lady Macbeth, Messalina, Evita. Add Bill to the sordid picture and you have Bonnie and Clyde -- elected to high office, and lionized all over the world.

We know about Hillary's thousands of missing e-mails and unaccountable donors. What may be less known is how the Clinton double-scam works. Take, first of all, the so-called Clinton Foundation, whose stated purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence," whatever that means. Founded in 2001, when Bill had just left office, it boasts a staff of 350, mostly Clinton cronies and insiders.

Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million dollars through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses and governments…hungry for access to the corridors of American power.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, was "gaining influence and power." During her tenure, "two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees [came] from foreign sources." After she became Secretary of State, Bill's income from speaking fees "ballooned." Tens of millions of dollars "flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers."

Look at this in perspective; the Senate, before confirming her as secretary of state, wanted assurances on the subject of foreign donors and of transparency, so "Hillary promised that 'the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.'" On CNN, Bill added, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally…it's important to make it totally transparent." And finally, "the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions…from foreign governments of government-owned businesses."

Thus reassured, the Senate confirmed her. But the Clintons violated the commitment "almost immediately," failing "to disclose gifts amounting to millions of dollars from foreign entities and businessmen" in transactions "with serious national security implications."

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by "close friends" or associates who happened to have business interests in these countries. Introductions were made, deals struck…. Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.

Such was the scenario when in 2005, "Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, Kazakhstan," ostensibly to help the country's AIDS patients -- a miniscule number, between 0.1 and 0.3,% of the population -- but in reality to procure a deal with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, under whose despotic rule Kazakhstan was mired in corruption and human rights abuses.

One of the densest thickets in this book full of foreign names and alphabet soups of abbreviations, this chapter is the hardest to condense. The essence of the malodorous deal starts with Bill flying to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Giustra's luxurious private jet. Giustra was looking to close a mining deal in Kazakhstan, and looking to Clinton for assistance. As he said, "All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The two established something called the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as part of the Clinton Foundation, whose activities just happen to be sited near mines.

Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, wanted access to Kazakh mining. The day after Clinton and Giustra were feted at a banquet given by Nazarbayev, the two left Kazakhstan, with Giustra owning a 30 per cent stake in one uranium project and 70 per cent of another. Then, lo: "In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million," one of many subsequent huge donations.

Giustra meanwhile started directing shares of UrAsia to friends, including a big-time dealer named Ian Telfer, who received 2.2 million shares. And then UrAsia Energy merged with a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One, of which the same Ian Telfer would soon become chairman. The merger's largest shareholders happily began writing multimillion dollar checks to the Clinton Project and its latest bastard child, the Clinton Giustra project. Telfer committed $3 million.

Senator Hillary was silent through all of this, even though a part of the deal involved – incredibly -- Clinton's nominating the dictator and human rights abuser Nazarbayev as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Even Joe Biden objected to this farce, but ultimately the dictator was awarded the chairmanship.

But when Hillary became secretary of state, the field of opportunity, along with the flow of money, widened. Vladimir Putin, Bill's pal since 1999, had become Hillary's friend, too. And in June 2009, Russia's atomic nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a piece of Uranium One. Uranium One had been "aggressively" buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010, the company owned or planned 61 projects in Wyoming, and held thousands of acres in Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. The plan was that Uranium One would control half of United States uranium by 2015. Then, also in 2010, "Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One."

The Russian acquisition meant giant payoffs for the shareholders in Uranium One, and unsurprisingly, "several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal," totaling approximately $145 million. None of these donations are listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Despite protestations in Congress, the Russian deal went through, and today Russia, having started the bid at 52 per cent, "owns the company outright."

Hillary, of course, was secretary of state in 2010. Moreover, as secretary of state she was a member of the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), set up "to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security." The Russian deal was approved by CFIUS in October 2010. Hillary's opposition would have been enough to stop it.

Shortly after the Russian deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow to give a speech. His fee: $500,000.

And so it goes. "The Clintons point our that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton Foundation." While this may be technically true, the hundreds of millions that flow into the foundation do make for quite a tidy bundle. And Bill's preposterously overpriced speeches are apparently yawners: His "go-to speech, entitled 'Our Common Humanity,' is largely about the work of the foundation."

But business is business, and the Clintons have apparently never met a dictator they couldn't do business with. The examples abound, from every corner of the world reachable by private jet. For instance in the "house of horrors" known as the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]:

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner…. In October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including "individuals operating in [DRC] and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women.

The warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, "belongs near the top of the list" of "nefarious criminal leaders in Africa." But the Clintons had hugely profitable deals in other "houses of horror," such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Perhaps the saddest chapter in Schweizer's book is the one on Haiti, headed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style." You will remember the 7.0 earthquake of January 2010 that destroyed much of that ill-starred island, killing some 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. It didn't take long for the Clintons to arrive. "With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill teared up as he described what he saw."

Esquire Magazine called Clinton the "CEO of a leaderless nation." In this "Super Bowl of disasters," the Clintons became the "referees," according to one contractor who was jockeying to compete. They parceled out jobs, as was their custom, to their friends, contributors, and cronies. For example, their old Arkansas buddy, Wesley Clark, arrived representing a Florida company, Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. "Innovida received a $10 million loan from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti":

Sadly the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio [the CEO of Innovida] was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, of using the money intended for relief victims to "repay investors for his and his co-conspirators' personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme." He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in jail. Innovida collapsed.

The chapter is filled with other fiascoes and swindles, with guest appearances by Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, and a petition prompted by Haitian lawyers for an audit of Clinton's ventures. In the meantime, however, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims' net worth hasn't changed, but that of the Clintons and their associates surely has.

Schweizer has written an explosive and damning book. It is no wonder that, according to Business Insider, he has had to arrange full-time security for himself and his family. Shades of Vince Foster.

Hillary Clinton: We knew her as a grim, charmless harridan; a pear-shaped harpy. Now, after reading Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash (HarperCollins, New York, May 2015), we see the ultimate Hillary, one of the world's truly scary women. Think Lady Macbeth, Messalina, Evita. Add Bill to the sordid picture and you have Bonnie and Clyde -- elected to high office, and lionized all over the world.

We know about Hillary's thousands of missing e-mails and unaccountable donors. What may be less known is how the Clinton double-scam works. Take, first of all, the so-called Clinton Foundation, whose stated purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence," whatever that means. Founded in 2001, when Bill had just left office, it boasts a staff of 350, mostly Clinton cronies and insiders.

Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million dollars through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses and governments…hungry for access to the corridors of American power.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, was "gaining influence and power." During her tenure, "two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees [came] from foreign sources." After she became Secretary of State, Bill's income from speaking fees "ballooned." Tens of millions of dollars "flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers."

Look at this in perspective; the Senate, before confirming her as secretary of state, wanted assurances on the subject of foreign donors and of transparency, so "Hillary promised that 'the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.'" On CNN, Bill added, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally…it's important to make it totally transparent." And finally, "the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions…from foreign governments of government-owned businesses."

Thus reassured, the Senate confirmed her. But the Clintons violated the commitment "almost immediately," failing "to disclose gifts amounting to millions of dollars from foreign entities and businessmen" in transactions "with serious national security implications."

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by "close friends" or associates who happened to have business interests in these countries. Introductions were made, deals struck…. Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.

Such was the scenario when in 2005, "Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, Kazakhstan," ostensibly to help the country's AIDS patients -- a miniscule number, between 0.1 and 0.3,% of the population -- but in reality to procure a deal with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, under whose despotic rule Kazakhstan was mired in corruption and human rights abuses.

One of the densest thickets in this book full of foreign names and alphabet soups of abbreviations, this chapter is the hardest to condense. The essence of the malodorous deal starts with Bill flying to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Giustra's luxurious private jet. Giustra was looking to close a mining deal in Kazakhstan, and looking to Clinton for assistance. As he said, "All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The two established something called the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as part of the Clinton Foundation, whose activities just happen to be sited near mines.

Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, wanted access to Kazakh mining. The day after Clinton and Giustra were feted at a banquet given by Nazarbayev, the two left Kazakhstan, with Giustra owning a 30 per cent stake in one uranium project and 70 per cent of another. Then, lo: "In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million," one of many subsequent huge donations.

Giustra meanwhile started directing shares of UrAsia to friends, including a big-time dealer named Ian Telfer, who received 2.2 million shares. And then UrAsia Energy merged with a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One, of which the same Ian Telfer would soon become chairman. The merger's largest shareholders happily began writing multimillion dollar checks to the Clinton Project and its latest bastard child, the Clinton Giustra project. Telfer committed $3 million.

Senator Hillary was silent through all of this, even though a part of the deal involved – incredibly -- Clinton's nominating the dictator and human rights abuser Nazarbayev as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Even Joe Biden objected to this farce, but ultimately the dictator was awarded the chairmanship.

But when Hillary became secretary of state, the field of opportunity, along with the flow of money, widened. Vladimir Putin, Bill's pal since 1999, had become Hillary's friend, too. And in June 2009, Russia's atomic nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a piece of Uranium One. Uranium One had been "aggressively" buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010, the company owned or planned 61 projects in Wyoming, and held thousands of acres in Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. The plan was that Uranium One would control half of United States uranium by 2015. Then, also in 2010, "Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One."

The Russian acquisition meant giant payoffs for the shareholders in Uranium One, and unsurprisingly, "several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal," totaling approximately $145 million. None of these donations are listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Despite protestations in Congress, the Russian deal went through, and today Russia, having started the bid at 52 per cent, "owns the company outright."

Hillary, of course, was secretary of state in 2010. Moreover, as secretary of state she was a member of the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), set up "to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security." The Russian deal was approved by CFIUS in October 2010. Hillary's opposition would have been enough to stop it.

Shortly after the Russian deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow to give a speech. His fee: $500,000.

And so it goes. "The Clintons point our that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton Foundation." While this may be technically true, the hundreds of millions that flow into the foundation do make for quite a tidy bundle. And Bill's preposterously overpriced speeches are apparently yawners: His "go-to speech, entitled 'Our Common Humanity,' is largely about the work of the foundation."

But business is business, and the Clintons have apparently never met a dictator they couldn't do business with. The examples abound, from every corner of the world reachable by private jet. For instance in the "house of horrors" known as the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]:

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner…. In October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including "individuals operating in [DRC] and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women.

The warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, "belongs near the top of the list" of "nefarious criminal leaders in Africa." But the Clintons had hugely profitable deals in other "houses of horror," such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Perhaps the saddest chapter in Schweizer's book is the one on Haiti, headed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style." You will remember the 7.0 earthquake of January 2010 that destroyed much of that ill-starred island, killing some 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. It didn't take long for the Clintons to arrive. "With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill teared up as he described what he saw."

Esquire Magazine called Clinton the "CEO of a leaderless nation." In this "Super Bowl of disasters," the Clintons became the "referees," according to one contractor who was jockeying to compete. They parceled out jobs, as was their custom, to their friends, contributors, and cronies. For example, their old Arkansas buddy, Wesley Clark, arrived representing a Florida company, Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. "Innovida received a $10 million loan from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti":

Sadly the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio [the CEO of Innovida] was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, of using the money intended for relief victims to "repay investors for his and his co-conspirators' personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme." He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in jail. Innovida collapsed.

The chapter is filled with other fiascoes and swindles, with guest appearances by Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, and a petition prompted by Haitian lawyers for an audit of Clinton's ventures. In the meantime, however, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims' net worth hasn't changed, but that of the Clintons and their associates surely has.

Schweizer has written an explosive and damning book. It is no wonder that, according to Business Insider, he has had to arrange full-time security for himself and his family. Shades of Vince Foster.