Thursday, March 31, 2016

Senators: Obama Admin to Fund Iranian Terrorism, Missile Buildup

Obama plan to grant Iran dollar access draws outrage in Congress
Leading senators are expressing renewed concerns over an Obama administration effort to grant Iran expanded sanctions relief that the lawmakers warn would help fund Iran’s global terrorist activities and illicit buildup of ballistic missile technology.
Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) warned Wednesday that, despite past promises to Congress, the Obama administration is working to provide Iran an expanded package of sanctions relief that would include access to the U.S. dollar and American financial markets.
The plan could harm the U.S. economy and jeopardize the dollar’s international stability due to Iran’s illicit money laundering activities and support for terror, according to a letter sent by Kirk and Rubio to Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The Obama administration is moving forward with its plan despite intelligence assessments determining that Iran is a primary concern for money laundering and terror activity.
“We are gravely alarmed by news reports suggesting the administration is working to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system or to dollar transactions outside of the U.S. financial system,” the lawmakers wrote. “Any such effort would benefit Iran’s financiers of international terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missile threats.”
Additionally, the plan ignores the “Treasury Department’s finding under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act that Iran’s entire financial sector is a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern,” they wrote.
Rubio and Kirk are the co-authors of recent legislation aimed at further sanctioning Iran for a series of ballistic missile tests earlier this year. The United States has determined that these missile tests violate current United Nations resolutions barring such activity.
“We believe the United States should instead increase pressure on the Iranian regime to hold it fully accountable for its threatening and destabilizing activities outside of the nuclear realm,” Rubio and Kirk wrote.
The senators said the Obama administration is breaking its promises and ignoring internal warnings about Iran’s illicit behavior.
The Treasury Department designated Iran a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern” in November 2011.
The Financial Action Task Force renewed calls in February of this year for international partners to use caution when dealing with Iran due to its money laundering and terror financing activities.
The Obama administration is preparing to let foreign governments and banks use dollars when conducting business with Iran despite these warnings.
“Senior officials in the Treasury Department have repeatedly assured Congress that the administration will not allow Iran direct or indirect access to the U.S. financial system, and we believe this prohibition to be prudent in light of the Iranian regime’s continued state sponsorship of terrorism, threatening ballistic missile activities, and egregious violations of human rights,” Rubio and Kirk wrote.
Secretary Lew told Congress in July 2015 that “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.”
Adam Szubin, the Treasury Department’s acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, made a similar promise in September 2015.
“No Iranian banks can access the U.S. financial system—not to open an account, not to purchase a security, and not even to execute a dollarized transaction where a split seconds worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank,” Szubin promised.
The Obama administration has caved to Iranian demands in recent months, according to the lawmakers.
“We are aware the Iranian regime is urging the United States to provide access to the American and international financial systems,” they wrote to Lew. “Iran’s leaders have complained both publicly and privately that foreign companies and financial institutions are avoiding business deals with Iran because they fear U.S. sanctions.”
As a result, both Kirk and Rubio are seeking assurances fro the administration that Iran will not be permitted to conduct business using U.S. dollars. They also want the administration to stop Iran from using U.S. banks for foreign transactions.
“Such actions would fundamentally undermine our nation’s own reputation as a global leader on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, and also provide Iran legitimacy in the international financial system that it has not earned,” they wrote.
“It is critical to preserve the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, including by ensuring that countries engaged in destabilizing activities do not have the privilege of processing transactions in U.S. dollars,” they stated.
The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Donald Trump’s clumsy abortion pandering alienates both sides

This was tough to hear. He is like a Liberal blowing the direction of the wind or trying to pander

Donald Trump’s Teflon™ coating may have worn off with his comments on punishing women for abortion yesterday, despite his campaign’s walking them back in two separate statements.
Here is the report MSNBC issued prior to airing the town hall, which immediately created a firestorm among pro-life and abortion rights advocates:
And here is the entire abortion segment of the town hall:
Trump obviously went into the interview with Chris Matthews having given little or no thought to the specifics of what actual laws should govern abortion.  And Matthews, who is well known to badger his interview subjects with specific questions to get them to take hard positions, pushed him.
“Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge,” Matthews asked him.
Trump responded in a manner that is completely unforgivable to the pro-life movement:
“Look, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, conservative Republicans, would say, ‘Yes, it should,’” Trump responded.
 It is clear that Trump has gotten his views on what pro-lifers (or the Republican Party or conservative Republicans) think from people like Planned Parenthood, to which he has donated money.  He provided a caricature of the movement, one bearing no resemblance to what is desired.  As LifeNews puts it:
… the pro-life movement has historically opposed punishing women who have abortions — instead focusing on holding abortion practitioners criminally accountable for the unborn children they kill in abortions.
That pro-woman mentality is partly due to the understand that the abortion industry preys on women — selling them abortions by lying to them about the humanity of their unborn children and the destructive effects abortion will have. The pro-woman, pro-life attitude is also partly due to the fact that the pro-life movement is led by millions of women who had abortions and now deeply regret their decisions, thanks to a change of heart on abortion, or a religious conversion or a simply understanding that they took the life of their own child.
Charles Krauthammer, on Special Report, cited Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:
"Anybody who's been on this issue who knows the pro-life community, who knows what the arguments are and what people really believe, knows that is not true. That is not the position of anybody on the pro-life side. That is the position that the pro-choice people attribute -- this kind of hard-heartedness -- to the pro-life side. And that's apparently what Trump imbibed."
Krauthammer said that Trump's "lack of curiosity" is the problem, noting that the candidate also failed to learn more about the nuclear triad in an interval between debates.
Trump’s comments, naturally, were manna from heaven for the abortion rights politicians, which had pro-lifers cringing even more, as decades of work distancing themselves from the image of mean, anti-woman zealots propounded by the left seemed to dissolve in the wake of Trump’s blundering pander:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed Trump’s “radical agenda” but suggested it was one that congressional Republicans support. House Republicans this Congress have voted a dozen times to “attack” health care for women, she said.
“Donald Trump’s radical call for criminalizing women’s reproductive decisions is just the latest outrage in Republicans’ ongoing campaign to dismantle women’s rights to comprehensive health care,” she said.
Trump’s presidential rivals also pounced on his blunder. Hillary Clinton called his remarks appalling. “Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse,” she tweeted. “Horrific and telling.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders took a shot at the Republican Party as he blasted the “shameful” front-runner. “Your Republican front-runner, ladies and gentlemen,” he tweeted. “Shameful.”
Later in an interview with MSNBC, Sanders elaborated on what he meant: "I think it is — shameful is probably understating that position ... To punish a woman for having an abortion is beyond comprehension," he said according to a pre-released transcript.
John Kasich, who said he would “absolutely not” punish women for abortions, accurately predicted Trump would scale back his comments. “I think probably Donald Trump will figure out a way to say that he didn’t say it or he was misquoted or whatever, but I don’t think so,” the Ohio governor told MSNBC. "I don’t think that’s an appropriate response, and it’s a difficult enough situation then to try to punish somebody.”
As Kasich predicted:
Donald Trump swiftly reversed his statement that women should be punished for abortions after his initial comments unleashed a storm of criticism from both anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights groups.
“This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination,” the Republican front-runner said in a written statement released by his campaign.
But as criticism from outside groups and his political opponents continued unabated, the Trump campaign issued another missive that aligned the candidate more clearly with the traditional anti-abortion platform. In that second statement he suggested that if abortions were illegal the doctor would be held responsible, not the woman — but said that he hasn’t changed his position.
“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” the statement read. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”
I doubt that the pro-life movement will ever forgive Trump for making them look bad, revealing his lack of any serious thought on the issue.  How can they trust such a hollow panderer?  And his inability to parry Matthews may raise doubts in the minds of his supporters about his ability to handle the rigors of a campaign that promises to be vicious, fast-moving, with a very cunning opponent.
We have seen many instances in which Trump’s critics have thought, “Now he’s done it.  This will cause his support to collapse.”  And each time Teflon™ Don has rebounded.  Only time will tell if this instance is different.  But I suspect it is, for Trump has alienated a major GOP constituency with long memories. 


Surprise! Obamacare enrollees much sicker and costlier than ‘expected’

The geniuses behind Obamacare certainly get surprised a lot.  Either they are not the experts they claimed to be, or maybe, just maybe they were lowballing us all along about the costs of the plan.  And, to the surprise of nobody but an Obama administration health care expert (as CNN Moneyreports):
Patients in Obamacare are sicker and need significantly more medical care than those in employer-sponsored plans, according to a new Blue Cross Blue Shield Association report.
This raises fresh concerns about the possibility of steep rate hikes for 2017 and of insurers leaving the Obamacare exchanges.
The study, the first of its kind to look at millions of enrollees across the country, found that Obamacare members have higher rates of costly illnesses such as diabetes, depression, hypertension, heart disease, HIV and Hepatitis C.
They also use more medical services -- including emergency rooms, in-patient hospital care, doctors and prescriptions than patients in employer-sponsored plans. Their cost of care was 22% higher than those in work-based health plans in 2015, or $559 a month, on average, for Obamacare enrollees versus $457 for those in employer plans.

Doubling Down on Stupid: Islamic Terrorism at Home and Abroad

In the wake of the tragic Brussels bombing last week, just a few months after a similar attack in Paris and our own American shooting spree in San Bernardino, one would think the attacked countries, including the United States, would be seriously rethinking their refugee immigration policies.
But no.  President Obama, despite increasing Islamic terrorism, isdoubling down, with no plan to back off his promise to admit 100,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees to the U.S. this year.  In his Easter weekend radio address, "Obama underscored that the United States has to engage Muslims as partners in the fight against terrorism."  How is that working out so far, Mr. President?
Undoubtedly, the president is referring to the so-called moderate Muslims, elusive as leprechauns and unicorns, those willing to raise their voices and take a strong stand against their more radical brethren.  Where are they?  When is the "Million Muslim March" scheduled for the Washington, D.C. mall as a protest against violence in the name of Islam?
What do the Muslim refugees migrating to the U.S. and Europe truly believe?  Actually, we don't know, since these refugees are not properly vetted, especially when it comes to their beliefs and intentions regarding extremism.  FBI director James Comey admitted that there is no way to adequately screen the 10,000 Syrian refugees entering the U.S.  If we can't vet 10,000, how in the world can we screen the ten times more whom Obama wants to invite into the U.S.?
Let's look at the beliefs in the home countries where these refugees come from.
In Middle Eastern countries, where Islam is the favored religion, 80-90 percentfavor sharia as the law of the land.  What about more radical views?  Seven to 40 percent of Muslims in the Middle East and Northern Africa believe that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified
Well, that's in the Middle East.  American Muslims don't believe any of that.  Or do they?  Certainly not many, but in 2007 and again in 2011, 8 percent of U.S. Muslims said "suicide bombing or other violence against civilians is often or sometimes justified to defend Islam from its enemies."
Eight percent is not inconsequential.  Assuming that those who would actually carry out such acts is smaller still, let's look at the numbers.  Three point three million Muslims live in the U.S.  Using the above figure of 8 percent, this leaves 264,000 who accept suicide bombing or other violence as options in the defense if Islam.  If only one in a thousand would actually carry out such acts, that leaves 264 potential mass terrorists in the U.S.  Not to mention whoever is coming in as a refugee.
Don't be fooled by the term "refugee."  While many are fleeing the chaos of the Middle East and Northern Africa, others have an agenda and could reasonably be considered invaders instead.  ISIS claims to have smuggled thousands of extremists into Europe.  How many have been granted entrance into the U.S.?  We may never know until it's too late.
It took only two shooters in San Bernardino and three pushing the luggage carts in Brussels.  Clearly, the numbers game isn't in our favor, given the mayhem only two or three terrorists can create.
America is not defensible against the type of attacks that occurred in Brussels and Paris.  Soft targets are plentiful in every city and town.  Think of the suicide bomber this past weekend in Pakistan, killing 72, including 29 children, at a playground.  How many similar targets are there in America?
The U.S. is spending close to $1 trillion annually on its national security programs, with 17 separate federal agencies charged with keeping America safe.  Yet we are still vulnerable, as recent terrorist events have confirmed.  The only solution is to prevent the threat from ever reaching the American homeland – or better yet, eliminating the threat where it originates.  Neither is happening.
The threat "over there" is called the J.V. team by the president and is not being taken seriously by the Obama administration.  The threat "over here" is likewise being dismissed by calling Donald Trump and Ted Cruz racists over their acknowledgment of and commonsense approaches to combating this clear and present danger.
We have Hillary Clinton, and others on the left insisting that "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."  And Obama, in defiance of common sense and reality, doubles down by opening American doors wide to anyone and everyone, including those who wish us harm.  What could possibly go wrong?
Just another piece in the "fundamental transformation of America" promised by President Obama.  And the continued befuddlement of the media and political elites as to Donald Trump's popularity.


A hypocritical liberal media accuses Obama of hypocrisy

As President Obama begins his long goodbye from office, the media that made him begins reclaiming its credibility – too late.
Let’s mark the beginning of the liberal media’s effort to distance itself from the Obama regime with two recent examples.
First, in a March 29, 2016 Politico Magazine article entitled “Spare Me Your Hypocritical Journalism Lecture, Mr. President,” Jack Shafer begins:
The last person in the world who should be lecturing journalists on how to do journalism is President Barack Obama. Yet there Obama was Monday night at a journalism award ceremony, yodeling banalities about the role of a press in a free society, moaning over the dangers posed by “he said/she said” reporting, and—to the delight of the assembled audience—attacking Donald Trump in every way but name.
Then comes the chiding:
What they [the journalists in the audience] should have done is bombard Obama with rotten fruit or ripped him with raspberries for his hypocrisy.
How do we hate Obama’s treatment of the press? Let me count the ways. Under his administration, the U.S. government has set a new record for withholding Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a recent Associated Press investigation. FOIA gives the public and press an irreplaceable view into the workings of the executive branch. Without timely release of government documents and data, vital questions can’t be answered and stories can’t be written.
Before we nod our heads “yes,” applauding Mr. Shafer’s screed, note that he’s angry because the regime has consistently denied truth to the media.  So it’s the journalists who’ve been dissed.  But aren’t the consumers of their alleged “reporting” the ultimate victims of mis- and missing information?   
There’s more:
What makes Obama’s speech so unstomachable [sic] is the way he praises reporters at an award ceremony by calling their work ‘indispensable,’ ‘incredible,’ ‘worth honoring’ and essential to democracy while simultaneously blocking honest press queries with all the formidable energies of his office.
Someone tell Jack that for the last seven years, “honest press queries” have been few and far between.  But the president was spot on about “indispensable” – indispensable to the White House efforts to obfuscate. 
A second example of the emerging MSM meme, heralding the MSM’s diligent but failed efforts to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, comes from CNN’s Jake Tapper in a 3-minute YouTube video entitled “Tapper rips Obama as a hypocrite for lecturing media, given his terrible record on transparency.”
Jake blames the media’s shortcomings on the failure of Obama’s regime to be transparent.  The legacy media was stymied by being kept in the dark.  Not their fault. 
Jake’s and Jack’s generation of reporters feel entitled to be told the truth, with minimal digging.  Digging is shovel work; it dirties the hands.  Plus it requires objectivity and critical thinking – traits in short supply these days in the Fourth Estate.    
So as the MSM writes a revisionist history of its role during the Obama administration, the Tappers and Shafers will herald their valiant, though thwarted, efforts to hold government accountable.  For they are their own most appreciative and fawning audience.


The Trade Deficit Myth

Every purchase we make is trade. We trade to improve our lives and trade occurs only when both parties benefit from the transaction. Individuals and companies engage in trade; countries do not trade, as countries are just geographic areas with political boundaries.
The term “Trade Deficit” causes a lot of confusion and implies that one country is in debt to another country. This is not the case.
The “Trade Deficit (or Surplus)” used to be called “The Balance of Trade.” I do not know when or why the name was changed, but one possibility is that “trade deficit” sounds more ominous and gives the government a chance to address a problem that doesn’t exist. The following examples apply the typical definition of trade deficit.
Assume you are a programmer and work for a construction company. Your employer has a huge trade deficit with you; that is, your employer buys all of your work, but sells you little or nothing. You probably have a trade deficit with your grocer; you purchase from the grocer, but your grocer has no need for your programming skills and does not purchase anything from you.
Similarly, the people of Massachusetts have a trade deficit with the people of Florida when it comes to oranges and the people of Florida have a trade deficit with the people of Massachusetts when it comes to cranberries. We do not give a second thought to these trade deficits. Since all of the examples occurred within the U.S., the Bureau of Economic Analysis would not report a change in the U.S. trade deficit.
Let’s take it a step further.
A Honda dealer sells 50 cars and needs to replenish inventory. It orders 50 vehicles from Honda Japan (HJ) and wires $1 million dollars to pay for the vehicles. The Honda dealer has a trade deficit with HJ and the U.S. reports a trade deficit with Japan.
HJ has U.S. dollars that it needs to use. HJ can use those dollars to purchase components for cars. If it purchases components from a U.S. manufacturer, HJ has a trade deficit with the component manufacturer and the U.S. trade deficit with Japan goes down. If HJ purchases components from Korea or China using dollars, the U.S. trade deficit with Japan does not change, but now Korea and China have U.S. dollars that they need to use.
If HJ uses the $1 million to purchase land for a plant in Texas, the U.S. trade deficit with Japan does not change. This type of transaction is not included in the calculation of trade even though HJ purchased a U.S. “product.”
Government action to lower the trade deficit through tariffs or import quotas (e.g. sugar), hurt the consumer. In the 70s, Americans started buying Hondas, Datsuns/Nissans, and Toyotas. These cars were cheaper and more reliable than American vehicles. The Federal government could have imposed steep tariffs on these vehicles, but to what benefit? Purchasers of these vehicles would be worse off because, after tariffs, the exact same vehicle would cost more. The intended beneficiaries, U.S. automakers, were not meeting customer expectations and were losing market share. Tariffs would have forced some consumers to purchase a U.S. vehicle, but the tariffs would have prolonged the inefficiency of the U.S. manufacturers.
If foreign companies can produce an equivalent product for less money, consumers benefit. Foreign trade may result in some manufacturing jobs lost to foreign companies. However, jobs at companies that import and distribute products increase, offsetting the domestic manufacturing jobs lost from imports. Additionally, with lower prices on imported goods, consumers have funds available for other purchases, creating jobs in those industries.
At times, governments subsidize exports (think Ex/Im Bank). In essence, they are taxing their own citizens to the benefit of the export company and the foreign purchaser of the product. If China is subsidizing its exports, it is similar to giving a gift to the purchasers of those exports. Candidates proposing to impose steep tariffs on imports are hurting consumers in an attempt to help inefficient businesses. Trade is about individuals making the best choices for themselves. Free trade keeps the customer the king.
One reason the reported trade deficit keeps growing is that foreign entities use those dollars to bankroll the National Debt/Annual Deficit rather than purchasing goods and services. When the government runs a deficit, the government has three choices: increase taxes, print money, or borrow money. The first is out of the question. The second can be used for a short period, but eventually the taxpayer feels the pain of price inflation. The third is the easiest option, especially when there are eager lenders. Maybe reducing the size of the federal government and its need to borrow would lead to “balanced” trade.


John McCain Linked Nonprofit Received Million Dollar Donation From Saudi Arabia

Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers. He says the al-Hijjis’ “urgent” pre-9/11 exit suggests “someone may have tipped them off” about the coming attacks.

Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify 28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President George W. Bush.

“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” he said, adding, “I am speaking of the kingdom,” or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.

Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks — which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government.

For just and obvious reasons, it’s illegal under U.S. law for foreign governments to finance individual candidates or political parties. Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop them from bribing politicians and bureaucrats using other opaque channels.
A perfect example is the shady, influence peddling slush fund known as The Clinton Foundation, which entered the public consciousness last year and was the central topic of multiple posts here at Liberty Blitzkrieg. Although they remain the reining champions of cronyism, being a shameless, corrupt fraud isn’t limited to the Clintons. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a John McCain linked nonprofit has been found accepting million dollar contributions from the most barbaric, backwards nation on planet earth: Saudi Arabia. Naturally, the absolute monarchy remains a very close ally of the U.S. government.
Bloomberg reports:

A nonprofit with ties to Senator John McCain received a $1 million donation from the government of Saudi Arabia in 2014, according to documents filed with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

The Arizona Republican has strictly honorary roles with the McCain Institute for International Leadership, a program at Arizona State University, and its fundraising arm, the McCain Institute Foundation, according to his office. But McCain has appeared at fundraising events for the institute and his Senate campaign’s fundraiser is listed in its tax returns as the contact person for the foundation.
Forget John McCain for a moment. How appropriate is it for so-called “institutions of higher learning” to be accepting million dollars contributions from an absolute monarchy wherewomen can’t drive and with obvious ties to 9/11?
Though federal law strictly bans foreign contributions to electoral campaigns, the restriction doesn’t apply to nonprofits engaged in policy, even those connected to a sitting lawmaker.
This law/loophole obviously needs to be changed.
Groups critical of the current ethics laws say that McCain’s nonprofit effectively gives Saudi Arabia — or any other well-heeled interests — a means of making large donations to politicians it hopes to influence.

“Foreign governments are prohibited from financing candidate campaigns and political parties,” Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for ethics watchdog Public Citizen, said. “Funding the lawmakers’ nonprofit organizations is the next best thing.”

The Saudi donation to the McCain Institute Foundation may be the first congressional instance of that trend coming to light.

“The extent of this practice is difficult to gauge, of course,” Holman said, “because we only know about it when a nonprofit or foreign government voluntarily reveals that information.”
While it’s commendable that the McCain Institute Foundation came clean in this instance, the law should definitely be changed to make disclosure a requirement. The last thing this country needs are additional channels for special interests to bribe politicians.
The institute didn’t originally disclose the 2014 donation from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. After an inquiry from Bloomberg News, the website was updated to note that the institute received more than $100,000 from the Saudi embassy. Documents filed with the IRS state that the donation totaled $1 million.

Since its launch in 2012, the institute has been “guided by the values that have animated the career” of McCain and his family, its mission statement says. It focuses on advancing “character-driven global leadership,” and runs an internship program, a debate series and hosts events on national security, human trafficking and other issues.
“Guided by the values that have animated the career of McCain and his family?” Let’s take a look at a few of these “values.”
The institute’s executive director is Kurt Volker, a former ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who also serves as a senior international adviser to lobbying firm BGR Group. BGR Group’s clients include Chevron, Raytheon Co. and the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court. Its nonprofit arm, the BGR Foundation, also donated at least $100,000 to the institute, according to its website.
It’s starting to make sense now isn’t it.
“It’s only natural that a longtime and vocal supporter of the Saudi-U.S. alliance might be embraced by them this way,” said David Andrew Weinberg, a senior fellow with the conservative think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.Weinberg estimates that Persian Gulf countries alone have contributed more than $100 million to presidential libraries and charities promoted by former presidents.
 Nothing to see here. Move along peasants.
But such contributions usually don’t have to be disclosed, so it’s unclear how much money from the Saudi embassy or other foreign sources has gone to groups with ties to current and former U.S. officials or lawmakers.

But the foundation did receive its initial funding — about $8.6 million — from money left over from McCain’s 2008 presidential run, in a transaction permitted under campaign finance laws.

McCain has appeared at events for the institute, including its fundraising efforts and its annual, invitation-only conference held in Sedona, Arizona.The annual conference has also featured Vice President Joe Biden and a 2014 appearance by Clinton before she was officially a presidential candidate. CEOs from GE, Chevron, Wal-Mart, Freeport and FedEx — all of whose companies or charitable arms have contributed more than $100,000 to support the institute — have also spoken.

Some of the institute’s larger donors, including hedge fund manager Paul Singer and investor Ron Perelman, also contributed $100,000 to Arizona Grassroots Action PAC, a super-PAC that’s supporting McCain as he seeks his sixth term in the Senate.
Paul Singer, John McCain and the Saudis. Sure makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.


Radical imam claims, “There is no such thing as radical Islam. It’s either radical or it’s Islam, it can’t be both”

That’s right, Islam is inherently evil. Just read the quran. Apparently, there is no moderate Islam either. Just read the quran.


Daily Wire  In a contentious exchange about Islamic terrorism and its linkages with Muslims and Islam, a pastor described Muhammad as a “bloodthirsty warlord” in pushing back against an imam’s assertion that “radical Islam” is a misnomer.

Describing the term “radical Islam” as a problematic neologism, Elahi divorced Islamic terrorism from being at all grounded in authentic Islamic doctrine. 


“Please stop saying radical Islam,” said Elahi, concurring with President Barack Obama’s and the broader left’s rhetorical posture on the issue. “It is either radical or Islam, but can’t be both. Islamic radicalism is a big lie.”

Asked by Hannity if “radical Islam” was in fact a threat to the U.S., Elahi answered in the affirmative. “Yes, ISIS is evil,” said Elahi. “Islam is not evil. Evil is ignorance. Evil is injustice. Evil is prejudice. Evil is racism.” (And Islam is all of the above. See below)


Echoing Obama’s assertion that “ISIS is not Islamic,” Elahi again rejected any claim that Islamic terrorism draws inspiration from Islamic doctrine.


“Radical Islamists are evil, because they are not Islamic,” added Elahi.

Drawing a contrast between Christianity and Islam as doctrines, Jeffress shared his view of the central figures of the two religions and their respective sacred texts.

“You can’t find one verse in the New Testament that says, ‘Kill unbelievers.’ Jesus, the founder of our faith, didn’t kill anybody. But you look in the Quran, you can find thirty-five sword verses,” said Jeffress.”