“The Obama administration is withholding from Congress details about how $1.3 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds was delivered to Iran, according to conversations with lawmakers, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the administration is now stonewalling an official inquiry into the matter.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice have all rebuffed a congressional probe into the circumstances surrounding the $1.3 billion payment to Iran, which is part of an additional $400 million cash payout that occurred just prior to the release of several U.S. hostages and led to accusations that the administration had paid Iran a ransom. The Obama administration has admitted in recent days that the $400 million cash delivery to Iran was part of an effort to secure the release of these American hostages, raising further questions on Capitol Hill about White House efforts to suppress these details from the public.
The $400 million was part of a $1.7 billion legal settlement reached with Iran earlier this year. Congressional inquiries into how this money reached Iran are failing to get answers. The State and Treasury Departments declined on Tuesday to answer a series of questions from the Free Beacon about the method in which U.S. taxpayer funds were paid to Iran.
The administration is also withholding key details about the payment from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month. The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice all failed to respond to the inquiry by Monday’s deadline, according to congressional sources tracking the matter.
“The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the Iranian regime last January 16th,” Cruz said to the Free Beacon. “If this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost America more to contest, why all the secrecy?”
The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3 billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred.Cruz described this disclosure as “confounding”…”
But not as confounding as the support given The Donald by otherwise sane Americans during the primaries…or the continued refusal of the #NeverTrumpers to support the only realistic alternative to…
…after he won the Republican nomination.
What inquiring minds want to know, as exemplified by the recent cogitations of our good friend Stilton Jarlsberg, is what do the Trumpeteers think of The Donald’s illegal immigration flip-flop? After all, his utterly unworkable proposal to deport some 12 million illegals and get Mexico to pay for building a border wall was what allowed him to handily defeat the roster of sane GOP candidates (which leaves out George Pataki, Rand Paul, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, Ben Carson and Jeb Bush)…and now he’s walking back the very position which originally set him apart. Just curious…Ann Coulter’s bitter-clinging to the belief “we’re definitely getting a wall” notwithstanding!
Regardless, absent an event of cataclysmic proportions beyond anything we can imagine, we’re voting not so much for Trump as against Hillary. We remember all to well how the faithlessness of George H.W. Bush’s tax increase gave rise to the futile third-party candidacy of Ross Perot…and brought the Curse of the Clintons down on an unsuspecting America.
Since we’re on the subject of the worst plague ever visited upon the Republic, writing at Polizette, Kathryn Blackhurst asks a question most of us can readily answer:
“In an episode of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza is giving Jerry Seinfeld advice on how to “beat” a lie detector. “You’ve got the gift, you’re the only one who can help me,” Jerry pleads. But George says he just can’t. “It’s like saying to Pavarotti, ‘Teach me to sing like you.’” Yet as Jerry heads out of the diner, George has some parting words of wisdom for his prevaricating pal: “Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie — if you believe it.”
That is, in a nutshell, Hillary Clinton. When the Democratic presidential nominee tried to pin the blame for her use of a private email server on former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Hillary gave a new insight into her strained relationship with the truth. Does she believe the things she says — that are clearly lies?Does she think no one will know the truth? Or does her ethos of “the ends justify the means” simply give her — at least in her mind — the right to lie at will to get what she wants?
New reports say Clinton reportedly told the FBI during the course of its investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state that Secretary Powell advised her to use one. But Powell swiftly said that simply was not the case.
…So why would Clinton make such a clearly false statement? Certainly she knew that Powell just might refute her assertion (it’s not like the time Bob Woodward made up a lie about a dead man). And even though the mainstream media would no doubt go along with her clear fabrication, she must’ve known that the American electorate — some two months from going to the polls — might not be as forgiving.
…Dr. N. G. Berrill, the executive director of The New York Center for Neuropsychology & Forensic Behavioral Science, told LifeZette that the personality structure of a pathological liar usually has two main components: a high degree of narcissism with a certain sense of entitlement, and an “anti-social” component in which the liar does not feel obliged to adhere to rules or regulations. That seems the case with Clinton, who once said she endured sniper fire when landing in Bosnia (she was, in fact, greeted by little girls bearing flowers).
“There’s no question that when politicians lie they know they’re lying. There’s no doubt about it,” Berrill said. “And they’re lying because lying is indebted — it’s a structure or a symptom, if you will, of a larger personality disorder.” Even though many people lie, exaggerate, and distort the truth at times, Berrill noted that when a politician pathologically lies, “they’re really lying to essentially manipulate…it’s a conscious desire to manipulate and control.”
And the other 32% are either (a) uninformed; (b) educated idiots; or (c) contributors to the Clinton Foundation!
These types of politicians have a compulsive urge to lie continuously — even if there is no logical reason or obvious personal gain to be gleaned from such a stream of deception. This is the tactic Clinton seems to be using — whether knowingly or unwittingly — in her Powell debacle.
“[Politicians will] say stuff that’s ridiculous or outrageous, and as long as they feel that they’ve persuaded this group, reassured this group, made this group feel good, made the person like them more, trust them, whatever, then their mission is accomplished,” Berrill added. “And the thing with politicians, which I find fascinating … with this digital age, lying becomes a little more difficult, it seems to me.”
…“What’s really fascinating to me is that the politicians that lie — in a really bold and obvious way and not nuanced at all — they act as though they haven’t been taped saying these things,” Berrill said.“So it seems to me that this is the most dangerous period in our history for lying and acting like a con-man or a sleazy politician because the chances are so great that you’re gonna get caught.”
And yet Clinton seems to get away with it all, time and time again — even when she must know that sources and data will bring her lies to light…”
Only because many of her supporters just don’t care; and, more importantly, the MSM refuses to accurately cover her innumerable lies. Think about it: if Hillary lies her fat ass off in a forest, and the MSM doesn’t report it, does she make a sound?!? Other than, of course, the high-pitched squeal of her thighs rubbing together ‘neath her tarpaulin pants.
And here’s a good one:
ABC, CBS Censor Link Between Democrat Senator and EpiPen Outrage Despite 18 Mins of Coverage
“Despite over 18 minutes of coverage of the past week on the skyrocketing cost of EpiPens by over 400 percent, ABC and CBS have failed in their duties to note that the pharmaceutical company CEO being called out for raising the price while hiking her own compensation to almost $19 million is also the daughter of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (W.V.).
Further, the two networks and NBC have collectively neglected to reveal that Mylan Pharmaceuticals has partnered in the past for medical aid with the Clinton Foundation and given money as well to the scandal-ridden foundation…”
In other words…
…or perhaps more accurately:
Seriously: in light of the revelations coming from this latest batch of emails, if Satan is the Father of Lies (which he indubitably IS!), Hillary’s gotta be…
…his illegitimate daughter.
Which is why, as John Fund relates at NRO, Liberals are likely keeping a weather eye on WikiLeaks:
“…We already have extensive evidence that special-interest donors to the Clinton Foundation sought favors from a responsive State Department when Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state. We know from Peter Schweitzer’s movie (and the book of the same name), Clinton Cash, that the State Department helped move along an infamous deal that granted the Russians control of more than 20 percent of the uranium production here in the United States. (Clinton Cash is available for free viewing online.) The company involved in acquiring the American uranium was a very large donor to — you guessed it — the Clinton Foundation.
What more could we learn from WikiLeaks in the weeks leading up to the November election? Just having the tip of the John Huang fundraising scandal surface before the 1996 election changed the dynamics of that race, reducing the size of Dole’s loss and altering the congressional outcome.
Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister in the early 1960s, was once asked what he most feared in politics. “Events, dear boy, events,” he replied. Whether it’s leaks from Donald Trump’s tax returns or Hillary Clinton’s e-mail, there are a lot of possible “events” between now and when we will finally learn the results of the November election.“
Then again, Julian Assange may be the least…
…of Hillary’s worries!
Next up, courtesy of Townhall.com, Walter Williams details the most recent rage in…
“As the fall semester begins, parents, students, taxpayers and donors should be made aware of official college practices that should disgust us all.
Hampshire College will offer some of its students what the school euphemistically calls “identity-based housing.” That’ssegregated housingfor students who — because of their race, culture, gender or sexual orientation — have “historically experienced oppression.” I’d bet the rent money that Hampshire College will not offer Jewish, Irish, Polish, Chinese or Catholic students segregated housing. Because there is no group of people who have not faced oppression, Hampshire College is guilty of religious and ethnic discrimination in its housing segregation policy.
University of Connecticut administrators think that more black men will graduate if they spend more time together. According to Campus Reform, they are building a new residence hall to facilitate just that. Dr. Erik Hines, the faculty director for the program, said that the learning community “is a space for African-American men to…come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus. It’s also a space where they can have conversation and also talk with individuals who come from the same background who share the same experience.” By the way, Hampshire College and the University of Connecticut are not alone in promoting racially segregated student housing.
Then there’s an effort for racial segregation in classes. Moraine Valley Community College attempted it in a class titled “College: Changes, Challenges, Choices.” It mandated that some class sections be “limited to African-American students.” The college defended racially segregated classes by saying that they make students “feel comfortable.”…”
Segregated facilities: this is a concept America’s bastions of Progressive “tolerance” could really build on. Think about it; the possibilities are almost endless!!! In addition to separate living and classroom spaces, students of color could be provided their own drinking fountains…
…bathrooms…
…dining areas…
…bus stops…
…and beaches!
This could really catch on; you know, like across the entire country!
All of which goes to prove Nelson Mandela was right…
…though not in the sense he intended; as what America’s colleges increasingly provide their charges isn’t education, but indoctrination.
Case in point, courtesy of PJ Media and the educated idiots at the University of Texas:
“The headline was familiar, and predictable: “U.S.’s most economically segregated schools aren’t where you might expect.” Maybe not where you expect if you’re a Cambridge-dwelling headline writer for the Christian Science Monitor, but more or less exactly where you’d expect if you spent much time in the actual United States of America.
Underline: “Only one Southern state made the top 10 list,” gasp and exclamation point implicit.
Economic segregation, like racial segregation, is a condition that certainly exists in the South but that is much more pronounced in our large, Democrat-dominated northeastern metros and in West Coast cities such as San Francisco, where the spotlessly progressive municipal authorities have for a generation used restrictive zoning laws to drive out the sort of people who aren’t on a first-name basis with any venture capitalists. From the pitiless Romans we received the term “to decimate,” meaning to eliminate every tenth man in a military unit, usually as a punishment for mutiny or desertion. Since 1990, San Francisco has outdone Crassus and eliminated every third African-American resident, though to be fair San Francisco’s policies are not intentionally designed to drive out black people but to drive out poor people. Black billionaires are welcome in San Francisco, as they are in most places.
…In 1970, there were nearly 100,000 African Americans in San Francisco. In 1990, there were about 78,000 black residents. Today, there are about 51,000 black residents.African Americans once were the majority population in San Francisco’s Bayview; today, at less than 6 percent of San Francisco’s population, they make up a majority of the population only in its jails.
There is a great deal more to what ails the poor, and long-suffering African-American communities, than housing policy. And most of those economically segregated and shockingly non-Southern cities that worry the gentle people at the Christian Science Monitor are not victims of their own success. They are Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc., which also are among our most racially segregated cities (those being New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland). Housing is pretty cheap there. The problem is in the demand side of the market: Nobody wants to move to Detroit, and few people are leaving Texas or California for a great new job in Cleveland.We know how to fix bad housing policy; in truth, we know how to fix a great many bad policies (education, public safety) afflicting Detroit and Cleveland, too. But the problems in those cities are not entirely unlike the housing problems that beset San Francisco and New York.The bad public policies that keep those cities down benefit somebody – somebody keeps those cities’ failed institutions in place, somebody resists reform, somebody evades accountability and helps others do the same.
Who?Would it be too much to suggest we take a real hard look at who’s running those cities?“
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.