Wake up sheeple, this is closer than you think!
Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel
Easy to outwit US with Dimwits in the White House
By Amir Taheri | August 1, 2015 | 3:00pm
While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.
Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.
‘Reclaiming Muslim lands’
Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”
Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.
Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.
Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.
These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.
However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.
The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”
The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”
Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.
Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that they leave the country.His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of Israelis have double-nationality and would prefer emigration to the United States and Europe to daily threats of death.
Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action against the Islamic Republic.
In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of doing so is higher than possible benefits.
Thanks to President Obama, the US has already distanced itself from Israel to a degree unimaginable a decade ago.
Khamenei counts on what he sees as “Israel fatigue.” The international community would start looking for what he calls “a practical and logical mechanism” to end the old conflict.
Khamenei’s “practical and logical mechanism” excludes the two-state formula in any form.
“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region to stay as “protected minorities.”
Under Khamenei’s scheme, Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza, would revert to a United Nations mandate for a brief period during which a referendum is held to create the new state of Palestine.
All Palestinians and their descendants, wherever they are, would be able to vote, while Jews “who have come from other places” would be excluded.
Khamenei does not mention any figures for possible voters in his dream referendum. But studies by the Islamic Foreign Ministry in Tehran suggest that at least eight million Palestinians across the globe would be able to vote against 2.2 million Jews “acceptable” as future second-class citizens of new Palestine. Thus, the “Supreme Guide” is certain of the results of his proposed referendum.
He does not make clear whether the Kingdom of Jordan, which is located in 80% of historic Palestine, would be included in his one-state scheme. However, a majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian extraction and would be able to vote in the referendum and, logically, become citizens of the new Palestine.
Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip,” he boasts.
Khamenei describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. In its place, he boasts, “the hegemony of Iran will be promoted.”
Khamenei’s book also deals with the Holocaust which he regards either as “a propaganda ploy” or a disputed claim. “If there was such a thing,” he writes, “we don’t know why it happened and how.”
This is what Iran’s leaders are preaching to their people and their allies in the Middle East. Do we really want to give succor?
Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?
But today in these deeply secure settings are a series of unclassified documents—items dealing with the Iran nuclear deal that are not secret, but that the Obama administration is nevertheless blocking the public from reading.
The Obama administration delivered 18 documents to Congress on July 19, in accordance with legislation requiring a congressional review of the nuclear deal. Only one of these documents is classified, while the remaining 17 are unclassified.
Yet many of these unclassified documents cannot be shared with the public or discussed openly with the press. The protocol for handling these documents, set by the State Department and carried out by Congress, is that these unreleased documents can only be reviewed ‘in camera’—a Latin term that means only those with special clearance can read them—and must be held in various congressional SCIFs.
Most staffers were hesitant to discuss—let alone share—a number of these documents, even though they’re not classified, because they require security clearances to view. By mixing a classified document with unclassified documents, critics of this arrangement contend, important facts are being kept from the public just as Congress is deciding whether to support or oppose the Iran deal.
“The unclassified items… should be public. This is going to be the most important foreign policy decision that this Congress will make,” a Republican Senate aide told The Daily Beast. “This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”
“Many in Congress view the administration’s tactic of co-mingling unclassified documents with classified documents and requiring congressional staffers to have secret clearances just to view certain unclassified documents as an attempt by the administration to limit open debate,” a second senior Republican congressional staffer said.
Among the 17 unclassified documents are important texts related to the Iran nuclear deal: One document, titled “Elements of Iran’s R&D Plan,” is based on the “safeguards confidential plan [between] Iran and the IAEA,” or International Atomic Energy Agency, a State Department official said, and so it can’t be released publicly. The document describes how Iran’s research and development on its nuclear program, including on its centrifuges, could progress over time.
Other unclassified documents may be diplomatically sensitive: One is a letter from the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K. to Secretary of State John Kerry; another is a letter from Kerry to the three foreign ministers and his Chinese counterpart as well.
The set includes a discussion paper written before the final agreement, on how sanctions would be dealt with in the interim. Yet another is a draft statement by the U.S. government, to be issued on a future Iran deal implementation day.
Bloomberg View’s Eli Lake and Josh Rogin previously reported the existence of the 18 documents submitted by the Obama administration to Congress, as well as some descriptions of what the set contained.
The Iran nuclear deal is unlike other arms control agreements “because it’s so complex and has so many moving parts,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “It goes into jaw-dropping detail.” So it’s not a complete surprise that there might be some sensitive ancillary documents to go along with the arrangement. Iran might not want the particulars of its nuclear research program in full public view, for instance.
The unreleased, unclassified documents are informative for Congress but not for public consumption, the State Department contends.
“Some of the documents are the types of documents which, like State Department cables and other internal USG documents, we would not post publicly but would share with Congress in appropriate circumstances. Others are documents that, while not part of the [Iran nuclear agreement] itself, pertain to it and we were clear with the other P5+1 members and Iran that we would be sharing those documents with Congress, and we have,” a State Department official said.
Added the official, “Congress has every document that we have, and every Member of Congress and every staff [member] with the necessary security clearance can review all of the documents.”
Some Democrats were supportive of the administration’s hush-hush approach. The documents are part of a sensitive diplomatic process involving Iran’s nuclear program, they argue, so it’s not surprising that there are some restrictions to the level of transparency the government will allow.
“The essential elements to make the decision on the deal are out there,” a senior Democratic aide said. “I don’t think there’s a lack of transparency or discussion on [the Iran deal], because you’ve had very detailed briefings and every member of Congress has been able to view these documents… The way they are stored is consistent and not unreasonable, and I don’t think there’s anything nefarious.”
“This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”
Open-government advocates, on the other hand, were appalled that unclassified documents this important were being kept both from public view—and, in a real way, from serious congressional scrutiny.
“Keeping unclassified documents in a SCIF is overkill, even if the documents are sensitive or confidential. They simply don’t need the kind of sophisticated protection against clandestine surveillance that SCIFs are intended to provide,” said Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, working to reduce government secrecy.
“The primary obstacle to congressional review that is created by this arrangement is the requirement to physically be present in the SCIF. Members of Congress cannot review the material in their offices, or share it with trusted colleagues or with subject matter experts. It is a significant hindrance to review,” he added.
Congress passed a law called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, also known as Corker-Cardin, requiring the administration to formally submit the Iran nuclear deal, an unclassified verification assessment with any secret annexes, and other relevant materials to Congress.
The intention of that provision was for unclassified materials to be freely available so that an open debate on the public interest could occur. Members of Congress are pointing out that this is not what is happening—and are urging the Obama administration to allow their release.
“A lot of both documents and discussion that have been held in a classified setting doesn’t have classified characteristics to it… to the extent that many [documents aren’t classified,] they should be made totally public, as far as I’m concerned, so that the public can evaluate for themselves,” Democratic Senator Bob Menendez told The Daily Beast.
Republican Senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. His spokesperson told The Daily Beast that Corker “believes that the administration should make these unclassified documents available to the public so the American people can see the details of the Iran nuclear deal.”
—with additional reporting by Alexa Corse and Noah Shachtman
While millions of Americans support abortion, the vast majority are unaware of the details of how the procedure is carried out. Some even think that babies are aborted in the same way that pets are euthanized – with little or no pain whatsoever.
The reality is infinitely more disturbing. Listed below are the different methods of abortion, as demonstrated in the video above by using lifelike scientific models and actual abortion instruments.
– Partial Birth Abortion
Although currently outlawed, President Obama has expressed his desire to re-legalize the procedure under certain circumstances.
The doctor forces the woman’s cervix open prematurely, increasing the risk of premature birth by 36%. The abortionist turns the baby around so it is no longer head down, but head up. The baby is delivered so that just the head is left inside the mother’s body.
The abortionist then uses medical forceps to stab the baby in the back of its head, opening up a wound to make a hole, before using a vacuum tube to suck out the baby’s brain. He then crushes the baby’s head and delivers the dead baby.
If the abortionist performed the exact same procedure with the head outside the mother’s body, he would be guilty of homicide.
– Induction Abortion
The abortionist uses a 10 inch long needle to stab the baby in its heart before injecting Digoxin, causing a massive heart attack. The terrified baby feels the full force of the pain as anesthesia is not administered. Two or three days later the dead baby is delivered.
– Dilation and Evacuation
The abortionist artificially opens the mother’s cervix before reaching inside the uterus with a pair of medical forceps. The abortionist then grabs pieces of the baby with the forceps and rips the body limb from limb, pulling the pieces out one by one. This is a dangerous procedure because the doctor can accidentally grab a part of the woman’s bowel, causing internal rupturing.
A nurse then re-assembles the body to make sure no parts are left inside which could cause a dangerous infection.
– Dilation and Curettage
The abortionist uses a curette, a cross between a steak knife and a spoon, inserting it inside the mother’s body, before carving the baby into pieces and then using the spoon to scoop out the remains.
– Vacuum Aspiration
The abortionist simply uses a strong vacuum tube to suck out the entire baby, the placenta and the contents of the womb before the baby’s body is disposed of down a sink or as medical waste.
– Chemical Abortions
The mother takes a two part drug cocktail. The first drug blocks hormones, essentially telling the mother’s brain that she isn’t pregnant. Nutrients and support are then automatically cut off to the baby and it starves to death.
Two days later, the mother takes a second labor inducing drug which painfully flushes the dead baby out of her body. Although this method is used for early stage pregnancies, some women have reported seeing recognizable features of their baby in the toilet after it has been flushed out.
Planned Parenthood has described opponents of these abortion procedures as “extremists.” Personally speaking, if being against sticking knives in the back of babies’ heads and sucking out their brains makes me an extremist – then I’m proud to be an extremist.
On the flip side, Planned Parenthood employees who push around pieces of dead babies in petri dishes while laughing and cracking jokes about the body being “war torn,” are “trendy” and “liberal”.
Watch the video above and decide whether you’re an “extremist” or not.
Top Clinton aide accused of receiving overpayments at State Department
By Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig July 31 at 8:59 PM
State Department investigators concluded this year that Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closest aides, was overpaid by nearly $10,000 because of violations of rules governing vacation and sick leave during her tenure as an official in the department.
The finding — which Abedin has formally contested — emerged publicly Friday after Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to Secretary of State John F. Kerry and others seeking more information about an investigation into possible “criminal” conduct by Abedin concerning her pay.
The letters also sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.
The finding that Abedin, a longtime Clinton confidante who now serves as vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, had improperly collected taxpayer money could prove damaging to Clinton’s candidacy, as Republicans charge that government rules were routinely bent to benefit Clinton and her aides.
At the same time, the letters, which for the first time have publicized an internal pay dispute that has been simmering for months, could bolster Democratic claims that congressional Republicans are using their oversight role to hurt Clinton politically.
Grassley indicates in the letters, which were provided to The Washington Post, that he is describing information from an inquiry by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A spokesman for Grassley said the senator’s office has not independently confirmed the allegations.
In letters sent Thursday to Abedin, Kerry and the Office of Inspector General, Grassley wrote that staff of the inspector general had found “at least a reasonable suspicion of a violation” of the law concerning the “theft of public money through time and attendance fraud” as well as “conflicts of interest connected to her overlapping employment.”
Grassley also raised the possibility that efforts to investigate Abedin’s actions were thwarted because many of her exchanges were sent through Clinton’s private e-mail server.
According to Grassley’s description of the investigation, Abedin’s time sheets indicated that she never took vacation or sick leave during her four years at the State Department, from January 2009 to February 2013. But the investigation, the senator wrote, found evidence that Abedin did take time off, including a 10-day trip to Italy, and that she told colleagues in e-mails that she was out “on leave.”
A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign declined to comment. Attorneys for Abedin said she learned in May that the State Department’s inspector general had concluded that she improperly collected $9,857 for periods when she was on vacation or leave.
Abedin responded with a 12-page letter contesting the findings and formally requesting an administrative review of the investigation’s conclusion, a process that remains ongoing.
Her attorneys say the conclusion that Abedin was overpaid relied on a finding that she had done no work while on the Italy trip and in the weeks after she gave birth in December 2011. However, they wrote that the evidence uncovered by the inspector general made it clear that she had worked extensively during those times.
“Huma Abedin is widely known as one of the hardest-working people in all of Washington during the nearly two decades she was in public service,” said Karen Dunn, an attorney for Abedin. “The IG report found a multitude of instances when she was working even when she was on maternity leave, yet its central charge was that she owes back pay for work missed while on leave. It simply doesn’t add up.”
Abedin’s attorneys said the inquiry resulted in a finding only about the pay issue and not about any possible conflicts of interest posed by her work arrangement or issues related to the use of Clinton’s private e-mail server.
Doug Welty, a spokesman for the Office of Inspector General at the State Department, said he couldn’t comment on the existence of a probe into Abedin. A State Department spokesman also declined to comment.
Grassley also alleged that Clinton’s highly controversial private e-mail arrangement interfered with the investigation.
The committee “has learned that the OIG had reason to believe that e-mail evidence relevant to that inquiry was contained in e-mails Ms. Abedin sent and received from her account on Secretary Clinton’s non-government server, making them unavailable to the OIG through its normal statutory right of access to records,” Grassley wrote.
Since 2013, Grassley has been inquiring about Abedin’s “special government employee” status, which during her final six months at the State Department allowed her to take outside employment with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm led by longtime Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band.
Grassley’s letter to Kerry claimed that Abedin had exchanged 7,300 e-mails that “involved” Band but did not specify how many of those were direct correspondence between the two.
In one instance, Grassley wrote, Band allegedly e-mailed Abedin to request her help in landing a White House appointment for a friend who led a charity that later hired his firm and donated to the Clinton Foundation.
However, Grassley did not release the e-mail in question, nor did he allege any wrongdoing by Abedin. And the timeline of events does not clearly support an allegation of conflict of interest: The Band friend was named to a White House panel in 2010, before her charity hired Teneo and before Teneo hired Abedin.
Band did not respond to requests for comment. Dunn, Abedin’s attorney, said: “We are unaware of this e-mail and Senator Grassley has not shared it with us or the media. But every piece of this letter has issues with accuracy and we have no reason to believe this is an exception.”
Jesus Deniz Mendoza, Mexican accused of double murder, was legal immigrant