Is It Possible that Obama Cash to Iran Is Now Used to Attack the American Military, and that He Covered Up Hillary Gun Sales to Libyan Rebels Who Later Killed Ambassador Stevens

There are still apologists for Barack Obama's presidency, but they must be on life-support by now. The near-fatal blow came recently when Congress for the first time overrode his veto of the bill allowing victims of the 9/11 attack to sue Saudi Arabia for damages. The Obama cult considers the congressional override of Obama’s veto as a personal insult -- somehow the American and world press have made Obama a heroic figure, fighting against the enslaught of right-wing partisans, racists, sexual predators and birthers. And, as the election approaches, Obama is "The Hero" trying to save his "legacy" from the villain Republicans in the media fantasy. ~~~~~~ That "legacy" includes the latest Obama protection of administration personnel who violated federal law -- the Department of Justice has decided not to prosecute an Environmental Protection Agency employee involved in last year’s massive spill of toxic mine waste that turned the Animas River in Colorado yellow for hundreds of miles, despite a year-long investigation by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) that found that the unnamed employee may have broken federal water pollution law and may have made false statements to law enforcement officials about the spill. After the OIG referred its findings for potential prosecution, the DOJ United States Attorney for Colorado, headed by acting US Attorney Bob Troyer, declined last week to pursue charges, a OIG spokesman said. So, no one will be prosecuted. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and oversight subcommittee on interior Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis wrote a letter to the DOJ saying : "By not taking up the case, the Department of Justice looks like it is going easy on its colleagues in EPA. Its lack of action on these charges give the appearance of hypocrisy, and seem to indicate that there is one set of rules for private citizens and another for the federal government. The EPA disaster deserves the same level of accountability to which private citizens are held.” The OIG briefed congressional staff on the news, and the GOP lawmakers said the OIG’s findings showed evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Obama's "legacy" also includes the latest round of skyrocketing increases in Obamacare premiums, coupled with even lower coverage and even less choice. Democrats are now backing away from supporting Obamacare. Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton said Wednesday : "Ultimately...the reality is the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable to increasing numbers of people." Democrats have long acknowledged that improvements are needed for Obamacare, but Dayton's remarks go farther and are more negative than usual from members of Obama's party. They come as Minnesota expects to have some of the highest premium increases in the nation next year, ranging from 50% to 67%. The state's insurance commissioner said in a news release last month announcing the rates that the Obamacare market there had been "on the verge of collapse," given that all of the insurers offering coverage under the health law considered leaving the market." ~~~~~~ But, failures like these by Obama policies and his rejection of constitutional limits on the President's range of activities are simply ignored, and often not even reported by mainstream media. ~~~~~~ However, the 9/11 bill veto made it impossible to brush aside the Obama reality and today in the Middle East we can see his naive policies and unwarranted hubris in play as Iran turns on the US President who fed it with cash as part of his nuclear deal. ~~~~~~ The latest Iran rebuff to Obama has forced the US to hit radar sites in Yemen after one of its warships in the Red Sea came under missile attack for the second time this week. The Pentagon said the sites were on Houthi-controlled territory. It marks the first time the US has fired at rebel targets since the start of the Yemen conflict in ?arch, 2015. US initial assessments showed that three radar sites involved in the attacks had been destroyed. The Pentagon confirmed that the strikes were authorised by President Obama and carried out with Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from the destroyer USS Nitze. Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said : "These limited self-defense strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships, and our freedom of navigation in this important maritime passageway. The United States will respond to any further threat to our ships and commercial traffic, as appropriate." ~~~~~~ An earlier attack on a United Arab Emirates high-speed transport vessel caused significant damage, proving that the threat from these land-based missiles -- thought to be a variant of the Chinese C-802 -- is real. The question is why the Houthi rebels decided to attack the US ships now. The US is a close ally of Saudi Arabia, but experts say it seems to have been the threat to shipping posed by the missile attacks that led Obama to make the direct strike against presumed Houthi positions -- direct US involvement that many in Washington hope will be his last. An alternative explanation is that in the dying days of his presidency, Barack Obama is seeking any opportunity to 'flex his muscle' and prove that he is a tough President. Many fear that the period after the election could see more such acts 'in extremis' by an Obama desperate to create an Iran "legacy" despite his coddling of Iran ~~~~~~ So, we may well ask, is the US drawing closer to a confrontation with Iran over involvement in Yemen’s civil war? Pentagon officials have said the US is not denying that Iran is partly to blame for the Houthi attacks since it is no secret that Iran has been supplying the Houthis with war materiel. Senator Lindsey Graham, a retired Air Force colonel, urged the Obama administration to to hold Iran accountable when the "groups they empower" take aggressive action toward US personnel. At the same time, Obama is coming under increasing pressure from Democrats in Congress over the mounting civilian deaths in the Yemeni civil war, and the administration announced over the weekend it was reviewing its coalition participation. The missile attacks came after a series of escalating events in the Yemeni civil war. On October 1, Houthi rebels targeted and hit a UAE ship that was participating in the Saudi- led coalition, causing serious damage to the ship and reportedly wounding sailors. The US sent the USS Mason and three amphibious transport ships to the Red Sea in response to that attack. US officials, however, said the ships are conducting "routine operations," and not participating in the war. On Saturday, the Saudi-led coalition fired upon a funeral in Yemen's capital, which is controlled by the Houthis, in what it characterized as an accident. The strike killed more than 140 people. Also on Sunday, two missiles were fired at the USS Mason in the first of two attacks on the ship. The next day, a missile was reportedly fired by Houthi rebels into Saudi Arabia that landed near an air base in Taif. Pentagon spokesman Cook said the USS Mason would continue its operations in the Red Sea, but warned, "Those who threaten our forces should know that US commanders retain the right to defend their ships." Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson said, in a blunt statement of a type rarely made, that : "The US Navy remains on watch in the Red Sea and around the world to defend America from attack and to protect US strategic interests. These unjustified attacks are serious, but they will not deter us from our mission. We are trained and ready to defend ourselves and to respond quickly and decisively." ~~~~~~ Republicans labelled the attacks evidence that Obama has coddled Iran with the nuclear deal lifting sanctions on the country and that he is now paying the price. Senator Graham said : "The Obama administration supporting relieving sanctions against Iran, which has enriched the Ayatollah and has made Iran an even bigger nightmare for the region." Senator Marco Rubio also blamed the administration for the missile firings after the second attack : "#Iran-backed forces in Yemen again fire on US Navy ship. More attacks resulting from President Obama's failed Iran deal." Defense experts say the missile firings are part of Iran's campaign to drive the US out of the Middle East. Washington Institute defense fellow Daniel R. Green told the BBC : "It's clear that Iran has made a conscious decision to escalate its general strategy of confronting US power and influence in the region by using the fact that these missiles allegedly came from Houthi territory, as a way to mask their broader strategic goal of diminishing US presence in the region." ~~~~~~ All of this stems from Barack Obama's perverse determination to help Iran, the biggest state supporter of terrorism in the world. In a September 8 article, American Thinker's Rachel Ehrenfeld called it "Obama’s Iranian Cash Laundromat." In the article, she points out that it has been wrong to consider : “President Obama and his administration’s incomprehensible handling of Iran, as clueless, overconfident and counterproductive; not a good recipe for dealing with a sophisticated and determined adversary.” Ehrenfeld wrote : "As it turned out, and as every new expose of yet another secret deal shows, President Obama was anything but a clueless Babe. The President who initiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka The Iran Deal, is a sophisticated politician who deliberately and elaborately misled the American people about his concessions to the mullahs, accommodating their nuclear agenda and giving them some $150 billions, purportedly to help strengthen their economy. All the while acknowledging that “some” of that money will pay for the regime’s military expansion and even to fund their terrorist activities. Why was the US President so keen on building up his nation’s sworn enemy’s nuclear capabilities? What was his motive in empowering the mullahs and fueling Iran’s intervention in and destabilization of the Middle East and beyond?" ~~~~~~ There is no answer yet to that question. Like many analysts, Ehrenfeld asked : "Where were the United States’ partners to the Iran Deal? The United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China -- plus Germany, and the European Union participated in the negotiations and signed on. Why?....perhaps by the time the deal was announced, Iran’s uranium enrichment program was close to or already a fait accompli. In that case, why not partake in the Obama administration’s magic show and reap real profits afterward? Perhaps this can explain why most of the murky details were not leaked." It is clear that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. But since early 2013, Iran has received increasing Obama sanction relief to the tune of billions of dollars as a further incentive to attend negotiations with the US and its allies, despite the March 2012-to-January 2016 sanctions that left Iranian banks with no access to the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system. So, asked Ehrenfeld : "how did the regime access the billions of dollars it was given? Were those payments also sent in bundled cash of non-US currencies on chartered flights, under cover of darkness, as the administration’s $400 million ransom?" President Obama not only denied the cash delivery to Iran was a ransom, but claimed : "The reason that we had to give the cash is precisely because we were so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money." So, it's not surprising that the additional $1.3 billion in settlement were sent to Iran in a similar manner. Such cash payments probably include payments paid by the Obam administration to Iran for transferring goods to and from Afghanistan through the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas, since early 2013. That, according to Ehrenhfeld, "is when the administration decided to ignore the sanctions and instead of shipping the goods through Pakistan, it chose the Iranian port. This became such a lucrative business that Iran has opened another port on the Gulf of Oman at Chabahar to further facilitate transshipment through Iran. How did Iran access the US payments?" One possible answer is that given by Obama publicly when he and Secretary John Kerry suggested allowing Iran “access to US dollars through offshore clearinghouses.” Was this a truly new arrangement or simply the first time the American public and Congress heard about an ongoing long-term Obama-Iran cash payment arrangement? ~~~~~~ Will we ever know how much money Barack Obama gave to Iran? Probably not. But, we can hope that American troops in the Middle East and sailors off the Yemen coast will not find out the hard way that Obama gave Iran hard cash that was used to buy missiles and other weapons and to fund terrorists who are now frontally attacking American and allied ships and sites on and around the Arabian peninsula -- $150 billion in cash can buy a lot of military weaponry on the black markets operated by rogue states and arms dealers. ~~~~~~ The truth is that President Obama is lying even when he says that the US cannot "wire" money to Iran because of the lack of a "banking relationship" with it. Newsmax quoted a Politico report in September that said a Treasury Department spokesman said two wire payments were made in the past 14 months -- the US wired $848,000 to Iran in July 2015 and about $9 million in April 2016, the Treasury spokesman told Politico. Those payments "settled a claim over architectural drawings and fossils" and "to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water, which is used to produce plutonium and can aid in the making of nuclear weapons," according to the report. Yet, the Obama administration still maintains the US does not have "a direct banking relationship with Iran, which means that we cannot wire money directly to Iran," despite these payments. Congress is worried about the dangers of the cash payment because it is difficult to track how that money would be spent, potentially winding up funding terrorism or other anti-American Iran initiatives. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma., who discovered the wire payments in briefs with Obama administration officials, told Politico : "Oh, I don’t have any question that Iran wants the money in cash because...it’s fungible. They announced pretty quickly afterward that they were expanding their defense and their military budget by $1.7 billion dollars, an exact amount that we had just sent over to them. So, I don’t think that was accidental. But when you give cash, we can’t track. Did that go to Hezbollah? Did that go to the Russians? Did that go to the coup in Yemen? There’s no way to be able to track that." ~~~~~~ It boggles the mind to think that America has a President who is sending cash to a terrorist regime so that it can fund a war against America. Not even Dr. Strangelove would have thought of that. And don't presume that Hillary Clinton would be any different. An arms dealer threatened to reveal potentially damaging information about Hillary's alleged role in arming Islamist militants -- until federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their case against him recently. Federal prosecutors had faced a deadline to turn over discovery documents to the legal team of American Marc Turi, who had been charged with selling weapons to Libyan rebels in what looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama turning on the person who had been carrying out their clandestine operation -- one they botched. Late Tuesday, an announcement said the government was dropping the case, which was set to go to trial on NOVEMBER 8. The latest DOJ manipulation of the US legal system may prevent a release of potentially explosive documents. Last year, in his only extended television interview, Turi provided Fox News with documents and email exchanges he had with senior members of Congress, as well as military and State Department employees, to back up his claim that the Obama administration authorized in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, a covert weapons program that spun out of control. Turi told Fox : "That's where I came up with this 'zero footprint' Arab supply chain, whereby, our foreign ally supplies another Arab country." In this case, the US would supply conventional weapons to a US ally - Qatar - who would in turn supply them to Libya, as a kind of workaround. Turi explained : "If you want to limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies. The partners -- the Qataris, and the Emiratis -- did exactly what they were contracted to do." Turi told Fox that he never supplied any weapons to Qatar -- that it was in the hands of the US government and the State Department's Bureau of Political and Military Affairs which was headed by key Clinton aide, Andrew Shapiro, who was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department. Turi supporters say that information sought by Turi’s team in the lawsuit would show Clinton’s own role in arming Libyan rebels fighting former strongman Muammar Qaddafi while she was Secretary of State. Fox News, citing federal records, reported last year that documents showed US officials supported Turi’s effort to channel weapons to Libyan rebels while Clinton was Secretary of State. Career CIA officer David Manners said in a sworn declaration dated May 5, 2015 : "It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council." Many of the arms destined for Libyan rebels ultimately fell into the hands of islamist militant terrorists, reportedly including those in Syria. Turi told Fox News that poor US oversight allowed individuals hostile to the United States to get the arms. In their motion for dismissal, federal prosecutors acknowledged that discovery rulings from US District Court for the District of Arizona Judge David Campbell were partly responsible for their decision. The motion includes a request that Campbell accept a confidential agreement to settle the case civilly, further fueling claims the deal was struck to keep potentially damaging disclosures hidden. Neither the Justice Department nor the White House responded to Newsmax requests for comment on the case or the settlement. According to Fox, Turi advisor Robert Stryk accused prosecutors of bringing the case against Turi in order to cover up Clinton’s mishandling of Libya. Clinton was Secretary of State on September 11, 2012, when the jihadist attack on two American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Turi believes he was being blamed for a program that went off the rails, much as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, whose Internet film, “The Innocence of Moslems,” was initially blamed for the Benghazi attack. In her congressional testimony on Benghazi in January 2013, Clinton was asked by Senator Rand Paul about the flow of weapons. Secretary Clinton responded : "I will see what information is available...I don't have any information on that." ~~~~~~ So, dear readers, not only does America have President Obama, who is sending cash to Iran so it can use it to fund terrorists who fire missiles at US navy ships -- we have Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate vowing to carry forward Obama's "legacy," who appears to have arranged a coverup for her State Department sales of weapons that were used to murder Ambassador Chris Stevens. What great people we have chosen to protect America...???