Brexit and Norway: What to Avoid


NINTCHDBPICT000246785102

The pseudonymous writer Fjordman had his identity outed because the crazy mass-murderer Anders Breivik admired and cherry-picked Fjordman’s writings. Breivik’s admiration led the Norwegian authorities to accuse the famous counterjihadist as an accomplice by association. Of course Fjordman was exonerated of all suspicion much to the contempt of all European Leftist Multiculturalists. The Multiculturalists had cast so much disdain onto Fjordman that he fled his homeland Norway over death threats for a while. That was a while ago so I am uncertain of his current living conditions. HOWEVER, I am quite pleased he is still writing.

 

I found a recent Fjordman essay at the Gatestone Institute. The essay analyzes the choices the UK faces after Brexit and lists Norway and Switzerland’s non-EU membership as horrible models to follow.

 

JRH 9/16/16

Please Support NCCR

**************

Brexit and Norway: What to Avoid

 

By Fjordman

September 15, 2016 at 4:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • “[Britain wants] to be like Switzerland but they don’t know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount to the EU… They will have to accept the free movement of people and pay high fees and accept some laws which they would have no influence on.” — Daniel Pedroletti, president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London.

 

  • Norway is the only country that has adopted all EU directives before their deadline. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

 

  • Most of Norway’s laws are currently written by bureaucrats in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway.

 

  • The citizens of Norway rejected membership in the EU, twice. Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation’s politicians have made the country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence or voting rights — in opposition to the popular will, and possibly also in violation of the country’s Constitution.

 

  • The British should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative example of what to avoid.

 

On June 23, 2016, 51.9% of the voters in the United Kingdom voted for leaving the European Union (EU). The turnout was high, and the British referendum gained great international attention. Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, praised the result, calling Brexit “the most important moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” Le Pen said that if she wins France’s 2017 presidential election she would call a referendum on leaving the EU.

 

Nigel Farage stepped down as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) shortly after winning the historic vote. Many death threats against him and his family from supporters of the EU reportedly affected his decision.

 

The complicated divorce process between the UK and the EU could take years of negotiations. Some people have looked to Switzerland and Norway, two of the wealthiest countries in Europe, as possible models to follow, yet both maintain a close cooperation with the EU. There are also concerns in Switzerland and Norway about how Brexit will impact their own relationship with the EU.

 

Daniel Pedroletti, president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London, says there is “a big misunderstanding” in Britain surrounding Switzerland’s position:

 

“They want to be like Switzerland but they don’t know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount to the EU and accept the laws without being an influence [on them].

 

“They don’t realize that if they want a similar agreement they will have to accept the free movement of people and pay high fees and accept some laws which they would have no influence on.”

 

Though not a full member of the EU, Switzerland has over 120 bilateral agreements in place with the bloc — its main trading partner.

 

Nigel Farage does not want Britain to emulate Norway’s deal with the EU. It is terrible, he says. The Norwegian people rejected membership in the EU. Yet the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) has “deceived the people” and got Norway into a very bad agreement with the EU, according to Farage.

 

Norwegians voted against joining the European Community/European Union twice, in 1972 and in 1994. After the 1994 referendum, the country’s political leaders designed a close association deal with the EU. This is the EEA Agreement, known as the EØS Agreement in Norwegian. This does not cover common agriculture and fisheries policies. Control over natural resources is sensitive in a country with a long coastline plus major offshore deposits of oil and natural gas. Yet apart from a few such exceptions, Norway in reality became an associate member of the EU after 1994. EEA membership requires the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital with the EU. Norway is also a part of the open-borders Schengen Agreement, which has severely weakened checking migrants and asylum seekers across much of Europe.

 

Statistics from 2016 show that of all the 31 countries in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway is the only country that has adopted all EU directives before their deadline. Norway retained its top position for the third year in a row. Its two fellow EEA countries, Iceland and Liechtenstein, were the worst at implementing directives. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This may surprise people who view Norway’s relationship with the EU as something to emulate.

 

Most of Norway’s laws are currently written by bureaucrats in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway. Some scholars warn that the transfer of power to the EU is so great that it violates Norway’s Constitution and seriously undermines the democratic system.

 

norwegian-prime-minister-erna-solberg-european-commission-president-jean-claude-juncker

Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, on January 21, 2015. (Image source: Norway Prime Minister’s Office)

 

In June 2016, the Norwegian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to attach the nation to the EU’s financial supervision. Critics decried this as the “biggest concession of sovereignty” in many years. With a vote of 136 in favor and 29 against, Parliament approved a bill that would tie Norway’s regulation of financial and insurance institutions to EU rules. Center Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum opposed the bill and warned that it was “a circumvention of the Constitution.” The group “No to the EU” stated that Parliament had gone directly against the will of the people by weakening national sovereignty. An opinion poll showed just 26 percent of Norwegians supported the plan to tie Norway to the EU’s financial oversight.

 

The citizens of Norway have rejected membership in the EU, twice. Public opinion has been consistently against membership for decades. Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation’s politicians have made the country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence or voting rights. The politicians have done this in opposition to the popular will, and possibly also in violation of the country’s Constitution.

 

Britain is a larger country with a much bigger economy than Norway. This will give it a stronger position in negotiations with the EU and others. However, it would be a mistake not to learn from the experiences of other nations. When shaping their future relationship with the EU, the British should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative example of what to avoid.

_____________________________

 

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor Full Disclosure: I failed to ask for that “written consent”.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the READ THE REST

 

Oil Independence: Our Modern Day Slingshot


David slays Goliath with sling

ACT for America takes the logical stand that oil dependence from Muslim dominated nations are dollars in Islamic terrorists’ pockets. Oil cash is likely not the only source of terrorist income. For example, Islamic charities in the West claiming the Moderate moniker actually are quite supportive of Islamic terrorists often via stealth measures. Nevertheless, ending oil dependence from Muslim nations would cause a big hit in the pocketbooks of Caliphate-minded transnational terrorists.

 

JRH 5/21/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Oil Independence: Our Modern Day Slingshot

 

Sent by Lisa Piraneo
Director of Government Relations
Email from ACT for America
Sent: 5/19/2016 8:38 AM

 

Support the Fuel Choice for American Prosperity and Security Act

 

Last week, I attended a special event on Capitol Hill:  The Jewish Heritage Commission’s and AISH International’s “Celebration and Presentation of the King David Award”.

Since 1994, the King David Award has recognized men and women who have made dramatic contributions to American society and Jewish heritage.  Marc Goldman, a good friend of ACT for America, was one of this year’s award recipients.  Marc is an accomplished businessman, involved in multiple charitable activities, and is a steadfast patriot who has devoted much of his life to protecting both Israel and the U.S.

I attend many events on the Hill, and I certainly hear a lot of speeches.  Marc’s words, however, were particularly inspiring.  He reminded us that just as God provided a slingshot to defeat Goliath, He has provided the free Western world a slingshot to defeat its current-day enemies.

What did he mean?  Here is a small excerpt from Marc’s speech to help explain:

 

Today’s Western Civilization faces a much bigger threat than David did.  Nuclear weapons – our enemies have them and have promised to use them against us.  There will be no recovery if they do, so there is no time to waste. We must overcome our complacency. So what do we do?  God gave David the slingshot.  What slingshot has he given us and how do we use it?  

It turns out we do have a slingshot, a very effective one.  If we just have the will, courage and faith as David did, we too can use it.  The slingshot we have is to end oil dependence…. This slingshot will be the shot heard around the world. And we can emulate the example that King David set for us, our enemies will scatter and we will make the world a better, safer, and even cleaner place and then we can begin to bring peace, love, and harmony to all of God’s children.”

 

To watch Marc’s speech in its entirety, including important details about how oil independence is our modern-day slingshot, please watch HERE or click on the image below to play video.

 

VIDEO: Marc Goldman Receives King David Award

Posted by Brigitte Gabriel

Uploaded on May 18, 2016

 

http://www.actforamerica.org

 

Achieving oil independence (specifically allowing consumers transportation fuel choice) in order to stop terror funding, has been an issue on which ACT for America has been working for years.  Only when oil is no longer a worldwide strategic commodity will our modern-day enemies lose their petrodollar-purchased terror weapons.

 

 

TAKE ACTION

 

Please register your support for H.R. 2418, the Fuel Choice for American Prosperity and Security Act, with your U.S. legislator.  We’ve done all the work for you. Simply click HERE to learn more information about the bill, and to send your e-mail.

Take action on this bill now. You can help. You can make a difference.

Stripping our enemies of the ability to fund terror through oil money is the only real “silver bullet” to defeating worldwide jihadi terrorism.  Utilizing solely our domestic oil certainly is a step in the right direction, but it won’t solve the much larger problem: Enemy nations setting the world-wide price of oil and then using the proceeds to fund terror. Working together, we can stop this.

Thank you for all that you do.

 

Lisa Piraneo
Director of Government Relations
ACT for America

_____________________

SUPPORT ACT FOR AMERICA’S VITAL WORK.
ACT for America is a registered 501 (c)(3) organization. All donations are tax-deductible.

 

DONATE NOW

 

Copyright © 2016 ACT for America, All rights reserved.

 

Our mailing address is:

ACT for America

869 Lynnhaven PKWY

Ste. 113 #411

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

 

About ACT for America

 

  • ACT for America is the largest and the only grassroots organization dedicated to national security and defeating terrorism. Today, ACT for America has expanded to 890 chapters and 280,000 members with a goal of 2,500 chapters and 1,000,000 members by the end of the decade.

 

  • ACT for Americais a non-partisan organization whose mission appeals to every American concerned about national security and terrorism -a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice.

 

  • ACT for Americaeducates citizens and elected officials to help impact national security policy & stands ready to take action as the only national security grassroots organization in America.

 

Who We Are

 

We are all Americans first -citizens who put their differences aside and came together to secure our country. Every American has one thing in common – “we are all interested” in keeping our homes, communities, states, and nation safe.

 

What makes ACT for America different is that our members and supporters come from every background, age, gender, race, social status, political point of view, and lifestyle choice. Remember, national security is not a conservative, liberal, or libertarian issue – it’s an American issue.

 

What We Do

 

ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer chapter network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

 

ACT for America focuses on activities that enhance the national security standing of the United States — such as educating elected officials from the school board level to Congress. Many of these officials go on to pass vital legislation to this end. ACT has driven the education process towards the successful passage of 37 bills in 19 states over the last six years.

 

Obama-Rhodes: America’s Eminent Future?


Deputy U.S. national security adviser Ben Rhodes speaks during a press briefing on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts as U.S. Barack Obama continues his vacation on the island August 22, 2014.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque  (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR43E8A
Deputy U.S. national security adviser Ben Rhodes speaks during a press briefing on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts as U.S. Barack Obama continues his vacation on the island August 22, 2014.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS) – RTR43E8A

John R. Houk

© May 14, 2016

 

Remarkably the New York Times (a Left-oriented News Paper) has exposed one of President Barack Hussein Obama facilitators between the Administration and the press. Ben Rhodes was tasked to selling the Iran Nuke deal and manipulated the press info on Iranian Navy boarding an American Navy vessel and humiliating U.S. sailors. Rhodes relationship to Obama is evidently chief liar to the American voter. David Samuels wrote a masterful profile on Rhodes showing that political manipulation and misdirection that painted a picture of dealings with Iran that simply and deceptively did not exist.

 

In essence the Obama-Rhodes team is a propaganda machine that sells a bill of goods based on deception. Since parallels in history tend to repeat over the years you should ask yourself, “What political duo in history reminds of present day Obama-Rhodes?”

 

I’ll tell you what time in history struck me. The Obama-Rhodes propaganda team reminds of the Hitler-Goebbels team that convinced Germans that the Nazi Party goals and ideals would transform Germany into a master of nations.

German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) with General Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) at a rally  (Photo by Rolls Press/Popperfoto/Getty Images)
German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) with General Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) at a rally (Photo by Rolls Press/Popperfoto/Getty Images)

The difference between Obama-Rhodes/Hitler-Goebbels are the tactics of global domination. Hitler viewed military power to impose Nazism in ruthless world domination coloring every nefarious action as a glorious moment for the Aryan race. Obama is a Leftist globalist utilizing Gramsci’s Marxist principles of stealth to transform nations from within by delegitimizing the indigenous culture slowly. If slow delegitimizing of culture is successful in a democratic-style government, the people have the illusion they voted in a more favorable Marxist cultural paradigm rather than the individual rights of innovation and property goals as a pursuit of happiness. Thus the pursuit of happiness is taken from the people and turned over to the government to make all the decisions for how a person lives materially and ethically.

 

Briefly look at Joseph Goebbels’ art of manipulation and you will see how Obama used Ben Rhodes.

 

Goebbels’ most famous quote (ironically some historians believe is wrongly attributed) that is still the paradigm of Leftist manipulation in the 21st century:

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” (Joseph Goebbels Quotes; AZ QuOtes)

 

A Goebbels quote that is probably closer to what he actually said:

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Ibid.)

 

And a Goebbels quote I was less familiar with but discovered in my research that is most applicable to Obama-Rhodes:

 

“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” (Ibid.)

 

The last Goebbels quote is exactly the manipulation used on the press, Congress and American voters!

 

Fred Fleitz made this observation pertaining Obama-Rhodes and foreign policy in the National Review:

 

“Although Samuels’s article confirms what many Iran experts have said about the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, his profile of Rhodes is important because it explains the unprecedented incompetence, deceitfulness, and extreme partisanship of Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), and it further reveals that the president has allowed his NSC staff to run his foreign policy.” (Junior Obama NSC Staffers Lied About the Iran Deal and Are Running U.S. Foreign Policy; By Fred Fleitz; National Review; 5/9/16 4:00 AM)

 

It would do you well to read that entire Fleitz article.

 

Something to think about is that a Hillary Clinton presidency would simply be a continuation of the Obama Administration deception to the American public as well as the furthering of Obama’s Gramsciesq transformation of America and a New World Order.

 

YOU NEED to understand what a Gramsci transformation agenda looks like:

 

Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection. (From Determine The Networks but cross posted at SlantRight 2.0Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism; posted by John R. Houk; 4/2/13)

Antonio Gramsci 79th anniv. death 4-27-16

Antonio Gramsci photo 79th Anniversary of Death

You clueless American voters that support Obama and Hillary YOU are supporting the Gramsci Marxist Transformation. Ergo you millennial voters that think Hillary or Sanders will make your life better are deceiving yourselves into Marxist slavery.

 

Here is a good look at what Marxist slavery looks like from the excerpted thoughts of Chuck Braman:

 

Karl Marx claimed that economics determines history, and that one’s economic class determines one’s ideas. Ironically, he proved himself wrong, in a deadly way. The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which Marx himself created. These ideas proceeded to shape the history of the twentieth century, including its political and economic history, as well as the ideas of most twentieth century intellectuals. This history included approximately one hundred million innocent citizens slaughtered by Marxist governments, millions more enslaved by Marxist governments, international conflicts on an unprecedented scale, and an intellectual tradition that, at present, is thoroughly entrenched in the humanities and is in the process of destroying the ideas and ideals of the West. …

 

 

The underlying epistemological error that Marx commits early in the Manifesto is the advocacy of a form of intellectual determinism and relativism which denies both free will and objectivity by claiming that the truth and falsehood of one’s ideas bear no objective status and are determined by, and their truth relative to, one’s economic class. He says, “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property… don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply… the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.” And: “Law, morality and religion are… bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.”

 

What Marx is claiming here is that the entire Western philosophic and intellectual tradition, as it had developed up until his time (and on which, ironically, he was entirely dependent for his own ideas), is a subjective rationalization used to justify the “exploitation” of the workers by the capitalists, a tradition consisting of ideas which are neither consciously chosen by the capitalists, nor have any basis in fact. Thus, in a single swoop, Marx himself rationalizes the destruction not only of entire fields, such as law, but of Western culture as such, including its most fundamental concepts. (Contemporary manifestations of these Marxian premises taught in modern universities include the doctrines of “Deconstruction,” “Neo-Pragmatism,” and “Multiculturalism.”)

 

… Having dismissed freedom, culture, morality and law as subjective myths, Marx then feels free to advocate their outright destruction by the totalitarian State, which he refers to as the “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products,” resulting in the elimination of “class culture.”

 

 

… The random killing of groups of people, linked by class status or profession (such as homeowners and high school teachers) immediately followed. The “bourgeois notion” of freedom was eliminated by throwing those who were not murdered outright into concentration and labor camps. Consistent with Marxian subjectivism, objections to slave labor were brushed aside by Lenin’s associate Karl Radek as “the bourgeois prejudice of ‘freedom of labor'”.

 

Hitler, of course, would soon apply the same methods on a larger scale in his National Socialism, adapting the Soviet model to his own ideology by substituting the concept of race for class. Thus, in Marx’s epistemological ideas, began the intellectual subjectivism, the moral relativism, and mass murder of the totalitarian governments in our century.

 

The “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products” in order to eliminate “class culture” were made a reality both in the Soviet Union and Red China, whose leaders, Stalin and Mao, systematically smashed Western culture in “Cultural Revolutions” in 1946 and 1966-67 respectively. During these intellectual purges, Western-influenced “bourgeois” scientists and artists were killed or imprisoned, while their works were destroyed.

 

READ ENTIRE DOCUMENT (The Communist Manifesto:
Philosophic and Economic Ideas/Historic Consequences
; By Chuck Braman; ChuckBraman.com; © 1994)

 

The point is the elites of the Democratic Party have already transformed that political party that is democratic-socialist at best and at worst a Gramsci-style Marxist destroyer of the founding principles of America’s Founding Fathers. And that which is even more heinous the Marxist elites of the current Dem Party are using the same instruments of governing from the Founding Fathers to undermine America’s founding principles and destroy what has made America an exceptional nation among nations. A HILLARY VOTE OR NON-TRUMP VOTE IS A VOTE TO END AMERICA as it was meant to be as a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.

 

Further Reading:

 

 

 

 

 

The inspiration of my thoughts a FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield.

 

JRH 5/14/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS

But Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that the American Left needs.

 Mutant Anti-American Leftist Protestors

By Daniel Greenfield

May 13, 2016

FrontPage Mag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

The New York Times profile of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, had plenty of shocking moments from his attempt to cover up Iran’s abduction of US sailors to his blatant gloating over the stupidity of the journalists whom he manipulated into spreading his lies in support of the Iran deal.

 

But the larger revelation is also simpler. Ben Rhodes knows next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely”.

 

That’s another way of describing a foreign policy built on isolationism.

 

Obama’s interviews are liberally spiced with contempt for the Europeans, whose foreign policy he adopted, and even former Islamist allies like Turkey are being treated with disdain. He despises both traditional US allies such as the UK and Israel, but he also has little use for the enemies, such as Russia and the Sunni Islamists, whom he tried to court. About the only enemy nation he still likes is Iran.

 

The first wave of Democratic backlash to the Iraq War was to champion diplomacy over military intervention. But diplomacy without intervention proved toothless. All that’s left now is a warped isolationism in which the US still pays the bills, signs all sorts of meaningless international accords that compromise our interests, but completely abandons its leadership role as a world power.

 

Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without regard to its relevance.

 

The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”, the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.

 

This problem did not begin yesterday.

 

Senator Ted Kennedy’s infamous letter to the Soviet leadership was seen as treasonous. But as a practical matter it revealed that an aspiring president had no interest in the USSR except to use it in a domestic battle against Reagan. Democrats had similarly supported and then turned against the Iraq War over domestic politics. Not only had they backed the removal of Saddam Hussein in the past, but Obama’s regime change in Libya showed that they did not believe any of their own critiques of regime change or unilateral intervention. Their foreign policy was based entirely on a domestic agenda.

 

Earlier generations of Democrats did have a comprehensive foreign policy based on ideas. It might be wrong, but it did exist. The Clinton-Kerry generation was very interested in talking about foreign policy, but viewed it purely in terms of opposing the Vietnam War as a critique of American power.

 

They had no other ideas to offer and it showed.

 

Without the Cold War, the Clinton era reduced foreign policy to multilateral diplomacy that existed to resolve conflicts and prevent genocide. But diplomacy proved useless in Rwanda and Bosnia. So Clinton ignored the former and used ruthless force casually for the latter. Meanwhile his foreign policy couldn’t process the rise of Al Qaeda and the growing threat of Islamic terrorism which led inevitably to 9/11.

 

Hillary Clinton is offering up a freezer fresh version of the same thing. The policies that failed her badly in Syria, Libya and across the Middle East are the only foreign policy offerings that she has for sale.

 

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.

 

And a Clinton was behind both.

 

Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position to build up credibility for a presidential run. The invasion of Libya was a platform to take her to the White House. Libya did not matter to her. While the State Department blew through fortunes to finance her self-promotion, the Benghazi mission lacked basic security. Even the Jihadists who were hired on to provide security weren’t getting paid.

 

And that led to the murder of four Americans.

 

It’s a short distance from Ted Kennedy trying to figure out how he could use Soviet officials to undermine Reagan and become president to Hillary Clinton seeing regime change in Libya as a campaign commercial right down to the punchy media-friendly slogan, “We came, We saw, He died.”

 

Democratic foreign policy is animated by political careerism and the conviction that American power is the problem. Beyond that lies a deep and abiding ignorance of the actual conflicts and issues abroad.

 

The left’s reflexive anti-Americanism makes it easy to be ignorant while appearing knowledgeable. It allows the conflation of domestic policy critiques with foreign policy by blaming America for everything. Anything that doesn’t fit into the neat anti-American box can be waved away with some clichés about the importance of global communication, global poverty, trade policies, global warming and reform.

 

Democrats didn’t have to understand Iraq. They just had to know it was Bush’s fault. First it was Bush I’s fault for not removing Saddam Hussein, as Democrats and the media instead he should have. Then it was Bush II’s fault for removing Saddam, which Democrats and the media had now decided he shouldn’t have. But blaming Bush I and II didn’t actually teach them anything about Iraq. And so they had no idea what to do about it.

 

Bill Clinton ricocheted from bombing Iraq to trying to trying to ignore it. Obama followed the same course, first trying to ignore it and then bombing it. Neither of them understood anything about Iraq. While Obama still boasts of having gotten Iraq right, that’s because no one reminds him that back in the Senate he was insisting that Iraqis would achieve a political solution once American soldiers had left.

 

The political solution they achieved was a bloody civil war culminating in ISIS.

But Obama’s understanding of Iraq was limited to blaming America for its problems. He didn’t know anything else and he didn’t feel that he had to.

 

The rise of ISIS happened because Democrats didn’t feel they had to know anything about Iraq except that it was Bush’s fault. When Bush tried to get Assad to cut off the flow of Al Qaeda terrorists into Iraq, leading Democrats, including Pelosi and Kerry, rushed to support Assad against President Bush.

 

That flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq eventually became the basis for ISIS.

 

It’s no wonder that Obama has never been able to come up with a working plan for Syria. Blaming Bush is not a plan. And it’s a particularly bad plan in this case.

 

Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us. Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.

 

Anti-Americanism is the foreign policy of fools. It’s not smart power. It’s ignorance and prejudice with a dictionary.

___________________

Obama-Rhodes: America’s Eminent Future?

John R. Houk

© May 14, 2016

___________________

ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so READ THE REST

 

Donate to Front Page Magazine

It’s Time to PREVENT a Dem from POTUS


Donald Trump-Ted Cruz Happier Days

Happier Days

John R. Houk

© May 4, 2016

 

I am a Cruzer. BUT Senator Cruz has suspended his candidacy for the GOP nomination for POTUS. YET, if Cruz has any kind national future as a leader in the United States – I will again be a Cruzer. The Financial Times provides a decent summary that correlates to the reason I chose to be a Cruzer:

A self-described fighter for “limited government, economic growth and the Constitution”, Mr Cruz joined the Senate in 2012, boosted by support from the anti-establishment Tea party. He quickly earned a reputation as a wrecker, championing controversial attempts to scupper the implementation of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law in 2013, in an effort that included a 21-hour filibuster in the Senate floor that helped pave the way to a government shutdown, and during which he read “Green Eggs and Ham” to his daughters on television. (Bold Text Mine – How Ted Cruz dropped the ball in his bid for the White House; By Sam Fleming & Demetri Sevastopulo; Financial Times; Last updated: 5/4/16 6:53 am)

 

I can add (Ted’s Website and OnTheIssues) that Senator Ted Cruz is an Evangelical Christian a son of a Pastor AND a huge supporter of Israel as America’s partner in the Middle East. I can also add Ted supported obliterating ISIS with the Rules of Engagement that would including a WWII-style crushing goal of victory at all costs. Gosh let me add the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy with an entirely different and simpler tax code AND a strong border to keep illegal alien out.

 

You can read the conventional wisdom of anti-Trump Conservative publication the National Review of the reasons Ted failed in 2016 in the article entitled “The Weaknesses that Doomed Ted Cruz”. But here’s the humble opinion of a small potatoes Christian Right blogger (i.e. me):

 

Ted Cruz failed to vigorously campaign based on the reasons he came from behind to win the Senate seat in Texas and take on the Republican Establishment at the National Level in both Houses of Congress. Rather Ted spent much of his campaign highlighting Trump’s negatives including The Donald’s propensity to communicate like a New York tycoon. As an ex-telemarketer I can tell you will not sell or have a pleasant conversation with a New York/New Jersey person by being a polite nice guy. The New Yorker will lose patience and rip you to shreds quite probably with insulting words you may not have used since becoming a responsible adult. I had to mirror the New Yorker language mannerism to come close to making a sale. I can’t recall how many times I nearly got into trouble with my managers for talking like a rude New Yorker until … I MADE A SALE.

 

When a Christian who has made his political stock on integrity and faithfulness to Conservative ideology, tries to match a New Yorker in tit-for-tat character devaluation, that Christian will fail and tarnish himself in the meantime. I pray Ted has learned that lesson for future campaigns or dialogues, because it was Ted’s demise in attempting to win the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.

 

Let me be honest. I am no longer a registered Republican. In 2012 I was not a Romney guy. I considered him a RINO at best and a closet Liberal at worst. And yet he won the GOP nomination. In 2012 I was (and it holds true today!) that Obama was a Socialist in not also a closet Communist, who had huge sympathies toward the Islamic religion because of his Dad and stepfather. I am fairly convinced that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Christian. Obama’s deceptive politics of the Left means at best he is a Progressive Christian denying the Divinity and the miraculous of the Bible as only adages rather than Truth. Shucks partner, for that matter Obama could be a Progressive Muslim (if such a thing can exist) denying all the absolutes of Islamic theo-politics while also looking to the Mecca portions of the Quran as an adage rather truth.

 

If Muslims in the West understood that Obama is using Islam to promote a Leftist New World Order in order to completely destroy the Christian influenced Old World Order, those violent absolutists would mark Obama for assassination. Obama should thank whatever Black Liberation Theology (BLT) deity he might believe in that he lives in a nation that is tolerant to all religious faiths to a fault and tolerant to both Left and Right ideologies. Americans have no clue that Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda for America correlates to the intolerance of Biblical Christian principles and the Founding Father principles that made America a great nation.

 

That lack of understanding of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda led to American voters electing Obama in 2008 and reelecting Obama in 2012. Romney’s HUGE FAILURE was not attacking the Obama lies and the Benghazi lies of 2012 that should have elected Romney as President. Instead Romney stuck to political correctness of a RINO/Liberal and allowed Obama to back him into shadowland every time Romney dipped his little toe in the shallow pond of exposing Obama’s and essentially Hillary’s lies.

 

Romney’s failure to NOT expose the Obama/Hillary lies resulted in reelection in 2012 and me leaving the Republican Party and registering as an Independent.

 

I still believe Ted Cruz would have defeated any Dem Party candidate for President in this 2016 election cycle. Cruz was anti-establishment and a principled Conservative.

 

I am just not sure that Donald Trump can follow through in being a principled Conservative. Nonetheless, if Trump sticks to his guns on those anti-establishment and non-politically correct promises he has put forth, then Trump should be able to not only dip his little toe into the exposé-pond, but also should be able to immerse himself in the ability to expose Hillary Clinton as the lying crook that she inherently is.

 

AND so as a registered Independent I am voting for Donald Trump for President in November 2016.

 

JRH 5/4/16

Please Support NCCR

More: JASTA, Saudi Threats against U.S. Economy & 28 Classified Pages


BHO Broken Promise- 28 Pages

John R. Houk – Editor

 

Here are a series of posts I discovered after cross posting the New York Sun’s essay – Obama v. 9/11 Families (of which I included a short relevant intro) – at three of my active blogs.

 

JRH 4/20/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

By Steve Vladeck

April 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM

Just Security

 

For lots of readers, I suspect Saturday’s front-page New York Times story by Mark Mazzetti was their first exposure to the ongoing efforts by 9/11 victims and their families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia and other entities in U.S. courts over their alleged role in providing financial support for the September 11 attacks. Indeed, allegations of Saudi involvement are also back in the public eye in connection with the possible declassification of 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report that supposedly deal with the role and responsibility of various senior Saudi officials.

 

In a nutshell, (1) the 9/11 plaintiffs’ claims–that the Saudi government and a wide range of other entities, including banks, provided material support to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks–have gone nowhere, thanks to a series of shifting (but now largely stabilized) court rulings concerning the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); (2) Congress is now considering legislation–the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)–that would in effect overrule each of those holdings; and (3) the Obama administration is, as Mark’s story explains, aggressively lobbying against that legislation, out of fears over the potential diplomatic and economic consequences of U.S. court judgments against the Saudi government that could run into the billions of dollars, and concerns over reciprocity from foreign countries.

 

In this post, I aim to provide a more detailed explanation of the legal background against which JASTA is being considered–so folks can better understand exactly what courts have held to date, and why JASTA could be a big deal, albeit in a very narrow class of cases.

 

I. The FSIA and theTerrorist AttacksLitigation

 

The shifting litigation sands vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia date back to a pair of 2005 district court rulings (In re Terrorist Attacks I and II), which threw out claims against the Saudi government and other state-run entities on the basis of the FSIA’s “discretionary function” exception. That exception preserves the sovereign immunity of foreign states even over non-commercial torts (for which the FSIA otherwise allows suits) if the tort resulted from discretionary conduct on the part of a foreign sovereign (e.g., whether to provide financial support to particular entities with links to terrorist organizations).

 

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in In re Terrorist Attacks III, albeit on different grounds: The Court of Appeals there held that a different FSIA provision, waiving the sovereign immunity of “state sponsors of terrorism,” was the exclusive means for seeking to hold a foreign sovereign liable for its involvement in acts of terrorism, and so the fact that the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia a “state sponsor of terrorism” precluded liability under any of the FSIA’s other exceptions (including the non-commercial tort exception) for terrorism-related claims. The court also held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over many of the other defendants (a holding that the Second Circuit would expand upon in its April 2013 decision in Terrorist Attacks IV).

 

The plaintiffs in Terrorist Attacks III sought certiorari, at which point the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General. In its “CVSG” brief, the U.S. government recommended that the Court deny certiorari–albeit on an alternative ground from that relied upon by the Second Circuit: In then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s view, the FSIA could theoretically allow a foreign sovereign to be held liable for terrorism-related non-commercial torts even if it was not a state sponsor of terrorism, but only if, as the Supreme Court had already interpreted the non-commercial tort exception in Amerada Hess, the “entire tort” took place within the territorial United States (as opposed to the injury arising from the tort).

 

As the government argued, even taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, a material amount of the allegedly tortious conduct (including the alleged help in financing the 9/11 attacks) took place overseas. Thus, the government offered a far narrower (and less vulnerable) ground on which to defend the Second Circuit’s ruling–which may have had a lot to do with the Supreme Court’s subsequent denial of certiorari, which appeared to conclude (at least at the time) the Terrorist Attacks litigation.

 

Things would indeed have ended there, except that, in 2011, the Second Circuit overruled its holding in In re Terrorist Attacks III, concluding in a different case (Doe v. Bin Laden) that the exceptions to the FSIA for non-commercial torts and state sponsors of terrorism were wholly unrelated–and therefore provided independent grounds on which to hold foreign sovereigns liable in U.S. courts. In other words, under Doe, a foreign sovereign that is not a “state sponsor of terrorism” can still be held liable for terrorism-related conduct under the FSIA, so long as one of the other exceptions–including the non-commercial tort exception–applies.

 

The Doe ruling led the Terrorist Attacks plaintiffs to file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment in their earlier case, which provoked its own round of litigation, culminating in the Second Circuit’s December 2013 ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the earlier judgment, which sent the case back to the district court for (re-)litigation of the original merits. Finally, last September, the district court nevertheless granted Saudi Arabia’s renewed motion to dismiss based upon the FSIA–because, as the U.S. government had argued in its 2009 CVSG brief in Terrorist Attacks III, the “entire tort” did not take place within the territorial United States, and so the non-commercial tort exception did not abrogate Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity. That ruling itself is now being appealed to the Second Circuit–so the underlying litigation remains very much ongoing…

 

II. The Anti-Terrorism Act and Aiding-and-Abetting Liability

 

Although the effort to hold the Saudi Arabian government liable notwithstanding the FSIA has received most of the headlines, there have also been concerted efforts by the 9/11 families to hold private individuals and entities liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act–which creates civil remedies for U.S. nationals to obtain triple damages against those responsible for injuries arising out of “an act of international terrorism,” but, notoriously, does not specify the parties against which such liability may be pursued, or the theories upon which such liability may be predicated.

 

As relevant here, the biggest open question is whether the ATA allows theories of “secondary liability,” i.e., whether claims may be maintained against entities that were not directly responsible for the underlying act of international terrorism, but that somehow supported it (including by aiding and abetting the perpetrators). Both the Second and Seventh Circuits (the latter sitting en banc) have expressly held that the ATA does not allow claims based upon common law understandings of secondary (or accessory) liability, although the Seventh Circuit in Boim III nevertheless adopted an expansive theory of primary liability–what Judge Posner called “primary liability . . . [with] the character of secondary liability.” As he explained, “In addition to providing material support after the effective date of section 2339A, a donor to terrorism, to be liable under section 2333, must have known that the money would be used in preparation for or in carrying out the killing or attempted killing of, conspiring to kill, or inflicting bodily injury on, an American citizen abroad.” Indeed, the Seventh Circuit explained, such not-quite-secondary liability requires proof of intentional misconduct–a high (and potentially insurmountable) hurdle to holding banks, governments, and other entities liable on a theory that they did nothing more than provide material support to the perpetrators of the underlying acts.

 

And the Second Circuit subsequently held that the ATA also requires proximate causation, i.e., that the tortfeasor’s contribution be a “substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation and whose injury was reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence.”

 

I don’t mean to get lost in the doctrinal weeds (which are, as should be clear, quite densely packed). The larger point is that these circuit-level decisions, together with the nature of the 9/11 attacks themselves, have made it difficult to use the ATA to impose any civil liability against those indirectly responsible for September 11.

 

III.  JASTA

 

Understanding this litigation background should help to put into perspective exactly what JASTA does. The bill passed the Senate but died in the House in the 113th Congress, and has, to date, only gotten out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 114th Congress. As relevant here, JASTA would work four material changes to existing law:

 

  • It would amend the non-commercial tort exception to the FSIA to abrogate sovereign immunity in tort suits “in which money damages are sought against a foreign state arising out of physical injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of the office or employment of the official or employee (regardless of where the underlying tortious act or omission occurs), including any statutory or common law tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a claim arising out of such an act.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to expressly allow aiding-and-abetting liability not in all cases, but in cases arising out of an act of international terrorism “committed, planned, or authorized” by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO): “[L]iability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to allow personal jurisdiction against such entities to the constitutional limit “for acts of international terrorism in which any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business by reason of such an act in violation of section 2333.”

 

  • It would also amend the ATA to repeal the prohibition on suits against “a foreign state, an agency of a foreign state, or an officer or employee of a foreign state or an agency thereof acting within his or her official capacity or under color of legal authority.”

 

JASTA’s amendments to the FSIA and ATA would apply to any civil action “pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment of this Act; and . . . arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after September 11, 2001.” In other words, the new law would apply to some pending cases–all those in which the underlying injury took place on or after September 11. Claims arising before September 11 would, presumably, not be covered.

 

IV. Taking Stock

 

It is certainly Congress’s prerogative to expand the scope of statutory liability that it created in the first place. And it’s hard to argue that amending the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow aiding-and-abetting liability (and more expansive personal jurisdiction) against private entities raises foreign relations and diplomatic questions nearly as grave or fraught as those provoked by the FSIA amendment.

 

The much more sensitive part of JASTA is the FSIA amendment and the last ATA amendment–which could be especially powerful for tort claims against foreign sovereigns that (1) are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism; but (2) could nevertheless be held liable in tort for “extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for” an act of international terrorism within the United States, even where much of the underlying tort occurred overseas. At least at the moment, that basically appears to be at most a class of one–to wit, Saudi Arabia, at least if the allegations in the pending lawsuits are true.

 

Although it’s easy to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs in the Terrorist Attacks litigation, as Mark explained in his Times article,

 

Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

 

Those reciprocity considerations, combined with the concerns about the United States’ diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and the potential economic consequences if, as a result of the bill, Saudi Arabia seeks to withdraw as many of its financial resources from U.S. territory as possible, are what potentially makes JASTA such a fraught proposition.

 

I don’t have a strong position on whether Congress should enact JASTA’s FSIA amendment or the last amendment to the ATA, largely because I’m not in a good position accurately to balance the ramifications of enacting JASTA against the unquestioned entitlement of the 9/11 victims and their families to appropriate legal relief, or to assess whether, if the FSIA and last ATA amendment were excised, JASTA’s amendments to the rest of the ATA would still go a sufficiently long way toward providing the 9/11 victims and their families with meaningful judicial redress. Moreover, I suspect reasonable minds will disagree about which of these compelling but competing considerations should receive greater weight. My hope, though, is that this post will at least help to illuminate what the legal obstacles to relief for the 9/11 families have been to date, what JASTA would do to eliminate them, and why, per Mark’s story in Saturday’s Times, it has proven so controversial.

 

Update (4/18/2016, 6:14 p.m. EDT): This post has been revised to clarify the effect of JASTA’s fourth provision–which would not create a new exception to liability for the U.S. government and its officers, but would rather excise the existing bar on liability for foreign states and their officers. Thanks to a careful reader for prompting this important clarification!

 

Steve Vladeck is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. Steve is a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. Follow him on Twitter (@steve_vladeck).

 

+++

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

A bi-partisan bill has been proposed in Congress that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

April 19, 2016

Clarion Project

 

The Twin Towers on fire after 9-11 Attack

The Twin Towers on fire during the September 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City. (Photo: © Reuters)

 

Saudi Arabia has threatened economic retaliation if the U.S. passes pending legislation that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would permit victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis and other financial partners of terrorism. The Obama administration is vigorously trying to block the bill.

 

Saudi Arabia warned it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if the bill is passed. Delivering the message personally in Washington, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Congress Saudi Arabia would sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets before they would be in jeopardy of being frozen by American courts.

 

Saudi Arabia denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks, however, the official U.S. government report on the attack contains 28 censored pages on the topic of “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers.” Investigators say these pages confirm the Saudi’s role in the 2001 attacks that claimed the lives of close to 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000.

 

For years, the Saudis have asked for the release of the censored pages, but the Bush administration said disclosure would damage the U.S.’ ability to gather intelligence on terrorists. The Obama administration also refused to release the redacted pages.

 

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Other evidence of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks includes information leaked from the censored pages including the documentation of a series of phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to one of the hijacker’s handlers in San Diego.

 

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was sent to prison for his role in the attacks said members of the Saudi royal family donated funds to al-Qaeda. He also said he personally met a Saudi diplomat in Washington to plot the assassination of the U.S. president using a surface-to air missile. The two discussed bombing the U.S. Embassy in London as well.

 

“The Saudis have known what they did in 9/11, and they knew that we knew what they did, at least at the highest levels of the U.S. government,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 congressional inquiry commission.

 

Families tried in the past to sue the Saudi government, but the cases were rejected due to a 1976 law granting foreign nations immunity from lawsuits in the American judicial system.

 

“I think part of the concern is that somehow this is a thumb in the eye to Saudi Arabia, a valuable ally,” said Senate-sponsor Cornyn. “It’s not open-ended and it’s not targeted at Saudi Arabia.”

 

Cornyn also dismissed the threats from Saudi Arabia. “It’s seems overly defensive to me and I doubt they can do it,” he said. “I don’t think we should let foreign countries dictate the domestic policy of the United States.”

 

 

Other analysts say it is unlikely the Saudis will follow through on their threats.

All of the presidential candidates support the bill, expect John Kasich, who has not commented on it to date.

 

+++

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

Relevant Radio ‘The Drew Mariani Show’
April 19, 2016

Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

[Blog Editor: To listen to the audio, you can either go to the IPT post or go to this podcast link: http://relevantradio.streamguys.us/DM%20Archive/DM20160418c.mp3]

 

[Start transcript]

 

Drew Mariani: Hey, when the planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon back on 9/11, remember that, Osama bin Laden was revealed as the mastermind behind it. We knew at the time that there was an obvious Middle Eastern terrorism link. What we didn’t know was what countries were involved and to what extent. We went into Afghanistan, well, because you know that’s where bin Laden was holed up and why we sent troops into Afghanistan, and you know we didn’t know about the rest. The most disturbing was that we didn’t know that Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden was born and raised, could have played a role in this. You know Congress investigated the events surrounding 9/11; they came up with a 400-page report, and that was released to the public. And I should say most of it was released to the public. I think they held back about 28 pages and they’re still labeled as classified. But what’s contained on those pages is really fodder for a lot of conversation right now. It’s suspected to contain information on Saudi Arabia’s role on that fateful day. Right now Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it’s going to sell off hundreds-of-billions of dollars’ worth of American assets, it will be a huge asset dump held by their kingdom, if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government basically to be held responsible in American courts for any role in September 11th in 2001, when those attacks took place. The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill, according to some officials. But the Saudi threats have been of course the subject now of intense discussion in recent weeks between both lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. And a number of officials have warned basically senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from you know any sort of legislation. So what’s going to happen? And what is the truth behind all this? Joining me right now is Pete Hoekstra. He’s the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, and former member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. And Peter, thank you for your time. It’s good to have you back. I know you just came out with a book, I want to plug that for you too. It’s called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya. It came out about four months ago, folks, you may want to check that out. And you can learn more about him at investigativeproject.org. This is a big story. How do you know how do we know Saudi Arabia is involved and you know what do you think’s going to happen ultimately with you know Congress and possible legislation?

 

Pete Hoekstra: Well a couple of things, number one – I’ve been advocating for the last period of time that these 28 pages be made public, that if there need to be some redactions to protect sources, those redactions be made, but overall that the public 13 years after this report was completed, now almost 15 years after 9/11, you know they, the public deserves to see all of this information. And so it should move forward. In regards to the legislation that Senator Cruz is pushing, I’m not quite sure about a couple of things. I’m you know I’m not sure why we need to just highlight Saudi Arabia. Any country –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – that is identified with terrorism should be able to be held accountable; I’m thinking of Iran, should be able to be held accountable. So just singling out Saudi, I’m not sure that that is appropriate. There’s a number of countries that may in one form or another be somewhat supporters of terrorism against U.S. property, U.S. goods or U.S. persons. So let’s make sure that they can be held accountable. I think that the action that Saudi Arabia is talking about, and they’re not talking about disinvesting in the United States to punish the United States, the explanation that they’re giving is – we’ve got to disinvest in the United States because if we actually become liable and the courts find for some defendants that we are liable and you know hold us accountable or hold a judgment against us for X-hundreds-of-millions or a billion dollars, at that point in time the U.S. courts may come and seize U.S. assets that we own. And so what we want to do is to protect ourselves. We’re going to disinvest in the United States so that a U.S. court can’t freeze any of our assets. Oh, I think their economy and our economy and their, the assets they hold in the United States are so significant that they could never actually pull that off, pull it off successfully. If they did they’ve have to do it at a fire sale.

 

Mariani: Yeah.

 

Hoekstra: And they wouldn’t want to do that.

 

Mariani: Yeah, I read earlier today that they would be forced to sell about 750-billion dollars in Treasury securities and other assets. Again, I want to go back to you know what would happen if this did take place. Let’s take a worst-case scenario, say this is pushed and it goes through, what happens if the information is exposed and we find out Saudi Arabia had a, had something to do with 9/11?

 

Hoekstra: Well you know I’ve had access to those 28 pages. I think that this will, it will raise more questions than what it will answer. OK? I don’t think that someone will read through there and they will find, or again, who knows – some people may read it and they will see a smoking gun, others will read it and they will see something different, but I think what it, you know my belief is that what it will show is that you know this is not classified or a secret or whatever, you know. The Saudis have for years been funding radical jihadism in the form of funding radical mosques, believers in Wahhabism, where much of this hatred and doctrine of jihadism comes from, and they’ve been funding these mosques around the world. And so you know many of us have called for them to stop the funding of these kinds of mosques for an extended period of time.

 

Mariani: And let me just ask you, because you’ve had access to those 28 pages, are there other nations in addition to Saudi Arabia? It’s kind of the sense that I’m getting from you, it’s not just Saudi Arabia, there may be other nations involved?

 

Hoekstra: No, I don’t think if you go through there that you would see a litany of a number of different countries; I’m just saying from my experience with terrorism –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – is that you know there are a number of countries that are involved in terrorism and, or you know certain state governments, you know everything from the Palestinian Authority –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – to Iran, and these types of things, that you know any type of legislation like what Senator Cruz is proposing –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – shouldn’t be limited to just Saudi. That’s two very different issues.

 

Mariani: And your mindset right now is that they should be released, the American public has a right to know.

 

Hoekstra: Yeah. And we ought to just make sure that, you know it’s been 13 years since I’ve seen them, that if there is any sensitive information in there regarding sources or individuals that may have been the source of some of these information, make sure you redact that information. But other than that, let the information become public. It’s been a long time.

 

Mariani: Yeah, great. Before I let you go, because I only have a minute or two left –

Hoekstra: Sure.

 

Mariani: – you just came out with a book too, ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ I have not gotten the book or read it, but I would love to maybe have you back to talk about it. Fill me in, what was your book about?

 

Hoekstra: It’s about what happened in Libya. We had a tremendous success story in Libya. [Muammar] Gaddafi after years of being on the outside, you know supporting terrorism against the United States and the West, culminating really with the take-down of Pan Am 103. In 2004, he gave up his nuclear weapons program, he gave, he paid reparations to the victims of his terrorist attacks, and he became a partner in fighting radical jihadism with the United States, a bipartisan success of a consistent policy for 20 years and finally Gaddafi changed sides.

 

Mariani: Wow.

 

Hoekstra: In 2011, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama decided that Obama needed, or excuse me, that Gaddafi needed to go, they partnered with radical jihadists, and they were successful in getting rid of Gaddafi. And what we now have is you know for the last four years we’ve had a failed state. It’s now part of the caliphate. It’s exporting ideology, it’s exporting fighters, and it’s exporting weapons to Africa, to the Middle East and to Europe. It’s been a disaster. It’s, you know and for eight years there it was a rock of stability and certainty in northern Africa. And now it is the disaster of Libya, the destruction of Libya.

 

Mariani: Yeah, the book is called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ It’s available at all major bookstores. And Pete, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you for your service to the country and for the insight you’re able to offer. I always enjoy your, our conversations.

 

Hoekstra: Hey, thanks for the invite.

 

Mariani: Thank you.

 

Hoekstra: I enjoyed being with you.

 

Mariani: Check him out too, the website is investigateproject.org [sic], investigativeproject.org, great site to check out.

 

[End transcript]

 

 

_____________

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

About Just Security

_____________

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

 

Copyright © 2016 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

_______________

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

THE TOWER OF BABEL


Economics definitely is not my strong suit. Athanasios Laspopoulos sent a submission to pertaining to the economic crisis facing Greece. The nation of Greece is facing a debt problem which American Conservatives suggest is due largely to an unaffordable entitlement society maintained by the Greek government. Athanasios paints another side of that debt crisis picture. He cites government corruption and the collusion of the European and Greek wealthy engendering that corruption.

Since I have gone through the editing process of Athanasios’ submission I am also posting the Greek version he sent along as well. So for those of you who read Greek you can see if I guessed correctly to sentence structures I was certain about. The Greek portion will be after the post credits.

JRH 7/14/15

Please Support NCCR

_____________________

THE TOWER OF BABEL

By Athanasios D. Laspopoulos

Sent: 7/11/2015 4:50 AM

I remember when I was at school, many years ago, that a course was developed for the Tower of Babel and a sketch showing a huge Tower building from thousands of people. As I remember the Tower was a building by many countries and different peoples in order to reach heaven and God. This project because of the multilingualism and misunderstanding was abandoned. Was this the model on which the EU was based on?? Because as I can see in pictures and the model, the EU [and the Tower] are made almost the same. And the funny thing is that in EU there are multiple states, multiple languages and a relative disconnection between the members just as it was happening at the Tower of Babel.

Seeing the results of the EU and Greece I begin to believe that somewhere we are confused, because Germany, the great economic power of Europe, is not watching what happens in her banks and especially the Deutsche Bank one of the strongest banks in the world which is at risk to blow up a great number of the Economics of Germany and other states, but tries to restrict the lending in Greece which Greece so much needs in order to continue its development in Tourism and Industry.

Of course, from Greece we have people who instead of looking to restrict or control the NSRF (ΕΣΠΑ) [National Strategic Reference Framework: 2007 – 2013 and 2014 – 2020] and development programs, they have left to promiscuity various favorite persons of politicians to consistently skim the state and not perform any work. Those “gentlemen” naturally have the way to be covered legally, with the state completely ignoring and not wanting to do anything about them.

Certainly the same political parties, that were previously in power, cared to cover many of these illegalities. Of course today we ask an Elected Government for just a few months to find a solution to this entire mess of theft and corruption. Despite all the complaints that have been made, if the Government will not stop the famous SA covered with the name “Non Profit” Greece [Blog Editor: Please forgive my economics ignorance – I suspect a SA refers to nonprofit public limited company] will not have any growth. The only thing we can do is to point, to anyone who wants of course, [to find] where the problem is.

People working for [an] Independent Journalism Agency investigate [Blog Editor: Perhaps this is an example] by themselves in all areas, are people who have not gotten any grant or program that pays them a profit and they pay all costs by themselves funded only by their relatives because they are unemployed and basically poor. Knowing that they will not get any ‘well done’ or ‘you do your job well’ and having threats directly or indirectly, for the good of our country they continue to work day and night to find some satisfaction in their work and to improve our country’s Economy.

Of course in addition I would like to say that any project we propose finds the door closed and it falls into a bureaucracy that makes it unattractive for its continuation because anyone who wants to deal knows that there will be no Government or Bank assistance because everything is done for profit of [the] Government’s favorite people or not and various “Families” who dominate Greece [Blog Editor: This Zero Hedge article could be enlightening – “How Fascist Capitalism Functions: The Case Of Greece”].

They have come some lowers and not and suggested me to go to denounce [Blog Editor: I suspect Athanasios’ sentence meaning is lost in translation – Perhaps Athanasios means to say, “I need to be wary when investigations lead me to denounce Greek Authorities] to the Authorities all the irregularities and illegalities. This is funny because I have personally made several complaints to the authorities and they answered that the case entered the Archive. After that I’m sorry but I have no more courage when I find no right anywhere because of bureaucracy and some mindless functionaries of justice and so we lose all our trust to denounce something that is fair and right.

For example: Recently, I have been beaten and robbed and citizens who rushed to stand by me told me to call the police and report it. But the funny thing is that the same Authorities would tell me to sue VS [Blog Editor: I have no guess if “VS” is acronym or abbreviation] unknown person. I am not complaining, but I regret how we got there.

For all that I write I can bring evidence and data on the severity of the case. But I don’t want to disturb the Authorities and the State because this time they have larger problems than me.

We have a new Government, young persons, whom the people have elected and instead of standing by them to help them, we look in every way to sabotage them in order to enable again the old Government to recover their chairs and bring us more [of an] Economic destructive crisis.

Athanasios D. Laspopoulos

Journalist

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Athanasios D. Laspopoulos

For more information contact me at laspopoulos@ifroc.eu

If you have not received the previous articles or you want to download them in editable form (Word .doc) for publishing, you can find them all here:

http://ifroc.eu/kataggelies

Feel free to share this with content and attachments with friends via email and social media, in an attempt of helping us fight corruption and spread the word about this to everyone.

+++

[ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ]

ΟΠΥΡΓΟΣΤΗΣΒΑΒΕΛ

Θυμάμαι από τα σχολικά μου χρόνια, πολλά χρόνια πίσω, που αναπτύχθηκε ένα μάθημα για τον Πύργο της Βαβέλ και ένα σκαρίφημα έδειχνε ένα τεράστιο Πύργο που έκτιζαν άνθρωποι. Από ότι θυμάμαι αυτό είχε γίνει από πολλά κράτη και διαφόρους λαούς για να φτάσουν στον ουρανό τον Θεό. Αυτό το έργο όμως μετά από την πολυγλωσσία και ασυνεννοησία εγκαταλείφθηκε. Μήπως ήταν το μοντέλο που πήρε η Ε.Ε. ; γιατί όπως βλέπω σε φωτογραφίες και αυτό που έχτισε η Ε.Ε. είναι σχεδόν το ίδιο. Και το αστείο της υπόθεσης είναι ότι και στην Ε.Ε. έχουμε πολλαπλά κράτη, πολλαπλές γλώσσες και μία σχετική ασυνεννοησία μεταξύ των μελών του όπως ακριβώς συνέβαινε και στον Πύργο της Βαβέλ.

Βλέποντας τα αποτελέσματα της Ε.Ε. και της Ελλάδας αρχίζω να πιστεύω ότι κάπου έχουμε μπερδευτεί, γιατί η Γερμανία, η μεγάλη οικονομική δύναμη της Ευρώπης, δεν κοιτάει τι συμβαίνει στις Τράπεζες της και ειδικά της Deutsche Bank μία από τις ισχυρότερες Τράπεζες του κόσμου που βρίσκεται σε κίνδυνο να τινάξει στον αέρα ένα μεγάλο μέρος των οικονομικών της Γερμανίας και άλλων κρατών, αλλά προσπαθεί να περιορίσει την Ελλάδα σε δανειοδοτήσεις τις οποίες η Ελλάδα τόσο πολύ χρειάζεται για να συνεχίσει την ανάπτυξή της στον Τουρισμό και την Βιομηχανία.

Βέβαια και από την Ελλάδα έχουμε ανθρώπους που αντί να κοιτάξουν να περιορίσουν ή να ελέγξουν τα ΕΣΠΑ και τα αναπτυξιακά προγράμματα έχουν αφήσει στην ασυδοσία διαφόρους ευνοούμενους των πολιτικών να ξαφρίζουν συστηματικά το κράτος και να μην αποδίδουν κανένα έργο. Οι κύριοι αυτοί όπως είναι φυσικό έχουν τρόπο να καλύπτονται νομικά, με το κράτος να έχει πλήρη άγνοια και να μην θέλει να κάνει τίποτα γι’ αυτό.

Ασφαλώς τα ίδια πολιτικά κόμματα που βρίσκονταν στο παρελθόν στην εξουσία φρόντισαν να καλύψουν πολλές από αυτές τις παρανομίες. Βέβαια σήμερα ζητούμε από μια εκλεγμένη κυβέρνηση μόλις ολίγων μηνών να βρει λύση σε όλο αυτό το μπάχαλο κλοπής και διαφθοράς.

Παρ΄ όλες τις καταγγελίες που έχουν γίνει αν δεν σταματήσει ή κυβέρνηση τις περίφημες Α.Ε.

που καλύπτονται με την επωνυμία «Μη Κερδοσκοπικές» δεν θα έχει καμία ανάπτυξη.

Εμείς το μόνο που μπορούμε να κάνουμε είναι να υποδείξουμε, σε όποιον θέλει ασφαλώς, που βρίσκεται το πρόβλημα.

Ο κόσμος που εργάζεται για τον Ανεξάρτητο Δημοσιογραφικό Οργανισμό και ερευνά αφιλοκερδώς σε όλους τους τομείς, είναι άνθρωποι που δεν έχουν πάρει καμία επιχορήγηση ή πρόγραμμα που να τους αποδίδει κάποιο κέρδος και πληρώνουν όλα τα έξοδα που κάνουν εξ΄ ιδίων χρηματοδοτούμενοι μόνο από τους συγγενείς τους διότι είναι άνεργοι και φτωχοί στην ουσία.

Ξέροντας ότι δεν θα πάρουν κανένα ‘μπράβο’ ή ‘κάνετε καλά την δουλειά σας‘ και δεχόμενοι απειλές έμμεσα ή άμεσα, για το καλό της Πατρίδας μας συνεχίζουν να εργάζονται νυχθημερόν για να βρουν κάποια ικανοποίηση στην εργασία τους από την προσπάθεια βελτίωσης της οικονομίας της χώρας μας.

Βέβαια θα ήθελα να προσθέσω ότι οποιοδήποτε έργο προτείνουμε βρίσκει την πόρτα κλειστή και πέφτει σε μια γραφειοκρατία που το κάνει απωθητικό για την συνέχισή του γιατί οποιοσδήποτε θέλει να ασχοληθεί ξέρει ότι δεν πρόκειται να έχει καμία κυβερνητική ή τραπεζική βοήθεια γιατί όλα γίνονται για το κέρδος ημετέρων κυβερνητικών και μη και διαφόρων οικογενειών που διαφεντεύουν την Ελλάδα.

Έχουν έρθει ορισμένοι νομικοί και μη και μας έχουν συστήσει να πάμε να καταγγείλουμε στις Εισαγγελικές αρχές τις ατασθαλίες και παρανομίες. Αυτό είναι αστείο γιατί προσωπικά έχω κάνει αρκετές καταγγελίες στις αρχές και μου έχουν απαντήσει ότι μπήκε στο Αρχείο.

Μετά από αυτό λυπάμαι αλλά δεν έχω πια το κουράγιο όταν δεν βρίσκω κανένα δίκιο πουθενά γιατί μπλέκω στα γρανάζια της γραφειοκρατίας και μερικών ανεγκέφαλων λειτουργών της Δικαιοσύνης και έτσι χάνουμε όλα μας την εμπιστοσύνη μας να καταγγείλουμε κάτι που είναι δίκαιο και σωστό.

Π.χ. Πρόσφατα με κτύπησαν και με λήστεψαν και συμπολίτες που έτρεξαν να μου συμπαρασταθούν μου είπαν να φωνάξω την αστυνομία και να το καταγγείλω. Αλλά το αστείο είναι ότι οι ίδιες οι αρχές θα μου έλεγαν να κάνω μήνυση κατ’ αγνώστων. Δεν παραπονούμαι αλλά λυπάμαι για εκεί που έχουμε φτάσει.

Για όλα αυτά που γράφω μπορώ να φέρω αποδείξεις και στοιχεία για την σοβαρότητα του θέματος.

Δεν θα ήθελα όμως να απασχολήσω τις Αρχές και το κράτος γιατί αυτή την στιγμή έχουν μεγαλύτερα προβλήματα από αυτά που απασχολούν εμένα.

Έχουμε μια νέα Κυβέρνηση νέων ανθρώπων, τους οποίους ο λαός έχει εκλέξει, και αντί να συσπειρωθούμε όλοι να τους βοηθήσουμε, κοιτάμε με κάθε τρόπο να τους σαμποτάρουμε για να μπορέσουν πάλι οι παλαιοί Κυβερνητικοί να ανακτήσουν τις καρέκλες τους και να μας φέρουν σε μεγαλύτερη καταστρεπτική οικονομική κρίση.

Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες επικοινωνήστε μαζί μου στο 2103223788 ή στο  laspopoulos@ifroc.eu

Εάν δεν έχετε λάβει τα προηγούμενα άρθρα ή επιθυμείτε να τα κατεβάσετε σε επεξεργάσιμη μορφή (Word .doc) για δημοσίευση, μπορείτε να τα βρείτε όλα εδώ:

http://ifroc.eu/kataggelies

Μπορείτε ελέυθερα να μοιράζεστε αυτό το περιεχόμενο και τα συννημένα με φίλους μέσω email και κοινωνικά δίκτυα, στην προσπάθεια να μας βοηθήσετε στον αγώνα μας κατά τις διαφθοράς και να διαδώσουμε το μήνυμα σε όλους.

Αθανάσιος Δ. Λασπόπουλος

Δημοσιογράφος

Fascism and Trade in America


Justin Smith details how Obama’s Secret negotiations involving TPA and TiSA will undermine American sovereignty and rend Congress impotent on Immigration Policy that disfavors American employment in our own homeland. Consider this quote before reading Justin’s exposé:

It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guest workers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)

TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments. (TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy; By Daniel Costa and Ron Hira; Working Economic BlogEconomic Policy Institute; June 11, 2015 at 6:18 pm)

JRH 6/22/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Fascism and Trade in America

Optimism and Sheer Blind Stupidity

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/20/2015 5:58 PM

America is being sold out, and corporate interests are being placed above the interests of the American people, through the passage of Trade Promotion Authority and the subsequent scheduled anti-American trade “deals” already under final preparations towards a vote, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trade in Services Agreement. She is being sold out by a Republican majority, who value cheap labor, the “almighty” dollar and their own self-interests above America; by some Democrats, who value open borders and the advancement of global governance agendas over U.S. sovereignty.

On May 21st the Senate approved TPA, and Congress agreed on July 12th by a 218-208 vote. Congress also severed the symbiotic nature that the Senate had created between the TPA and the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, so the failure of either would not prevent the other one from advancing into law; the Senate will give a final vote on TPA sometime between now and July 31st.

When Congress suspends several of its most basic powers for the next six years and delegates them to the executive and Obama, who exhibits a caustic disdain for Our U.S. Constitution, just exactly how does this advance the best interests of the American people?

Under fast-track procedures, Obama writes implementing legislation unaltered and without any Congressional amendments or input, for any yet-unseen global trade agreement, no matter its content and how far reaching it might be. Once it is called to the floor, it is only allowed 20 hours of debate, and the vote threshold is lowered to a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes threshold of most major legislation or the 67 votes required to pass treaties; in essence, Congress has preapproved swift consideration of sweeping global treaties before reading the first word of text, contradicting misleading and erroneous assertions from the offices of Representative Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Scott DesJarlais and several others.

Andy McCarthy (political analyst) tells us there is not any danger in passing the TPA. He suggests that Congress and the Senate can simply vote down bad trade deals, however, lowering TPA’s threshold for passage to a simple majority will potentially make it easier for a bad deal to pass. And every single “trade deal” currently under consideration is bad for America.

Either our representatives are blissfully optimistic, or they are suffering from sheer blind stupidity, regarding fascism and “trade deals.” With 76% of our trade with the eleven other Trans-Pacific Partnership participants already covered by NAFTA, TPP is a blatant attempt by globalists to transfer a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures to international trade courts; and, the TPP is more centered on redistribution of U.S. wealth than on the mythical creature called “free trade.”

Far from facilitating “free trade,” TPP places U.S. companies at a clear disadvantage by exempting foreign countries from standards mandated by U.S. law (i.e. EPA), and it allows other harmful practices to continue. It does not address currency manipulation, which has the same impact on trade as tariffs, and even if it did, the world has witnessed past trade courts deliver incomprehensible rulings from the IMF concerning China’s numerous violations. It does not address the foreign border adjustable taxes (VATS), which are also de facto tariffs, and it does not properly address the problem of government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. And unfathomably, it allows the Investor State Dispute Resolution to be handled by the foreign tribunals, without providing any rationale as to why the U.S. Court systems are not good enough.

If these broad sweeping trade agreements that the U.S. has entered over past decades, like NAFTA, the Australian Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA and the U.S.-Korea agreement (KORUS), are so good for the American people, why have we found it now necessary to create and implement the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which provides federal aid to U.S. workers who lose their jobs due to foreign trade?

While Speaker John Boehner, Paul Ryan (R-WI) – House Ways and Means Chairman, Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have been assuring everyone that the TPP section on immigration does not enable the free flow of labor across borders, they have failed to mention that this subject is the entire focus of the soon-to-follow Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) [WikiLeaks]. Under Article 4 concerning “Entry and Temporary Stay of National Persons”, provisions for open immigration are seen, according to the Economic Policy Institute, that state signatories “shall not maintain or adopt Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit; essentially stating that U.S. laws limiting guest workers, only to jobs where no U.S. workers are available, are a violation of the treaty [See Also: TiSA Means Open Borders – Real Clear Politics 6/17/15].

Article 5 of TISA would allow corporations to transfer an unlimited number of foreign employees to America, under the guise of “contractual suppliers” and “business visitors”, in the same manner as the European Union does through its requirements for the free flow of labor. And just as this has caused double-digit unemployment in Western Europe, America can expect the TISA to increase U.S. unemployment numbers already in double-digits, if the truth were made plain by this administration and both political parties.

Since 1970, real hourly wages in the U.S. are lower today than they were more than four decades ago. The percentage of unemployed men ages 25-54 has grown from 6% in the 1960s to about 17% today, and since 2009, the number of women in the workforce has fallen by 3%.

Every American who loves this country should be demanding at the top of their voices that the Senate votes “NO” on TPP and TISA and any other trade deal that does not increase U.S. manufacturing jobs, opens foreign markets, reduces trade deficits and makes it easier for our businesses to succeed in America. Demand that Senators and negotiators put an end to deals that only benefit transnational mega corporations by allowing the movement of capital, businesses and people across borders without controls, damaging U.S. sovereignty. And demand that our leaders protect American interests, principles of responsible government, U.S. sovereignty and the American people.

Ultimately, this is about more than trade deals. The events of today will determine if America will retain Her sovereignty and power tomorrow. And, the American people must force their will over these events to ensure that Americans will rule themselves, rather than be ruled by bureaucrats, corporatists and transnationalist fascists.

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. The links are by the Editor and may be revised if Justin Smith notifies the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith