Does anyone wonder WHY in the world would President Barack Hussein Obama, went to such great lengths to cover-up what at first thought to be part of the Iran nuke deal, to the tune of nearly a half billion DOLLARS to Iran in foreign currency? That ½ BILLION now pretty much thought to be a ransom payment for release of dual American-Iran citizens.
NOW AGAIN! It has been discovered that ½ BILLION was really $$$$1.7 BILLION!
The House Intelligence Committee suspects all this cash was release illegally in an Obama money laundering scheme to avoid legal restrictions imposed by Congress. AGAIN the rest of the billions of dollars was wired to European banks then transferred into foreign currency and sent by that discovered clandestine unmarked cargo jet to Iran.
How has Obama gotten away with such overt illegalities without a hint of impeachment proceedings!? Talk about a corrupt government. The Executive Branch actively tries to deceive the Legislative Branch with a packed Leftist Judicial Branch undoubtedly waiting in the wings to claim nothing to see here – move along.
Here’s the Washington Free Beacon Story on Obama’s money laundering scheme to one of America’s foreign enemies in Iran.
A member of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing the Obama administration of laundering some $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Iran through a complicated network that included the New York Federal Reserve and several European banks, according to conversations with sources and new information obtained by the lawmaker and viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
New disclosures made by the Treasury Department to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a House Intelligence Committee member, show that an initial $400 million cash payment to Iran was wired to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and then converted from U.S. dollars into Swiss francs and moved to an account at the Swiss National Bank, according to a copy of communication obtained exclusively by the Free Beacon.
Once the money was transferred to the Swiss Bank, the “FRBNY withdrew the funds from its account as Swiss franc banknotes and the U.S. Government physically transported them to Geneva” before personally overseeing the handover to an agent of Iran’s central bank, according to the documents.
These disclosures shine new light on how the Obama administration moved millions of dollars from U.S. accounts to European banks in order to facilitate three separate cash payments to Iran totaling $1.7 billion.
The latest information is adding fuel to accusations the Obama administration arranged the payment in this fashion to skirt U.S. sanctions laws and give Iran the money for the release of U.S. hostages, in what many have called a ransom.
Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding the payment for months and said the administration is blocking certain requests for more detailed information about the cash transaction with Iran.
“By withholding critical details and stonewalling congressional inquiries, President Obama seems to be hiding whether or not he and others broke U.S. law by sending $1.7 billion in cash to Iran,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “But Americans can plainly see that the Obama administration laundered this money in order to circumvent U.S. law and appease the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
As new details emerge, congressional critics such as Pompeo and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) are beginning to suspect the U.S. government laundered the money in order to provide Tehran with immediate access.
“Think about this timeline: the U.S. withdraws $400 million in cash from the Swiss National Bank and then physically transports it to another city to hand-off to Iranian officials—three days before Iran releases four American hostages,” Pompeo said. “But it gets worse: less than a week after this, the U.S. again sends hordes of cash to Iran. As we speak, Iran is still holding three more Americans hostage and I fear what precedent this administration has set.”
The initial $400 million payment to Iran was initiated on Jan. 14, 2016, according to information sent by the Treasury Department to Pompeo.
“For the first settlement payment in January, Treasury assisted the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) in crafting a wire instruction to transfer the $400 million in principal from the Iran FMS [Foreign Military Sales program] account on January 14, 2016,” the document states.
“Treasury worked with DFAS and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), which was acting as Treasury’s financial agent, so that the funds were converted from dollars to Swiss francs and credited to a FRBNY account at the Swiss National Bank (SNB), which is the central bank of the Switzerland [sic],” it adds.
The U.S. hostages were released shortly after Iran received this initial cash payment.
The additional $1.3 billion cash payment was facilitated by the Dutch Central Bank, which helped the United States transfer the money to an account before it was converted into euros.
The Dutch Bank “then disbursed the funds as euro banknotes in the Netherlands to an official from the Central Bank of Iran.”
The payment was broken down into two separate transactions that occurred on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5.
Senior administration officials maintain that the transaction was completely legal and not paid out as part of a ransom to Iran. These officials have said that cash was the “most reliable” method to ensure Iran received immediate access to the funds, as its banking system is still under sanctions.
Officials from the Treasury and Justice Departments would not respond to Free Beacon requests for comment about the exact type of legal approval given prior to the cash payment.
One congressional adviser who works closely on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration appears to have involved multiple branches of the government in order to help conceal the cash payment to Iran.
“It looks as if the White House made just about every corner of the executive branch complicit in covering up the extent of its payments to Iran,” the source said. “Congress was already aggressively looking into payments involving the State, Treasury, and Energy Departments. Now it’s the Justice Department, too. We already know that top officials from Justice objected strongly to the ransom deal, but were overruled. Congress wants to know what happened and why.”
A senior congressional aide familiar with investigations regarding the matter told the Free Beacon that the administration continues to hide information from lawmakers about the cash payment.
“The American public and Members of Congress understand psychology—if the administration is hiding something, there is a reason. President Obama, Secretary Kerry and others would like to pretend that their months of evasiveness and stonewalling regarding Iran are normal, but their behavior indicates otherwise” the source said. “Refusing to answer basic questions about millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars paid to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism only invites more questions.”
Recent reports have raised questions about how much of this money may be spent to fund Iran’s international terror operations and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Lawmakers examining who in Iran assumed control of the money have told the Free Beacon that at least part of the cash was likely spent to fund the IRGC’s operations.
Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address email@example.com.
“How stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” —Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989
The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.
The Beacon’s chairman is Michael Goldfarb. Its editor in chief is Matthew Continetti. Sonny Bunch is the executive editor. Bill Gertz is senior editor.
The anniversary of two Islamic terrorist attacks is coming up on September 11. The first in 2001 on the World Trade Center and the second in 2012 at Benghazi. Justin Smith is writing about the egregious cover-up about Benghazi.
Why didn’t the Obama Administration make no effort at a rescue during the thirteen-hour fire fight with Muslim terrorists? Was Obama Administration afraid that secret arms dealing was going on between Muslim terrorists in Libya and Muslim terrorists in Syria? Was there an even more sinister clandestine operation going on that Obama didn’t want the public to know about during an election year? What was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in all the lies surrounding Benghazi?
These are questions that all branches of the Obama Administration have NOT been forthcoming in giving out data and eye-witness accounts. It is this kind of cover-up that brought down the Nixon Administration. The Dems have become so sleazy that they will protect their power prospects at any cost to truth and integrity.
Here are some story lines that are supportive of Justin Smith’s assertions below:
Never has America witnessed a more shameful event than on September 11th, 2012, when the Obama administration refused to go immediately to the assistance of the U.S. Consulate and the CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, as besieged Americans fought a full pitch battle against a well-planned terrorist attack by Ansar al-Sharia and the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman. Beyond a shadow of doubt, several U.S. military resources were available, despite all administration claims to the contrary, and could have arrived in time to have prevented the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, if not Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens. However, according to numerous well respected sources of unquestionable integrity, various military units received a “stand down” order.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had direct authority over the Libyan facilities. So what happened?
Twice after the initial “critic”/Critical Incident Flash, the White House received requests for military assistance during the attack. Twice they denied those requests, before Obama finally ordered Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton to “do everything possible” to save the remaining Americans at the CIA Annex. And then Obama nonchalantly went to bed, as he was more focused on his next day presidential campaign event.
Information released by the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi shows that at 11:45 PM Washington time (5:54 Benghazi time), more than five hours after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued his order to deploy (military) elements, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough sent an email to the high level representatives of the Executive Branch. McDonough’s primary concern seemed to be the removal of Pastor Jones’ video, of the Prophet Mohammed burning in effigy, rather than ensuring U.S. military forces were moving to rescue the American survivors, who were still fighting for their lives at this time.
Just days after the attacks, (Retired Army) Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told FoxNews that the U.S. planned the invasion of Grenada in 1983 in six hours. He added, “We could have had a strike team on the ground in Benghazi in thirty minutes or less to protect, assist and extract our personnel under attack.”
Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ State Department deputy, told the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were preparing to board a C-130 from Tripoli to Benghazi, when Gibson received a phone call. He was told not to board the flight. Hicks also testified that the State Department never requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.
One CIA contractor, Kris “Tanto” Paranto, who was in the thick of the battle all during that night (’13 Hours’), has since revealed that two AC 130-H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” on 9/11/2012. One was a 45-minute flight away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, and its 25mm rapid-fire Gatling guns, 40mm precision Bofors gun and 105mm canon would have made short work of the terrorists, scattering them to the wind.
Paranto also knew members of the European Command Commander’s In-Extremis Force (EUCOM/ C-110), which was about 3 hours away on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, and he called them after he and his security team fought their way back to the Annex with the surviving U.S. personnel. The EUCOM loaded up and prepared to leave, when they were stopped around midnight.
Pentagon Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash offered the U.S. military’s assistance to the State Department soon after receiving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear and unambiguous orders to go rescue our people. At 7:09 PM Washington time (1:09 AM Benghazi time) Bash informed Hillary Clinton’s office of numerous military assets that were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi. And yet, by the time of the final lethal battle at the CIA Annex, after nearly 8 hours of battle, no assets ordered deployed by Secretary Panetta had even left the ground.
Two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons stood by at the ready for three hours, changing their uniforms four times due to “diplomatic sensitivities” expressed by Clinton and her staff. Armed predator drones stayed inactive. Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean stayed aboard ship, and the 173rd Airborne Infantry at Aviano Airbase in Italy never made the two-hour flight by C-130.
The only military “asset” to reach Benghazi during the attacks was Team Tripoli, military personnel based at the Tripoli Annex, whose presence was unknown to Clinton, Panetta and the Joint Staff. They deployed themselves that night, improvising, persevering and overcoming the odds, because fellow Americans needed them, and they saved American lives.
Why didn’t Hillary Clinton request the deployment of U.S. military resources? One AFRICOM commander said, “The State Department was concerned that an overt U.S. military presence in Libya could topple the government.”
More importantly, who was the leak at the State Dept. that gave the terrorists ten-days prior notice of Ambassador Stevens’ arrival in Libya? — a trip that was supposed to be a secret. What role did Clinton advisor Huma Abedin play in this? — Abedin, who has long advocated for Sharia law and has deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, and the radical Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi through her parents, Syed and Saleha Abedin.
Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty both died in the final hours of the attacks. Charles Woods spoke to the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi this June (WND), stating: “My son and the rest would still be alive if there were any attempt made at a rescue … I want to know who was responsible for my son’s death.”
Mr. Woods and the family members of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty may soon have more definitive answers. The FBI has just recently recovered 30 Benghazi related emails that Hillary Clinton deleted.
Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) stated: “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans.
Americans don’t leave Americans to die, but this administration and Hillary Clinton did. Obama and Clinton both were derelict in their duties, but Clinton’s black heart and overt malfeasance, with her focus on her Libyan agenda and her personal schemes, left four Americans dead and ten wounded. Thirty-five were waiting in fear, desperate for help. But help never came from Washington, D.C., because Clinton gave the stand down order, which halted the Tactical Operations Center Team Leader’s standard operating procedures at Tripoli’s U.S. Embassy and the deployment of U.S. military assets for a rescue mission. The Pentagon could not act without a specific request for assistance from Clinton’s State Department. All America saw these “Progressives” and their government fail to rescue our people, when most of us would have moved Heaven and Earth to do so.
I found an article by Ben Shapiro in the Daily Wire pertaining to the pathological lying of Crooked Hillary Clinton. Shapiro takes some points from a Denver 9News interview with Crooked Hillary and shoots down the points she considers truth as pathological lies.
One thing I found interesting in the article are the similarity of lies of Hillary are to the same exact lying storyline provided by President Barack Hussein Obama in a Thursday press conference on the so-called coincidence that over $400 million’s worth of foreign currency was delivered to Iran in an unmarked jet about the same time that dual citizen American/Iranian political prisoners were released.
Obama said that was a coincidence on part of a deal constructed months ago to deliver payments of Iran’s own money that was frozen. LIE! That is a fascinating assertion since one of the released American hostages – Saeed Abedini – was originally told they’d lift off out Iran 20 minutes after loading, but instead was on the tarmac for hours. Abedini asked for a reason. He was told they couldn’t take off until the ransom plane had landed.
Saeed Abidini [sic]: I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there and I asked police— why you not letting us go — And he told me we are waiting for another plane and if that plane take off we gonna let you go.
OBAMA LIED! US Iranian Hostage Saeed Abedini told FOX Business Network today the Iranian regime WOULD NOT let his plane leave Iran until Obama’s ransom plane arrived with $400 million in euros and Swiss Francs.
Thank God Trump called out Obama on the lie saying he saw the video. Left-Stream-Media outlets – particularly WaPo and CNN – claimed future POTUS Trump was lying about seeing a video since it didn’t exist. Really? Enter television from Iran:
The documentary “rules of the game” with the issue of exchange of prisoners accused of spying for America 4 documentary “rules of the game” with the issue of exchange of four accused of spying for America tonight on the network antenna is three and a TV.
Cultural reporter Tasnim, this documentary after 21-hour news network and a 22-hour news network broadcast information about the four individual 3 accused of spying for America that after the initial agreement between the governments of Iran and America and were released under a prisoner exchange projects.
Jason Rezaian, Amir wisdom, Saeed Abedini and Nasrallah Khosrow four prisoners who were accused of spying and were released long ago. [Description has very long link, so I am providing a tinyurl]http://tinyurl.com/za6sfsa
Here’s the Youtube version of the 9News interview of Crooked Hillary spewing lies to make Donald Trump look bad:
On Wednesday, pathological liar Hillary Clinton did an interview with 9News in which she rattled off fabrication after fabrication. Fortunately for Clinton, the entire media have been focused, laserlike, on Donald Trump making a complete and utter fool of himself, and so they ignored Hillary’s lies.
The interview ran nine and a half minutes.
[Daily Wire version of above Youtube video]
In the first six minutes, Hillary clocked four lies:
The Iran Ransom Wasn’t A Ransom.Hillary tried to brush off news that the Obama administration shipped $400 million in unmarked currency to the Iranians in exchange for the release of four Americans as “old news.” She said, “The White House has addressed this, and I think actually this is kind of old news…So far as I know, it had nothing to do with any kind of hostage swap.” That’s spurious. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.”
The Iran Deal Stopped Their Nuclear Program.Hillary continued by shilling for the worst international deal in modern history: “I think we know that the agreement has put a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I consider that to be a very positive step….The most important thing is that we have, in my view, prevented Iran from racing to get a nuclear weapon.” Nonsense. The deal grants Iran the ability to gain a nuclear weapon in a decade, and build the infrastructure to create a turnkey operation now.
Hillary Will Enforce The Iran Deal.Hillary claimed she would hold the Iranians accountable: “The agreement has made the world safer, but it has to be enforced, and I have spoken out very strongly about how I will enforce this agreement. I will hold the Iranians to account for even the smallest violation.” Really? Perhaps I missed Hillary’s statements on Germany’s intelligence reportregarding Iran’s nuclear efforts. And Hillary hasn’t had much to say about Iran’s repeated ballistic missile tests, which technically may not violate the Worst Deal Ever but clearly violate the UN resolution sanctioning that deal.
The FBI Said Hillary Was Truthful. Here’s Hillary lying openly about the FBI’s conclusions about her email server: “[A]s the FBI said, everything that I’ve said publicly has been consistent and truthful with what I’ve told them.” She said that talk about her emails being released vs. Trump’s tax returns would be comparing “apples and oranges.” This is absolutely false. The FBI never said Hillary had been consistent and truthful in her public statements. They specifically avoided comment on her public statements. But they made clear that virtually everything she had said public was contradicted by the evidence.
Hillary’s the most corrupt major party candidate in American history. If Donald Trump had one iota of self control, he could be slamming her with alacrity today. Fortunately for Hillary, he doesn’t.
Most Conservatives are very aware that President Barack Hussein Obama is a liar as well as his Executive Branch flunkies. The Dems and the American Left have been making excuses for those lies by denial of the obvious, deceptive misdirection and/or cover-ups.
As part of the Obama Administration lies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illegally used a private email server that included the use of emailing classified information. Hillary’s misdirection was other Secretaries of State used private email servers but failed to mention that most of Secretaries did not have restrictive laws in place. Hillary’s next misdirection was claiming nothing on her server was marked as classified at the time but only later. That deceptive lie was used even knowing that the potential emailing of information that might later be marked classified was and is illegal by law. Hillary also ILLEGALLY deleted thousands of emails trying to cover-up her blatant misuse of a private email server that combined both sensitive (later marked classified) and business dealings that included nefarious foreign fund raising for the Clinton Foundation in exchange for Hillary favors. Here are three journalistic claims of illegality by Hillary:
Trust me there are more lies and cover-ups but I want to get to the one in which the Obama Administration has been caught lying to the American people and to Congress about the Iran Nuke Deal which was only a deal for Iran with zero plausible vetting by the U.S. government. Most auspiciously the Iran Nuke Deal lies were exposed by Ben Rhodes flapping his mouth either unintentionally or “braggadociously” that lies were used on Americans to gain the deals acceptance. AND the cover-up was further exposed when the admission happened that some mysterious person ordered a portion of a Press Conference exchange between State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Fox News correspondent James Rosen was deleted from public viewing.
Psaki/Rosen press conference State Department cover-up is exposed:
Little more than a month ago, senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes let slip, either unwittingly or braggadociously, that he and others had essentially lied to the media and American people about the Iran nuclear deal in order to advance the administration’s narrative.
This admission raised a number of questions regarding the truthfulness of prior statements from Obama officials about the deal, compelling some to go back and check archived video of past press conferences, which in turn led to the discovery that a pertinent exchange during a 2013 State Department press conference had been edited out of the record.
That edit of an exchange between Fox News reporter James Rosen and then-State spokeswoman Jen Psaki, in which she admitted with a wink and a nod that the administration lies to keep certain information private, was initially dismissed as nothing more than a “glitch.”
However, it has now been admitted by spokesman John Kirby that the edit was no glitch, but a deliberate erasure of the record on orders from on high in the administration.
Speaking to the crew of Fox’s “The Five,” Rosen said it was “significant” that the administration effectively admitted to lying about covering up a prior admission of lying.
“I think this is a significant moment insofar as we have the United States government essentially admitting here that its spokespeople lied from the State Department podium, that they then admitted that from the State Department podium, and then tried to cover up that admission by deleting the official archive of this material, and so I’m honored to play some small role in holding our public officials to account, and we’ll see if this is the end of it,” Rosen explained.
However, the new-found truthiness of at least one member of the Obama administration only went so far, for while Kirby admitted that the edit to the tape had been ordered, he claimed not to know who had given that order.
Rosen and the rest weren’t buying that excuse, though, with Rosen surmising, “If you remember being asked to do it, you probably have a very good chance of remembering who asked you to do it.”
“The Five” co-host Dana Perino, former spokeswoman for the Bush administration, thought Rosen was too nice in his assessment of the situation, saying, “I think that their explanation falls well short of acceptable, because one, it is a violation of the Federal Records Act. It has to be.”
This administration lies, the lies about lying, then lies about lying about lying. Then, on the rare occasion that it actually slips up and tells the truth, it quickly reverts to lies and subterfuge to counteract and cover up the truth with more lies and deception.
This from the “most transparent administration in history” no less.
Conservative Tribune is a news outlet that spreads conservative news and commentary across America. It hosts ConservativeTribune.com, a website dedicated to defending and advancing the principles of liberty, freedom, and prosperity.
Conservative Tribune delivers news to over 25 million people every month, ranking the site as a Top 250 most visited website in the United States, according the site metric tracker,Alexa. In fact, Conservative Tribune was the most shared publisher on Facebook in July 2015, according to Newswhip.
ConservativeTribune.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast)
News and stories on Conservative Tribune are curated by an excellent team of journalists who are dedicated to advancing the values of Conservative Tribune. ConservativeTribune.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according toNewsWhip.
Interested in writing for us? Fill out an interest form.
I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.
Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.
Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:
1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.
The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.
An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi Germany, Nazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.
The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.
Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.
Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.
Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:
“[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.”
– Adolf Hitler
Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.
As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”
Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.
“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”
Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.
“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”
The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”
In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”
What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common
Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.
That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.
This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”
Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”
Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.
Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”
Hitler a Christian? No chance.
Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin
Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:
“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”
Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”
“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”
Two thousand years and still waiting.
And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”
A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel, Away with incense and Holy Water, The Church can go hang for all we care, The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).
Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.
And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”
Two commenters had an interesting line of thought to the post on NCCR entitled “Obama-Rhodes: America’s Eminent Future?” My train of thought was that Barack Obama teamed up with Left Wing propagandist Ben Rhodes to manipulate American voters and Congress with deceptive lies much like the Hitler/Goebbels team bent the will of the German people to follow the madness of Nazism.
Commenters futuret and yurki1000 chose the thought that ultimately the evil Left are actually influenced by the incorporeal dark forces of Satan. I know that rubs the rational political mind the wrong way; nonetheless, I also subscribe that the evil of the Adversary (aka Satan) tries do all he can to kill, steal and destroy everything created by God Almighty since Lucifer was booted from Heaven and became the warped creature Satan in rebellion to God Almighty.
So here are those edited comments molded into a post.
In an article for The Conversation, April 19, 2016, Joseph P. Laycock, an assistant professor of Religious Studies at Texas State University, points out that The Satanic Temple (TST) is more than a religion, it is a burgeoning political movement that is bent on and is effecting political change.
Laycock notes that a horror film, “The Witch,” has become “one of the surprise hits of 2016” in part because of an endorsement from The Satanic Temple (TST), which is … READ THE REST
Creation Science Evangelism Classes from Kent Hovind. wide spread of topics from Science, Evolution, Bible, History and many-more topics. for everybody that want to learn what Creation science is, also for Christians to strengthen there [sic] faith. there are always more Topics then the video title suggests, have a nice day!
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.
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:
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:
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 marchthrough 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 2.0 – Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism; posted by John R. Houk; 4/2/13)
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.
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.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The New York Timesprofile 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.
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.
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