Obama LIES about Iran hostages RANSOM

Shocked, anyone?  (BZ looks around for shocked faces, sees none.)

Barack Hussein Obama LIES AGAIN.

This time it is about the literal pallet of cash flown to Iran.

For background, please see my story here about the original ransom payout.

That is what State Department spokeman John Kirby said Thursday.

As the NYPost.com writes:

State Dept.: $400M to Iran was contingent on US prisoners’ release

by Daniel Halper

The State Department admitted Thursday that the US would not hand over $400 million in cash to Iran until it released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at Thursday’s press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”

“That’s correct,” Kirby replied.

Here, Barack Hussein Obama insists that no ransom was paid.

In an Aug. 4 press conference, President Obama said the opposite.

“We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here, and we won’t in the future,” the president told reporters, speaking of the Jan. 17 payment and hostage release.

Mr Obama, as you may recall, got on his high horse and cast wave after wave of righteous indignation onto those who dared question His Royal Highness about the incident.  How dare he be second-guessed?

Here is John Kirby also stating that no ransom was paid.  It was all a random coinky-dink.

We may conclude two clear things:

  1. John Kirby is a LIAR.  Therefore most everything presented officially by the State Department is likely a lie as well, and
  2. Barack Hussein Obama is a LIAR.  But we knew that already because of the following video — but only as one instance.  There are scores more.

One of the released hostages specifically said:

“I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there, and I asked police, ‘Why are you not letting us go?’ ” Abedini said. “He said, ‘We are waiting for another plane so if that plane doesn’t come, we never let [you] go.’ ”

I wrote in my original post about Obama’s payment of $400 million dollars to Iran:

Also, that is completely exclusive of the fact that, unless one wants to embolden hostage-takers, villains, dictators and criminals, a country or an entity or an individual should never pay a ransom because — obviously, due to the nature of criminals — the hostage-taking will not stop.  It merely proves that the act of hostage-taking is productive.

Further, that cash will be used in furtherance of one thing: terrorist acts against Muslims and against the West.  Violence, death, chaos and carnage.

Now that the LIE is out and it is obvious and it is naked and blatant, let’s see how the Obama Media LapdogAmerican Media Maggots address the situation — other than, perhaps, doing their level best to sweep the situation under the media rug.

BZ

 

Joe Biden is IN?

Joe Biden Pointing AgainLet’s run through the theories.

1 Joe Biden is IN

The most obvious theory for Biden running, even as late as this, is that Hillary Clinton is unelectable or may even face indictment of some sort for her involvement in the email scandal that she only brought upon herself.  This may source from some kind of “insider information” possessed by the DNC or the Spite House regarding Hillary’s future viability as a candidate.  They may know something the public does not.  Hillary has not one but two substantial albatrosses about her neck: Benghazi and her server.  Of the two, I’d wager the most likely negative outcome would be from the FBI email investigation.

Some people ask about the cash aspect.  But if Hillary is swept aside, the organization and funding once funneled to Hillary could be shuttled to Slow Joe from the DNC.  Joe Biden just might be the Spite House Plan B in all its hair-plugged fleshy splendor.  The support of Obama could make a huge monetary difference, as I suspect Joe wants to continue what Obama has already installed in place.  Or so Obama may believe.

A new CNN/ORC poll, in terms of Demorat presidential favorability, indicates that Joe Biden pulls 51%, Hillary 46%, Sanders 41%, O’Malley 14%, Webb 14% and Chafee 7%.

Additionally, most everyone knows there is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas.  The blood is thick and turpid.  This naturally stems from Hillary running against Obama in 2008.  Apparently Hillary walked into the Spite House and asked for the dogs to Kabuki Theatrebe called off entirely.  They were not called off entirely.

That Obama spoke somewhat negatively about the FBI investigation was pure Kabuki Theater.  He did it to appease the Hillary contingent.

Hillary is much more of a Centrist.  She will bend to the prevailing Political Prairie Winds.  She learned that from Willie J.  What is Biden?  The VP.  Obama’s VP.

2 Joe Biden is OUT

Some analysts ask: what’s in it for Joe?  Some analysts say that it’s nothing more than a “Republican plot” to muddy the waters.  Yes, those insanely paranoid Leftist analysts.

The theory goes that Biden has run before and not done well.  And where is his financing right now?  His cash?  Some say the DNC knows Biden can’t pull a sufficient amount of cash at the last second.

Hillary GlassesFurther, it appears that Obama is doing his public best to try to shield Hillary Clinton, minimizing the importance of her emails.  This, of course, pissed off the FBI and Director James Comey, and it put him in a political jackpot.

It is said that Biden has been decked with the same dreck as Obama because of his position.  He is too closely aligned to Obama whereas Hillary is a bit further away, at least now.

Can Biden actually win?  Not many people think he can.  He will play for the Emotive Factor regarding his son Beau, and the deaths of wife and daughter he lost in 1972.  Yes, both tragedies.  But can emotions carry him to the White House over a Republican?  Some say Biden could win the Demorat nomination.  But he couldn’t win against the GOP.

And: just how Left is Joe Biden?  Can he run against a Bernie Sanders and cast aside the appeal of Sanders?  Because the Corporatist aspect of the DNC won’t allow Sanders to win.  He kills cash.  The DNC can’t afford their cash to be killed.  Biden needs to, therefore, win.  But can he, against Sanders?  It is theorized that Hillary can.

Then there are the many resplendent “Bidenisms” and the many hours of glorious YouTube material provided us over the years, including asking the crippled man in the wheelchair to stand up.  Ooopsie.

Then there is the Hillary Factor.  If Biden were to step in, some elements fear the Hillary Scorched Earth Policy.  She would pull out some of the worst incidents and positions of the Obama Administration and use those against Biden to get elected.  She would attempt to distance herself from Obama and Biden.  She would reveal the Emperor as he is: naked and ImperialObama certainly cannot condone that or allow it to be illuminated.

Plots, subplots and sub-subplots.

So what do you think?

Is Biden in or out?

I’ll take that bet.

Biden is in.

That’s how electable and huggly-snuggly is Hillary.

BZ

 

State Department plans to bring foreign Ebola patients to U.S.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

by Stephan Dinan

The State Department has quietly made plans to bring Ebola-infected doctors and medical aides to the U.S. for treatment, according to an internal department document that argued the only way to get other countries to send medical teams to West Africa is to promise that the U.S. will be the world’s medical backstop.

In the memo, officials say their preference is for patients go to Europe, but there are some cases in which the U.S. is “the logical treatment destination for non-citizens.”

The document has been shared with Congress, where lawmakers already are nervous about the administration’s handling of the Ebola outbreak. The memo even details the expected price per patient, with transportation costs at $200,000 and treatment at $300,000.

Perfect.  We may soon be importing Ebola victims into the US.

Further: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has now decreed troops returning to the US from Ebola-ridden countries will undergo a 21-day quarantine.

Despite the fact that doctors and nurses returning to the US are objecting to quarantine and threatening to sue to eradicate said quarantine.

A bit odd and hypocritical, perhaps?

BZ

 

Benghazi and Boko Haram: the common delineator is Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton at senate hearingBenghazi proved to be a terrible tragedy involving the deaths of four good Americans, as is the current Boko Haram kidnapping of the 270+ girls in Nigeria.

Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in politics, got both of those issues wrong.  She is the common delineator between these two disastrous events.  She had choices to make and she chose poorly; people died as a result of her decisions.

First, Islamists and al Qaeda were responsible for Benghazi but the Obama Administration could not admit their failure because they had just touted that Mr Obama had al Qaeda “on the run,” “decimated” and “on the path to defeat.”

[Another reason I love events immured in YouTube.  You can’t fudge the facts.]

Then came Benghazi and four Americans were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and Demorat coverups.  Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador, said:

A bald-faced lie by the duplicitous to the addled and soft-brained amongst us.

Next: the lie by Mr Obama whilst speaking at the United Nations:

I’m sure that, at the time, al Qaeda was wondering: “just what the hell are you talking about?”  It determined: thanks; you’re playing right into our hands.  We salute you.

Hillary Rodham Clinton continued to enable the duplicitous Benghazi Meme:

Whilst Demorats did their best to minimize the importance of the Benghazi deaths, Conservatives continued to insist that those four deaths had importance and that we as a nation and government needed to understand and recognize our mistakes in order that those mistake not reoccur and that the four deaths were not meaningless or in vain.

My posts:

And some base questions: just who told Hillary Rodham Clinton to blame the video?  Where was she at the time of the attack?  Where was Barack Hussein Obama?  Why the so very long response time for our citizens?

Perhaps now — with this Select Committee — there might be a slight opportunity for the truth to unveil itself?  Because, after all, the more people try to stonewall, the more there must be to know.

Now that Boko Haram has revealed its true Islamist and Sharia Law bent, people in the United States are starting to become “upset.”

But let’s go back, shall we, to the nexus of Boko Haram and Hillary Rodham Clinton, in terms of her refusing — as Secretary of State — to quantify Boko Haram as an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization).

Josh Rogin at TheDailyBeast.com wrote:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

But whose inaction spurred on the attackers?  Her own in 2012.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Who actually placed Boko Haram on the FTO list?  Of all people, John Kerry, after a series of Christian church bombings in Nigeria.

Let me unequivocally state that the kidnapping occurred roughly one month ago, on April 14th.  One month.  Yet the dainty sensibilities of Leftists weren’t upset until last week.

When Leftists do something, they are being good.  When Conservatives do something they are being “partisan.”

Further (you’ll love this): here’s a long forgotten point from MoveOn.org: their poll to urge then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not to declare Boko Haram a terrorist group:

MoveOn.org Petition Boko HaramThis is an amazing bit of defeatist pussified crap from people who are predominantly cowards.  They advocate “dialogue.”  There is no “dialogue” with terrorists or Islamists or criminals or psychopaths.  They want what they want when they want it and couldn’t care less about “dialogue.”  They only care about two things: 1) their strength and 2) your weakness.

Cowardly Leftist EmosA “hashtag” #BringBackOurGirls won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls — including Christian girls — at all.  It merely serves to dupe and assuage the senseless Emos amongst us.

Michelle Obama -- Bring Back Our GirlsMichelle Obama holding up a sign won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

A nice discussion between John Kerry and Boko Haram leaders around a nice ebon table and some soothing cups of tea won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

How can the Leftists decry Boko Haram and yet refuse to let Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak at Brandeis University — a woman who is a clear critic of Boko Haram, al Qaeda and Islamists?  Muslims who in turn believe in female genital mutilation and honor killings?  By Muslims who think that women are nothing more than chattel?  How hypocritical can that be?  How insane can that be?  Boko Haram is only worth criticism when young girls are threatened?

On that note: apparently the killing of fifty-nine little boys by Boko Haram in February of this year doesn’t count at all.  I don’t see Michelle Obama holding up a sign saying #bringbackourboys.  Nor do I see celebrities all a-twitter on Twitter even mentioning that horrible incident.

Why?  I submit because it’s about little boys, not little girls.  Little girls kidnapped = Huge Deal.  Little boys killed and burned to the bone = no deal at all.

Thank you Leftists.

Thank you Hillary Clinton.

BZ

P.S.

Everything You Need To Know About The Schoolgirl Kidnapping In Nigeria is here.