The Clinton counterattack against President Obama begun?

The Clinton counterattack against President Obama begun?

The Clintons have never taken a political hit lying down. But given their weak and panicky reactions to Mr. Obama’s current, well-orchestrated hit on her — the FBI investigation into her alleged mishandling of classified material as secretary of state — they have appeared to passively absorb the escalating attack. Until now.

Read the full article

Restoring American Exceptionalism

Restoring American Exceptionalism

The Wall Street Journal Restoring American Exceptionalism President Obama has dangerously surrendered the nation’s global leadership, but it can be ours again— if we choose his successor wisely.

By DICK CHENEY And LIZ CHENEY Aug. 28, 2015 6:32 p.m. ET

In 1983, as the U.S. confronted the threat posed by the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan explained America’s unique responsibility. “It is up to us in our time,” he said, “to choose, and choose wisely, between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.” It was up to us then—as it is now—because we are the exceptional nation. America has guaranteed freedom, security and peace for a larger share of humanity than any other nation in all of history. There is no other like us. There never has been.

Born of the revolutionary ideal that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” we were, first, an example to the world of freedom’s possibilities. During World War II, we became freedom’s defender, at the end of the Cold War, the world’s sole superpower. We did not seek the position. It is ours because of our ideals and our power, and the power of our ideals. As British historian Andrew Roberts has observed, “In the debate over whether America was born great, achieved greatness or had greatness thrust upon her, the only possible conclusion must be: all three.”

No other nation, international body or “community of nations” can do what we do. It isn’t just our involvement in world events that has been essential for the triumph of freedom. It is our leadership. For the better part of a century, security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political and diplomatic might. For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered.

Since Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed us the “Arsenal of Democracy” in 1940, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have understood the indispensable nature of American power. Presidents from Truman to Nixon, from Kennedy to Reagan, knew that America’s strength had to be safeguarded, her supremacy maintained. In the 1940s American leadership was essential to victory in World War II, and the liberation of millions from the grip of fascism. In the Cold War American leadership guaranteed the survival of freedom, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism. In this century it will be essential for the defeat of militant Islam.

Yet despite the explosive spread of terrorist ideology and organizations, the establishment of an Islamic State caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and increasing threats from Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, President Obama has departed from this 75-year, largely bipartisan tradition of ensuring America’s pre-eminence and strength. He has abandoned Iraq, leaving a vacuum that is being tragically and ominously filled by our enemies. He is on course to forsake Afghanistan as well.

He has made dangerous cuts to America’s military. Combined with the sequestration mandated in the Budget Control Act of 2011, these cuts have, according to former Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, left the Army as unready as it has been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert has testified that “naval readiness is at its lowest point in many years.” According to Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh, the current aircraft fleet is “now the smallest and oldest in the history of our service.”

For seven decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood the importance of ensuring the supremacy of America’s nuclear arsenal. President Obama seems not to. He has advocated cutting our nuclear force in the naïve hope that this will persuade rogue regimes to do the same. He has imposed limits on our ability to modernize and maintain nuclear weapons. He has reduced the nation’s missile-defense capabilities. He says that he is committed to preventing nuclear proliferation. For more than 45 years, presidents of both parties have recognized that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is vital in this effort. Signed by 190 countries, including Iran, the NPT has been arguably the single most effective multilateral arms-control agreement in history. President Obama stands ready to gut it. Among the many dangerous deficiencies in his nuclear deal with Iran is the irreversible damage it will do to the international nonproliferation regime contained in the NPT.

Allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and agreeing to the removal of all restraints on their nuclear program in a few short years virtually guarantees that they will become a nuclearweapons state, thus undermining the fundamental agreement at the heart of the NPT. President Obama is unraveling this international structure as part of an agreement that provides a pathway for the world’s worst state-sponsor of terror to acquire nuclear weapons. Nearly everything the president has told us about his Iranian agreement is false. He has said it will prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it will actually facilitate and legitimize an Iranian nuclear arsenal. He has said this deal will stop nuclear proliferation, but it will actually accelerate it, as nations across the Middle East work to acquire their own weapons in response to America’s unwillingness to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

President Obama told us he would never accept a deal based on trust. Members of his administration, including his secretary of energy and deputy national-security adviser, said the nuclear deal would be verifiable with “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Instead, the Obama deal provides the Iranians with months to delay inspections and fails to address past clandestine work at military sites. Inspections at these sites are covered in secret deals, which is historic, though not in the way the president claims. Under the reported provisions of the secret deals, the Iranians get to inspect themselves for these past infractions. Inevitably these provisions will be cited by the Iranians as a precedent when they are caught cheating in the future.

The president has tried to sell this bad deal by claiming that there is no alternative, save war. In fact, this agreement makes war more, not less, likely. In addition to accelerating the spread of nuclear weapons across the Middle East, it will provide the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which even the Obama administration admits likely will be used to fund terror. The deal also removes restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program; lifts the ban on conventional weapons sales; and lifts sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, on the Quds Force, and on Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. Under Mr. Soleimani’s leadership, the Quds Force sows violence and supports terror across the Middle East and has been responsible for the deaths of American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A vote for the Obama nuclear deal is not a vote for peace or security. It is a vote for an agreement that facilitates Tehran’s deadly objectives with potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States and our allies. The Obama nuclear agreement with Iran is tragically reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ’s Munich agreement in 1938. Each was negotiated from a position of weakness by a leader willing to concede nearly everything to appease an ideological dictator. Hitler got Czechoslovakia. The mullahs in Tehran get billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear arsenal. Munich led to World War II. The Obama agreement will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East and, more than likely, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. Congress should reject this deal and re-impose the sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place. It is possible to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, but only if the U.S. negotiates from a position of strength, refuses to concede fundamental points and recognizes that the use of military force will be required if diplomacy fails to convince Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.

As America faces a world of rising security threats, we must resolve to take action and shouldn’t lose hope. Just as one president has left a path of destruction in his wake, one president can rescue us. The right person in the Oval Office can restore America’s strength and alliances, defeat our enemies, and keep us safe. It won’t be easy. There is a path forward, but there are difficult decisions to be made and very little time. We are living in what columnist Charles Krauthammer has called “a hinge point of history.” It will take a president equal to this moment to lead us through. America needs a president who recognizes that everything the nation must do requires having a U.S. military with capabilities that are second to none—on land, in the air, at sea, in space and in cyberspace. The peace and security of the world and the survival of our freedom depend on it. We must choose wisely.

As citizens, we have another obligation. We have a duty to protect our ideals and our freedoms by safeguarding our history. We must ensure that our children know the truth about who we are, what we’ve done, and why it is uniquely America’s duty to be freedom’s defender. They should know about the boys of Pointe du Hoc and Doolittle ’s Raiders, the battles of Midway and Iwo Jima. They should learn about the courage of the young Americans who fought the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge and the Japanese on Okinawa. They should learn why America was right to end the war by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and about the fundamental decency of a nation that established the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They need to know about the horror of the Holocaust, and what it means to promise “never again.”

They should know that once there was an empire so evil and bereft of truth it had to build a wall to keep its citizens in, and that the free world, led by America, defeated it. They need to know about the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, the courage of the first responders and the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. They should understand what kind of world militant Islam will create if we don’t defeat it.

They should learn about great men like George C. Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. We must teach them what it took to prevail over evil in the 20th century and what it will take in the 21st. We must make sure they understand that it is the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces who defend our freedom and secure it for millions of others as well. Our children need to know that they are citizens of the most powerful, good and honorable nation in the history of mankind— the exceptional nation. They must know that they are the inheritors of a great legacy and a great duty. Ordinary Americans have done heroic things to guarantee freedom’s survival. Now, it is up to us. Speaking at Omaha Beach on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings, President Reagan put it this way, “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” Mr. Cheney, former vice president of the United States, and Ms. Cheney are the authors of “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America,” from which this article was adapted; the book is being published Sept. 1 by Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions

Scientists Confesses: “Global Warming is a $22 Billion Scam”

Scientists Confesses: “Global Warming is a $22 Billion Scam”
The documents have been released and the truth is staggering. For years now Al Gore has been spearheading the crusade of global warming alarmism to the masses, holding seminars, clean energy initiatives, and even unveiling a critically acclaimed documentary.
Read the complete article

 

The documents have been released and the truth is staggering. For years now Al Gore has been spearheading the crusade of global warming alarmism to the masses, holding seminars, clean energy initiatives, and even unveiling a critically acclaimed documentary.

The real “Inconvenient Truth” behind global warming? It is all a lie.

Al Gore spreads “global warming” propaganda for his own profit.

Have you been duped?

Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the wealthiest and most famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more.

And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House.

In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs.

Tom Luongo has worked extensively with the University of Florida on making crop yields more productive for third world countries, creating an intermetallic coating for gun barrels that dropped maintenance requirements on firearms by half, and assisting in the development of cures for diseases.

You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table.

This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . .

Despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.

The motive: $22 billion per year.

That’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . to stop the “global warming” epidemic.

That comes out to $41,856 every minute.

That’s twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders.

My name is Tom Luongo, and in the following few pages, I am going to show you the alarming research in the document that was laid before me that night in Palm Beach.

The man who put this document in my hands — the man whom Al Gore is personally attacking . . .

“In 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John Casey testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After his testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed.”

John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.

John then began looking into the global warming claims.

His findings: The theory that global warming is caused by an increase of greenhouse gases “is the greatest scientific fraud in history, and the evidence is damning.”

You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that destroys Al Gore’s argument for “global warming.”

Using their own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history.

Think about that: Our government spends $22 billion a year of your money financing “global warming” initiatives.

Ask yourself: “Who is benefiting from this?”

Let’s start with Al Gore himself . . .

  • Gore’s portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of the Obama administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy.
  • Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested have received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.
  • The Telegraph reports Al Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies . . . all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming.”

And he’s not alone.

Current and former presidents, CEOs, Washington representatives, politicians, and big business all have been documented with their hands in the global warming cookie jar.

You can see why green energy is such a profitable business — CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns . . . and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going . . . all on your dime.

I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence John compiled. And even then, it took me hours of talking to John to digest it.

You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem.

For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.

But how much has the world really warmed?

Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.

Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!

The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.

Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.

 

If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.

We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.

Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.

But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: The case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.

“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.

This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .

“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.

It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.

Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America’s biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”

I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.

Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.

Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.

You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!

Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.

Shame on you, right?

Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.

Meanwhile, Al Gore spreads “global warming” propaganda for his own profit.

Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.

Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”

President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”

When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.

In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel laureate, has taken a stand against the global warming claims. Giaever announced during a speech at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany: “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem . . . The president said that 2014 is [the] hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest . . . Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever was one of more than 100 co-signers in a letter to the president that was critical of his stance on global warming, saying, “We the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

What was the government’s response? Nothing.

Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.

For example:

  • One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
  • In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
  • And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he demonstrated: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.

There are several other documents just like these.

More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!

In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published . . . will say exactly what they want it to say.

Why would this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists do such a thing?

“Global warming” has been kept on life support for another crucial reason: It has been a practical ATM for every in-the-know political figure.

Al Gore, for example, has been one of the most vocally aggressive crusaders for “global warming.”

But the lies are starting to unravel . . .

John has made every effort to share this information. But instead of listening, the media and the left treated him like a leper and have done their best to smear his name.

Science and politics have worked this way for hundreds of years.

Galileo was ridiculed by scientists invested in the idea the sun revolves around the Earth.

Robert Goddard — the man who ushered in the Space Age and rocket ships — was ridiculed endlessly during his life for proposing . . . traveling to the moon.

William Harvey was ostracized for proposing the theory of blood circulation . . .

Opponents could never refute the science — they could only attack the man behind it. Just like they do with John today.

But there is a small group of scientists who are starting to listen, and take action.

John’s research has now been corroborated by 17 independent scientific individuals and organizations.These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world.

John has done nothing but put his research up to public scrutiny for the last few years.

And now some of the top scientific minds in the world are rallying to him. Nearly 30,000 scientists have banned together to sue Al Gore for his global warming fraud. Here’s what they have to say . . .

  • Dr. Fumio Tsunoda, professor emeritus of geology at Japan’s Saitama University, testified, “[John’s] work is quite a revelation that marks a step toward a new scientific civilization ” and his findings “add a brilliant page to the history of science.”
  • Dr. Natarajan Venkatanathan, professor of physics, SASTRA University, said, “[John’s] ideas may be opposed by conventional scientists, but they will have to accept his theory because the truth prevails.”
  • Dr. Boris Komitov, one of Europe’s top solar physicists and a professor at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, was so impressed with John’s work, he reached out to John and joined the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). Here’s what Dr. Komitov had to say: “These problems brought on by this next climate change that Casey ably discusses . . . are more important than ever.”
  • Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of physical geography at the University of Oslo, said, “The history of science is filled with examples of individuals with new ideas being met by the current scientific establishment not with enthusiasm, but rather with disregard and sometimes, even ridicule. These hypotheses were considered outrageous by many contemporary scientists, but today they represent the very foundation for much of our present understanding of planet Earth’s dynamics. New hypotheses based on empirical observations should always be welcomed warmly. This also applies very much to [the work] by John Casey.”
  • Dr. Giovanni Gregori, who has served on the National Research Council of Italy since 1963 and serves on multiple astronomical councils and in several societies, went so far as to say that John Casey is the modern day Leonardo da Vinci. He also said: “[John Casey’s work] is an important contribution for understanding and facing the environmental challenge, in its multifaceted and often disquieting manifestations.”
  • Dr. Dong Choi, editor-in-chief of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, calls John’s work“earth-shattering.”

Each of these scientists has reviewed John’s work and had no choice but to agree with his conclusion after seeing the evidence, just as I did.

And I think you will too.

That’s why, at a dinner in Palm Beach not long ago, John set a 164-page document in front of me. This document is the culmination of his years of work — it’s all his research in one bound volume.

John knew I would validate his claims, and upon doing so, take action.

Since that fateful night, John and I have teamed up to take that document and rewrite a good bit of it into a simple-to-read and easy-to-understand book, so that we could publish it, and get it into every home in America.

The book is called Dark Winter . . . and I want to send you a copy of it!

John holds nothing back. He shows the evidence. And he reveals the cold truth about “global warming.” Chronicled here is the groundbreaking research that forced John to reverse his belief in “global warming.” This book includes every alert, every warning, and every scrap of information he has sent urgently to our government.

See all of John Casey’s urgent warnings in this book PLUS the DVD. Get it now for only $7.95 to cover shipping. Click here now.

However, your copy of Dark Winter is just the first item you will receive today when you join the Cold Truth Initiative.

You will also receive . . .

  • The Lost Video Interview (a $29 value): This is the private conversation I had with John after reading his 164-page document. During the course of this interview, John revealed more cold hard facts about the end of “global warming.” I think you’ll be just as floored as I was (particularly when John explains the real reason Russia is invading Ukraine, and why it could be very bad for America).
  • The Dark Winter Survival Guide (a $49 value): In John’s book, Dark Winter, he goes beyond blowing “global warming” out of the water . . . he reveals a calamity far worse than most climate scientists can imagine — all based on proven solar cycles. I worked hand in hand with John to create a DETAILED action plan for you to avoid the biggest pitfalls and even thrive during this coming era of chaos.
  • The Dark Winter Investment Guide (a $49 value): As a seasoned investor, I feel it’s important to help you get all your ducks in a row. Money makes the world go round — and having enough of it, especially during the potential dark days ahead, can make your life much easier. I’ll show you how to effectively invest your money — and possibly, like me, turn every $5,000 into $34,000.
  • A 3-Month Digital Subscription to My Resolute Wealth Letter (a $24 value): I write a monthly newsletter that is distributed to about 10,000 people. Think of this newsletter as your monthly road map not only to wealth (I hand-pick several home-run investments every month for my readers) . . . but also to honest science, real economics, and alternative, practical ways of living outside of Uncle Sam’s reach. I bring in top experts to help me share little-known strategies for protecting your privacy, slashing your taxes, and even living “off the grid.” You get all of this information delivered straight to your inbox every single month — free — for three months. And then, if you choose to renew the subscription, it is only $97.95 for the full year.
  • A 4-Month Digital Subscription to Newsmax Magazine (a $20 value): Newsmax magazine will keep you informed on vital issues regarding our economy, national security, investing, and more. Newsmax magazine is the one source that brings you in-depth cover stories and hard-hitting investigative reports that you can’t find in mainstream media outlets. You’ll even get daily breaking email alerts to keep you far ahead of the political curve. You get all of this information delivered straight to your inbox every single month — free — for four months. And then, if you choose to renew the subscription, it is only $35.95 for the full year.

We are holding nothing back for this Cold Truth Initiative.

Once John showed me the truth, there was no going back. And we know you will feel the same way. We decided to add one more exclusive gift for the first 1,000 people . . .

Today, we are releasing a new tool to battle the fraud that is global warming. We have reserved only 1,000 copies of this exclusive DVD. And I want you to see it . . .

In this special release, you will learn exactly how Al Gore and his team are defrauding the American people.

The Dark Winter DVD release exposes the real “Inconvenient Truth” that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know about. Learn the lengths to which the government has gone to scam you and your loved ones to line their pockets.

Scams like:

The story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that.

But here’s a little-known side of the Solyndra story I bet you haven’t heard: Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.

When Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.

It doesn’t stop there.

In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?

There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.

First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.

GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.

This movie will change everything you thought you knew . . .

Secure your copy of Dark Winter both the book and DVD for only $7.95 to cover shipping and get all the bonus items that are unavailable anywhere else. Click here to order.

My hope is that you don’t walk away in silence as a network of dirty politicians, greedy corporations, and bribed scientists rob you year in and year out.

That’s exactly what they want you to do.

They want you to think that your voice won’t make a difference. They want you to think your voice is too small to change things.

Remember, this information isn’t just important, it is vital!

$22 billion of your money is being spent every year to keep the “global warming” lie alive . . .

John reveals the science behind his 11 accurate predictions in simple-to-understand terms, and why he foresees more significant events like tornadoes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.

John also reveals 33 crushing scientific dissections he performs which make “global warming” even more of a farce.

Most importantly, the Cold Truth Initiative makes an alarming prediction. There is a looming cataclysm that will ruin every nation that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . and brewing for over 200 years. This event will cause international wars as governments topple and nations descend into chaos.

The Scams and Lies Have Been Revealed. Secure Your Cold Truth Initiative Package Now for $7.95 S/H

Imagine how the American economy might look if we weren’t effectively flushing this money down the toilet . . . imagine how much your taxes could drop if the government wasn’t spending your money on nonsense programs . . .

The only way we can win this war is if we unite together.

Thousands have already joined the Cold Truth Initiative. We are making headway, but we have a long way to go.

Now is your chance to make a difference.

Today, you can strike back at the lies, and more importantly, you can help other Americans protect themselves.

I urge you to click the button below and secure your copy of Dark Winter.

We’ll rush you the Cold Truth Initiative Introductory Packet that includes John’s book Dark Winteralong with The Lost Video Interview, The Dark Winter Investment Guide, The Dark Winter Survival Guide, a 3-month subscription to my Resolute Wealth Letter, a 4-month subscription to the award-winning Newsmax magazine, and your special release copy of the Dark Winter DVD.

Just Click Here Now to Put an End to the ‘Global Warming’ Lie.

Sincerely,

Tom Luongo's signature

Tom Luongo

Proud Member of the Cold Truth Initiative

How to Get a Better Deal With Iran

 

How to Get a Better Deal With Iran

How to Get a Better Deal With Iran

The Iran nuclear deal is a ticking time bomb. Its key provisions sunset too quickly, and it grants Iran too much leverage to engage in nuclear blackmail. To defuse it, Congress needs to do what it has done dozens of times in the past including during the Cold War in requiring changes to key U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements: Demand a better deal. And contrary to the President Barack Obama’s threats, this doesn’t have to lead to war.

First, let’s review why this deal is so dangerous. The sunset clauses — the fatal flaw of the agreement — permit critical nuclear, arms, and ballistic missile restrictions to disappear over a five- to 15-year period. Tehran must simply abide by the agreement to soon emerge as a threshold nuclear power with an industrial-size enrichment program. Similarly, it must only hang tight to reach near-zero breakout time; find a clandestine sneak-out pathway powered by easier-to-hide advanced centrifuges; build an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles; gain access to heavy weaponry like more sophisticated combat aircraft, attack helicopters, and battle tanks after the lifting of the U.N. conventional arms embargo after five years; and develop an economy increasingly immunized against future sanctions pressure. Iran can achieve all this without even cheating by simply waiting for the sunset dates to be reached; but cheating will only get Tehran there faster, for example, if it refuses physical access by the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspicious sites and Washington can’t get European support to punish Iranian stonewalling.

Trending Articles

U.N. Mulls Compensation for Victims of Haiti’s Cholera…

After years of denial, the U.N. now acknowledges it bears ‘moral responsibility’ for introducing the deadly disease…

 

And it gets worse. If world powers reimpose sanctions in response to Iranian noncompliance, Tehran can void the deal. The nuclear agreement explicitlycontemplates in paragraphs 26 and 37 of the main text that Iran will walk away from the deal if sanctions are reimposed in response to an Iranian violation. It also contains an explicit requirement in paragraph 29 of the main text for the United States and the EU to do nothing to interfere with the “normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Let’s call these Iran’s “nuclear snap backs,” wherein Tehran will threaten nuclear escalation if the world powers try to force it back into compliance with the agreement.

But even without this arrow in their quiver, the Iranians over time will be immunized from economic shocks. Once European companies are sufficiently invested in Iran’s lucrative markets, any Iranian violations of the deal are likely to provoke disagreements between Washington and its European allies. Indeed, why would Europe agree to new sanctions when they have big money on the line? Their arguments against new nuclear sanctions will include questions about the credibility of evidence, the seriousness of the nuclear infractions, the appropriate level of response, and likely Iranian retaliation.

This dynamic undeniably threatens the effectiveness of the agreement’s Joint Commission — an eight-member body comprised of the United States, France, Britain, Germany, a representative from the EU, as well as Russia, China, and Iran — established to monitor the implementation of the deal. While an even more difficult-to-achieve unanimous decision is required for most decisions, a simple 5-to-3 majority is needed to get approval should Iran object for all-important IAEA access to suspect Iranian sites. The administration designed this scheme to bypass Russia and China if they take Iran’s side in a dispute. Washington assumes it can always count on European votes. But this is a mistake. Europe will have strong economic incentives to demur, particularly as pressure from European business lobbies grows, and good reason to buck the United States if Iran threatens a nuclear snap back. While Washington can unilaterally reimpose U.N. sanctions if the issue does not get resolved and it “deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance,” it is unlikely to do this in the face of European resistance.

The same dynamics apply to the reimposition of non-nuclear sanctions, such as terrorism or human rights sanctions. On July 20, Iran informed the U.N. Security Council, stating that it may “reconsider its commitments” under the agreement if “new sanctions” are imposed “irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear related or other grounds.” Would Europe agree to a U.S. plan to reimpose terrorism sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran if it was found — once again — to be financing terrorism? This is doubtful given that Tehran would threaten to return to its nuclear activities including large-scale uranium enrichment, putting not just European investments but the entire nuclear deal in jeopardy.

In other words, Europe’s fear of a collapsed deal and lost billions would erode American leverage and diminish our ability to reapply snap back economic sanctions. And as Washington’s influence steadily weakens, its options become increasingly limited. Over time, with sanctions off the table, American or Israeli military force could become the only option to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon. If and when that war comes, Iran will be far stronger — economically and militarily — than it is today.

So, what’s the alternative? The president says there is none. He’s wrong. Congress can and should require the administration to amend the agreement’s fatal flaws, such as the sunset clause and the nuclear snap back.

There is ample precedent to amend the deal. Congress has required amendments to more than 200 treaties before receiving Senate consent, including significant bilateral Cold War arms control agreements with the Soviets like the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, as well as multilateral agreements like the Chemical Weapons Convention negotiated with 87 participating countries, including Iran, by President Bill Clinton. And it’s not just Republicans putting up obstacles.

During the Cold War, Democratic senators like Henry Jackson withstood pressure from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who insisted that the deals they negotiated go unchanged.

During the Cold War, Democratic senators like Henry Jackson withstood pressure from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who insisted that the deals they negotiated go unchanged. This all happened at a time when Moscow had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at America.Should Congress follow in this proud tradition and disapprove of the Iran deal, there are three possible scenarios. Each presents challenges. But each is preferable to this fatally flawed agreement.

In the first scenario, Iran could decide to implement its commitments in good faith despite congressional disapproval in order to trigger substantial and automatic U.N. and EU sanctions relief coming to them under the terms of the agreement. If President Obama wanted to move forward with the agreement, he could circumvent legislative attempts to block sanctions relief. He would do this by using his executive authority to de-designate all Iranian financial and other commercial entities that are targets of congressional sanctions, ignore the statutory designation of Iran’s central bank, which he has already declared as unconstitutional, use Treasury licenses to approve financial and commercial transactions, and refuse to reauthorize key energy sanctions in December 2016. Alternatively, the president could heed Congress and threaten to use secondary sanctions against European and other businesses looking to work with Iran, which would be a powerful deterrent to stop these firms from rushing into Iran and provide more diplomatic space for key P5+1 partners like France, Britain, and Germany to join the United States in demanding better terms.

In a second scenario, the Iranians abandon their commitments under the agreement, but don’t rush to break out toward a nuclear weapon. Iran would get none of the benefits of sanctions relief but would try to exploit the congressional disapproval domestically, claiming that it was wronged by the United States. As it did between the mid-1990s and 2013, Iran would then likely start to escalate its nuclear program incrementally. It would take gradual steps forward in its nuclear program to avoid unifying the major powers, not to mention even more crippling economic sanctions or even U.S. military strikes. In this case, Washington would be in a stronger position to use diplomatic and economic coercion to force the Iranians back to the table for a better deal that amends the agreement’s sunset clauses and nuclear snap back.

In a third scenario, the Iranians exploit the temporary confusion of a congressional disapproval to divide the P5+1. This is a messy diplomatic scenario — and probably the most likely one. In this scenario, Iran would implement certain nuclear commitments but not others. In the policy disagreements that would be sure to follow, Iran could then try to divide the Russians and Chinese from the West, and the Europeans from the United States in order to undermine the multilateral sanctions regime.

China and Russia might return to some Iranian business — they were bustingU.S. sanctions even at the height of Obama’s sanctions enforcement. But they are also likely to stay at the negotiating table to achieve their original objective: Keeping Iran from getting nukes. Beijing doesn’t want a nuclear-armed Iran wreaking havoc with global energy prices; Moscow wouldn’t mind high energy prices but not a revolutionary Islamist regime with nukes stirring up trouble in its neighborhood, including with Russia’s large Muslim population.

Europe, however, is the key. Europe’s markets always have been Tehran’s big economic prize. The key for Congress and the White House will be to use diplomatic persuasion and U.S. financial sanctions to keep the Europeans out of Iran. America has that leverage now, before Europe rushes to reenter the Iranian market; relying on snap back sanctions to get the Europeans out again is a weak play. As former Treasury official Juan Zarate has noted, “We can’t argue in the same breath that ‘snapback’ sanctions as constructed offer a real Sword of Damocles to be wielded over the heads of the Iranians for years while arguing that there is no way now for the U.S. to maintain the crippling financial and economic isolation which helped bring the Iranians to the table.”

If Washington makes it clear that European banks will risk penalties or jeopardize their ability to transact in dollars if they do business with Iranian banks, those European energy, insurance, and industrial companies will find their financial pathways into Iran stymied.

The power of U.S. financial sanctions always depended on the private sector’s appetite for risk. In the event of a congressional disapproval, or a vote in which a simple majority of senators reject the deal, major European companies likely will hold off on investment until a new president comes into office in 2017. They will also be concerned about the legal and reputational risk of doing business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (who dominate strategic sectors of Iran’s economy like finance, energy, construction, and automotive and will still be designated a proliferation sponsor by the United States). Treasury has already issued guidance that international companies should be very circumspect before reentering the Revolutionary Guards-dominated Iranian market.

This leverage can be used to get a better deal, one that would require that nuclear, arms, and ballistic missile restrictions don’t sunset until the U.N. Security Council (where America retains its veto) votes to lift them. It would remove the Iranian nuclear snap back language and include Tehran’s explicit acknowledgement that sanctions can be reimposed for terrorism, human rights abuses, ICBM development, and on other non-nuclear grounds. It also would include other changes like the requirement that IAEA weapons inspectors physically enter and thoroughly investigate any suspect military or non-military site, something U.S. lead negotiator Wendy Sherman said in a recent congressional hearing will not always be necessary because soil sampling carried out by Iran will be sufficient.

It won’t be easy getting changes to the deal as it now stands. It will require additional leverage. But the United States will never again have the kind of powerful secondary sanctions leverage that it does today. Congress now has an opportunity to ensure that we maintain and use that power. The aim should not be to torpedo diplomacy. Rather, it is to defuse that ticking time bomb by making critical amendments to this Iran deal that lower the risk of a future war.

Photo credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Islamic State Suspected of Using Mustard Agent

Islamic State Suspected of Using Mustard Agent


My former colleagues at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons will doubtless eventually be on this to confirm the use of mustard gas in Iraq. This likely use of WMD by ISIS should again remind the civilized world that WMD of all kinds are not “off the table”. It should take seriously Iran’s oft-stated threats to eventually see Israel wiped off the face of the map. So how can an avowed enemy of the US, the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism and member of the UN vowing genocide, be treated by our government as trustworthy?

See More Coverage