America Is Being Run Just Like Baltimore

congressional-black-caucusDaniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The Congressional Black Caucus is the most ridiculously corrupt part of an already corrupt Congress. A study two years ago found that a third of black congressmen had been named in an ethics probe during their careers. 5 of the 6 members under review by the House Ethics Committee that year were CBCers. In 2009, every single member of Congress under investigation was from the same old gang.

Like the Clinton Foundation, the CBC exists to trade money for influence. The Caucus takes in tens of millions from major corporations and spends it on parties for its members and funnels the rest into fake non-profits. Even the minority scholarships endowed with great ceremony as a way of providing opportunity to their underprivileged constituents have a way of going to their own children and friends.

The Congressional Black Caucus claims that it’s “the conscience of the Congress” when it’s actually the tip of a corrupt urban political machine that keeps black people in chains. Its members are lying idiots whose only response to criticism (including the ethics charges leveled against them) is to shout racism because that is the job they were chosen for by their real backers and masters.

Consider Representative Sheila Jackson Lee; the dumbest member of the CBC notorious for believing that we won the Vietnam War and that our astronauts had planted a flag on Mars.

Back in 2002, Sheila Jackson Lee announced on CNN, “I happen to represent Enron here in Houston.” That was an accurate summary. Her campaign had been funded by Enron. After Enron disappeared, other companies came along eager to funnel money to Sheila Jackson Lee and the CBC.

Attempted major mergers between AT&T and T-Mobile and between Time Warner and Comcast were financed with major donations from the participants to the CBC. CBC members enthusiastically signed on to the AT&T merger claiming that it would help black people.

It wouldn’t have, but it certainly helped CBC members.

Cell phone companies, dirty banks and drug companies all benefit from CBC intervention at the expense of their constituents. Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the CBC is an example of the merger between corporate corruption and urban political corruption masquerading as civil rights. That’s why CBC members are not only noted for being ridiculously corrupt, but also for being ridiculously stupid.

In addition to Sheila Jackson Lee, there’s Hank Johnson who claimed that an added Marine presence might cause the island of Guam to tip over, Maxine Waters who accused the CIA of selling crack in black neighborhoods or Frederica Wilson who claimed that the term ‘illegal alien’ is offensive because “To me an alien is somebody who is from another planet”. Much like the brain of the average CBC member.

And who could forget Marcia Fudge’s stirring condemnation of the Tea Party. “These same people believe if you do not work, you are lazy. These same people believe that if your children don’t get a good education, something is wrong with you. These are the craziest people I have seen in my life. Just absolute nuts. They don’t understand that the government’s job is to take care of its people.”

Like Sheila Jackson Lee, their stupidity was not an accident.

The best corrupt politicians are too stupid to understand the consequences and too shameless to care about ethics. CBC members are carefully selected for their worst qualities. They are national examples of the corrupt urban political machine that has crippled black communities around the country.

The next wave of CBC members who sought statewide and national office appeared to be made of better stuff. The wave hit its peak with Obama, who campaigned as a modern non-tribal politician striving for national excellence. Unlike Jesse Jackson, Obama appeared to be a fundamentally different type of urban politician. Their mutual hostility only reinforced that.

But the CBC’s next wave of smooth-talking Ivy League pragmatists who were supposed to save black communities proved to be just as rotten. After all the publicity, Cory Booker not only didn’t turn Newark around, he turned out to be using it as a springboard for higher political office. Once in office, Obama proved to be every bit as tribally racist as any CBC member and twice as corrupt as the worst of them.

As he presides over national race riots that he helped fuel, the whole country is getting a taste of what living under the governance of the urban political machine in the inner city looks like.

In Baltimore, the latest flash point of Obama’s race riots, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, an Oberlin grad and the daughter of an important politician, was supposed to be a step up from the incompetence and corruption of her predecessor who had been convicted of stealing gift cards meant for the poor. Instead she promised that casinos would fix everything and when they didn’t, she went on spending.

Even without the #BlackLivesMatter riots, Baltimore was on the road to financial ruin just like Chicago and Detroit. The urban political machine found the riots convenient because while it destroyed businesses, it let them blame the city’s economic disaster on racism instead of corruption.

State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s already botched prosecution of the police officers is just more political theater to distract the people of the city from what their political establishment has done to them. Like Rawlings-Blake, Mosby and her husband have shown us that the next generation of the political machine is slicker, but no cleaner or more competent than its predecessors.

The Baltimore political establishment panders to criminals because it’s run by criminals. This is a city whose mayor only has her job because her predecessor was convicted and whose NAACP boss tried to claim that her son’s heroin was really insulin which he was using to kill mice in the NAACP offices.  Meanwhile Mosby is claiming that someone hacked her Twitter account to favorite racist tweets.

When Obama moved into the White House, the corruption of the urban political machine joined him there. His attorney general had been slammed by Congress over Pardongate’s paid pardons for fugitives.  Holder set the tone for an administration that casually traded cash for political favors. It lied about the economy and terrorism, and when the lies were exposed, it touched off race riots to distract everyone.

America is now being run just like Baltimore.

Obama’s appointees tend to be deliberately incompetent. Charles Samuels, his new Director of Federal Prisons, thought that a jail cell was six by four feet. But the strategy of deliberate incompetence also serves to insulate against charges of corruption. It’s the CBC strategy of contempt in the White House.

The black community has been used as a shell corporation by the Democratic Party. It’s been hollowed out and corrupt idiots have been elevated to leadership positions to accommodate that purpose.

What it fears most is honest and competent black leadership. When such men and women arise, every effort is made to destroy them. If they cannot be destroyed, they must be deemed outsiders at war with the community. Or as the CBC’s William Clay Jr. called former Republican Congressman Gary Franks, a “Negro Dr. Kevorkian, a pariah, who gleefully assists in suicidal conduct to destroy his own race.”

Meanwhile Clay funneled a quarter of a million dollars to the offices of his sister. It wasn’t his race that Clay was defending, but his right to loot. Clay and his CBC colleagues were the real Dr. Kevorkians.

When men like Ben Carson or Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. stand up to the machine, the machine strikes back because excellence in black leadership is the biggest possible threat to its thievery. The machine seeks to perpetuate the idea that the best black leadership is corrupt and incompetent. It deliberately provokes disgust and then uses that to further isolate the black community behind the wall of its corruption and distrust. If that wall were to ever come down, if it were suddenly clear that there were alternatives to the forty thousand thieves of the machine, the urban political machine would fall apart.

The Democrats and their urban collaborators prefer their corrupt and contemptible regime to that.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

LIKE on Facebook and Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions.

Martin O’Malley’s Disastrous Declaration

Martin O'Malley Makes Announcement On Presidential CampaignFormer Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley’s (D) past came back to haunt him over the weekend during the carefully staged hometown announcement that he was running for president.

Although Baltimore’s advanced urban decay has something to do with the fact that the city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1967 when Theodore R. McKeldin left office, O’Malley was heckled and shouted at Saturday. Protesters were upset with the policies O’Malley, who frequently shows off his well-developed biceps while playing guitar and singing badly, introduced when he was the troubled city’s mayor from Dec. 7, 1999, through Jan. 17, 2007.

The liberal New York magazine has trashed O’Malley, saying he “worsened the decades-old tension between Baltimore police and the black community.” When O’Malley showed up in Baltimore during the civil unrest that followed the suspicious death in police custody of Freddie Gray, a young black career criminal, “his attempt to demonstrate leadership only wound up drawing attention to his role in creating the conflict.”

Although Mayor O’Malley’s zero-tolerance approach to policing “saw a dramatic reduction in crime … in 2010 the city paid $870,000 to settle a suit alleging that Baltimore police arrested thousands of people without probable cause during O’Malley’s tenure.”

After conspicuously considering running for president for two years, O’Malley was greeted at Federal Hill on the weekend by angry protesters who blame him for the aggressive policing policies he initiated in Baltimore when he was mayor and the destruction they claim those policies have wrought.

They held signs reading “F–k the police,” “Stop killer cops,” and “NOMALLEY.” They also shouted “You only care about money, O’Malley, you don’t care about the people! You lie!” and “700,000 arrests under your watch, O’Malley!”

According to the Daily Beast:

A woman charged through the crowd holding a sign reading “Stop killer cops” and “say her name.” She shouted, “Black lives matter!” Someone else yelled, “We don’t need zero tolerance policies, O’Malley!” and “What about police brutality?” The protesters blew whistles, which drowned out O’Malley.

The visit to Baltimore to examine riot damage that New York magazine referenced, hurt O’Malley.

TV commentators blamed O’Malley’s tough-on-crime police policies as mayor for the civil disturbances. “When he went back to Baltimore last month at the height of the riots, he was shouted down,” Chris Moody said Saturday on CNN. “People recognized him and said, ‘This is your fault.’”

It wasn’t the reception O’Malley, who is one of those people whose self-esteem outweighs his actual abilities, was counting on. He is trying to present what left-wingers consider to be a positive message while out-lefting the bungler of Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, who somehow continues to be light-years ahead in polls of Democrats.

During his otherwise forgettable speech Saturday, O’Malley called for more forced redistribution of wealth, more illegal aliens, and more rights for members of the LGBT community.

“This generation of Americans still has time to become great,” he said, drawing upon speechwriting platitudes. “We must save our country now, and we will do that by rebuilding the dream.”

But his policy prescriptions, like those of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, would drive America into the ground.

O’Malley adores taxes and hates private businesses and guns. O’Malley was governor of Maryland until this past January. Under his leadership, Maryland increased taxes at every opportunity, abolished the death penalty, made same-sex marriage legal, and passed the so-called DREAM Act to benefit young illegal aliens.

Just about nobody likes him, even in his own party.

The November election was viewed partly as a referendum on the long-unpopular O’Malley. Republican Larry Hogan came out of nowhere to trounce Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, O’Malley’s anointed successor. Brown previously took the blame for bungling the launch of Maryland’s Obamacare exchange. Naturally, this past March, Brown announced he’s running for Congress.

Unless frontrunner Hillary Clinton gets knocked out of the running, O’Malley has virtually no chance of securing the Democratic Party’s nomination, critics say.

As Daniel Greenfield notes a “Washington Post poll shows Bernie Sanders outpolling O’Malley by 4 to 1, which isn’t hard since O’Malley just has 1 percent. And Sanders is a Socialist crank whose presidential campaign no one takes seriously.”

Electoral handicapper Harry Enten of Five Thirty Eight estimates O’Malley’s chances of becoming his party’s standard-bearer in 2016 as roughly nil.

“O’Malley has essentially zero support from Democratic office-holders,” Enten writes. “He’s garnering just 2 percent support in Iowa, New Hampshire and national primary polls — far worse than Barack Obama at this point eight years ago.”

One of O’Malley’s major problems is that “[t]he people who know him best don’t like him.” Enten continues:

O’Malley is starting way down in the polls, and he’s not well known. And we have evidence that more O’Malley exposure doesn’t equal more O’Malley support. He earned just 3 percent (compared to Clinton’s 63 percent) in a poll of Democratic voters in Maryland conducted in October by The Washington Post and the University of Maryland.

Like frontrunner Hillary Clinton, lying comes naturally to O’Malley.

He is an intolerant, obnoxious, holier-than-thou left-winger in the mold of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).

And if you like big government, you’re going to love O’Malley. Like former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, O’Malley characterizes conservatives as terrorists.

O’Malley regards reducing government spending as a terrorist act. He said so on Feb. 8, 2005 when he was mayor of Baltimore. At a presser at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., O’Malley blasted then-President George W. Bush for daring to propose cutting spending on the truly awful $4.7 billion Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the worse-than-useless Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG is a notorious slush fund that politicians of both parties use to buy votes. The Bush administration wanted to eliminate CDBG and replace it and 17 other federal community development programs with a new $3.7 billion program.

But even this tiny little reform was too much for O’Malley, the government spending junkie.

Mayor O’Malley called CDBG “one of the most effective programs to expand opportunity in our urban cores,” and likened President Bush’s call for its abolition to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores in two of our great cities and they did that because they knew that that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most,” O’Malley said.

“Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States, and with a budget axe, he is attacking America’s cities, he is attacking our metropolitan core.”

During the question-and-answer session this writer asked the mayor if it was appropriate to compare the president of the United States to terrorists. O’Malley looked me straight in the eye and stood by his remarks. (“Glared” might be a better verb to use here.)

Bush wanted to overhaul the program to preserve his “tax cuts for the wealthy,” O’Malley said. The CDBG overhaul “weakens America’s cities” and was “a betrayal of the basic equation of what it means to be an American,” the mayor said.

In other words, as O’Malley sees things, you are both traitor and terrorist if you believe in fiscal responsibility.

Of course, the media had long fawned over O’Malley even back then so his inflammatory remarks got little coverage even though Democrats such as then-Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams quickly distanced themselves from them.

When the Washington Post asked O’Malley separately about his anti-Bush comments, he flat-out lied about them. O’Malley claimed he “in no way intended to equate these budget cuts, however bad, to a terrorist attack.”

“The point I am trying to make is, for America to be strong, we have to strengthen our cities. Because we’re in the middle of a war, we need to be strengthening and protecting our cities, not weakening our cities. Two of our cities have already been attacked in this war.”

O’Malley lobbed similar verbal grenades in 2004, telling supporters of then-presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) “at a Baltimore fundraiser that Bush and his administration worry the mayor more than al Qaeda terrorists,” the newspaper reported.

Don’t expect to read about O’Malley’s penchant for nasty attacks on his opponents anywhere else.

The media is already treating O’Malley as a breath of fresh air, touting him as a credible alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

LIKE on Facebook and Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions.

Obama’s Immigration Anarchy

US_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement_arrestAs former immigration judges, we were horrified when President Obama and his DHS appointees “re-prioritized” the mandatory removal provisions of our nation’s immigration laws. In our days in the courtroom, we followed and applied the provisions of the Immigration & Nationality Act every single day. The INA is a deterring statute and it’s been continuously amended to better deter illegal immigration since it was originally enacted in 1952.

Nowhere in the Act did Congress give the President the authority to “re-prioritize” illegal alien and criminal alien-removals. As the results of the 2012 and 2014 “executive actions” show, re-entries and recidivism among convicted criminal aliens (legal and illegal aliens convicted of crimes) has spiked and, as a result, we’re pushing deeper and deeper into immigration anarchy. Unsurprisingly to us, Obama’s lawlessness is leading to ever greater lawlessness.

According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, ICE agents reported encountering 382,000 convicted criminal aliens (legal and illegal aliens convicted of crimes) in FY2013 and FY2014. Of this figure, almost 100,000 were released from ICE custody back into our communities, some before deportation proceedings could even begin. A report from the Congressional Research Service from 2012 found that released criminal aliens generally had a 17% recidivism rate. For people outside upper class areas, especially those in the border states, these aren’t just abstract figures.

Last summer, Border Patrol agent Javier Vega Jr. was murdered while with his wife and kids at “their favorite fishing spot” just outside Brownsville, Texas. His killer had not only been deported numerous times before the murder, but had been involved in an attempted rape in 2007. Grant Ronnebeck, a store clerk in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by a criminal alien with a previous burglary conviction when he refused to count a jar of change the alien had attempted to use to buy cigarettes. The murderer had a burglary related conviction in 2012 which had rendered him deportable. These murders could have easily been prevented had our nation’s immigration laws been properly enforced.

Then there was the 19-year old Serbian-born Mirjana Puhar, a former contestant on “America’s Next Top Model,” who was recently shot point-blank along with her boyfriend Jonathan Alvarado and their roommate Jusmar Gonzaga-Garcia while at their home in Charlotte. The killer, also 19, was listed on an FBI database as a member of the notorious Salvadorian MS-13 gang and had been in deportation proceedings in 2012 until he was “re-prioritized” under the President’s DACA program. A 17-year female illegal alien, and also a MS-13 gang member, was recently arrested in Maryland, along with 5 other illegal aliens, for the stabbing and beating-murder of Amos Jones, a black homeless man. Considering the girl’s age, it is probably likely she has been released pending trial.

In many of these serious criminal offenses, the alien at the heart of the crime had been previously deported. Thirty-nine percent of all removals in 2013 involved aliens who had previously been removed and half of all removals that year had criminal convictions. A number of them have been convicted of illegal re-entry after deportation, a federal crime. But they still keep coming back because enforcement’s become increasingly lax and the President’s amnesty programs keep expanding. The murderer of Agent Vega had at least two of these convictions. On July 9, 2007 he pled guilty to illegally entering the United States. He was fined $10 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. A few months later he was back in court charged with the same crime. This time he was charged with the same $10 fine, but he was given the stiffer sentence of 45 days in jail. Both of these cases followed his attempted rape of a US citizen woman in June 2007.

Despite what open-borders pushers say, our immigration problem is not how the law’s written; it’s how the law’s enforced. The release of convicted criminal aliens must stop. When we presided over immigration cases involving criminal aliens we knew that our firmness would save American lives, so those with final deportation orders had to be removed immediately. Such vigilance in the courtroom would be in vain today. Sending signals to deported illegal aliens, whom are already lawbreakers, that re-entry will go unpunished and the current waves we see coming over the southern border will turn into a tsunami. It’s not our immigration laws that are “broken”; it’s our leadership that’s “broken.”

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Hacker and the Honorable Mahlon F. Hanson are board members of the Immigration Reform Law Institute. 

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

LIKE on Facebook and Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions.

The One-Sided Deal With the Islamic Republic

U.S. Secretary of State Kerry and Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif pose for a photograph before resuming talks over Iran's nuclear programme in LausanneJune 30, 2015 is the deadline for the P5+1 powers (U.S., Britain, China, France, Russia, and Germany) to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, and scores of Western corporations are wasting little time in lining up to do business in the land ruled by the Ayatollahs.  Deutsche Welle confirmed on May 19, 2015 that “[a]s the Iran embargo looks likely to be lifted after negotiations between Western countries and Teheran on Iran’s nuclear program seems set to achieve a settlement, German firms, in particular are eager to breathe new life into their traditional business ties with the country.”

American firms too are gearing up for future business.  Al Monitor (April 28, 2015) reported that the

founder and chairman of Campus Televideo, which provides video and data services to U.S. colleges, and a former candidate for the U.S. Senate and governor of Connecticut, Lamont joined 21 other Americans in early April for a journey organized by the Young Presidents Organization and the World Presidents Organization – groups that connect CEO’s from around the world.  The trip combined stops at tourist sites in Shiraz, Esfahan, Qom, and Tehran with pep talks from Iranian officials and business consultants.  The Americans’ takeaway: Iranians are anticipating that nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted soon and foreign companies should get ready now to invest and trade with Iran again.

Western powers are scrambling to conclude this deal with Iran regardless of the fact that concessions made thus far have been largely by the P5+1 powers and not by Iran.  Sanctions have been eased (sanctions relief amounting to $7 billion), allowing for the Iranian economy to show signs of revival despite no clear cut gains for the P5+1 powers.  In Iran meanwhile, centrifuges continue to spin unimpeded.  This deal is clearly one-sided, favoring Iran.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in seeking to prevail upon the Obama administration and the other five world powers to rethink the impending deal, used the occasion of the May 17, 2015 Jerusalem Day ceremony to appeal to reason.  He stated,

Islamic fanaticism threatens Jerusalem, the Middle East and the entire world. We oppose the nuclear deal with Iran, and believe it is possible to achieve a better one. Extremists cannot be allowed to achieve their aims, not in Iran, not in Yemen and not in Jerusalem.

There are many good reasons to take Netanyahu’s words to heart.  The New York Times reported on May 20, 2015, that “Iran’s supreme leader ruled out allowing international inspectors to interview Iran’s nuclear scientists as part of any potential deal on its nuclear program, and reiterated that the country would not allow the inspection of military sites.” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei denounced what he considered as “escalating demands” being made by the U.S. and the other five powers. It is unfortunate for those who have entrusted their security in the hands of these world powers that Ali Khamenei should have the last word on this or any deal concerning Iran.

Secretary of State John Kerry, along with President Barack Obama, promised intrusive inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities, however it is now apparent that inspections “anytime” or “anywhere” are unlikely given Khamenei’s refusal.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has attempted to have Iran answer twelve questions regarding the military dimensions of their nuclear program – to no avail.

The U.S. Congress has the authority, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to review this nuclear deal before permitting the lifting the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by Congress.  The Iran Nuclear Review Act passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of Congress, and awaits President Obama’s signature.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (May 17, 2015) in which he argued that the

President must either negotiate an agreement that will permanently prevent an untrustworthy Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons — or walk away. If he instead commits to a plan that will lead to a nuclear Iran, Congress must stop it.

Senator Graham proposed eight principles to achieve an enforceable deal:

1. Iran must not be allowed enrichment capability greater than the practical needs to supply one commercial reactor.

2. The closing of secret sites, and coming clean on issues raised by the IAEA.  Iran must account for the full inventory of centrifuges, production facilities for components, the total number of component, assembly workshops and storage depots for centrifuges.

3. Anytime, anywhere inspections of all Iranian military and non-military facilities, and no veto power to the Ayatollahs.

4. Sanctions relief and access to funds currently in escrow must be phased in and conditioned on IAEA certification that Iran is in full compliance.

5. There must be an explicit process for the “snapback” re-imposition of sanctions if Iran violates the deal.

6. Iran must not be allowed to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges.

7. Removal of all enriched uranium from Iran.

8. Certification by the president that before any restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program are lifted, Iran has changed its aggressive behavior in the region, and is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Given the revealed content of the nuclear framework agreement with Iran, one can only conclude that it would leave Iran stronger, since the agreement does not hamper Iran in any way, including its development of long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe, the U.S. ,and of course, Israel.  The lifting of the sanctions, even if done gradually, will improve Iran’s economy and make the Islamic Republic wealthier and more capable of asserting itself in the region and beyond.  The current agreement would provide Iran with a clear path towards a nuclear bomb (and no restrictions after a 10-year period).  If left unchecked, this state leader of global terrorism could very easily provide an unnamed terror group with a dirty bomb to be exploded in New York.  Equally worrisome is the fact that the framework agreement, if left to stand could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and beyond.  In Saudi Arabia, there are widespread public calls to match Iran’s nuclear quest.  Turkey and Egypt could also feel compelled to follow suit.

The international community must remember that what originally brought Iran to the negotiating table was economic pressure through ever increasing painful sanction coupled with a credible military option. A better deal with Iran would be to balance the lifting of sanctions with Iran’s adherence to Senator Grahams proposed principles.  Added to these principles should be an end to the development of long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead delivery systems that could threaten the U.S.  Finally, the P5+1 should link the lifting of sanctions to Iran’s ending its sponsorship of global terror, its open aggression against its neighbors, and ending its threats to destroy Israel.  A deal to just have a deal would leave Iran as a major threat to global security.   The current one-sided framework is not a good deal and will only empower a radical Iranian messianic cult awaiting the arrival of the 12th imam or Mahdi.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

LIKE on Facebook and Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions.

Ayatollah Khamenei Rejects Future Inspections

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks live on television after casting his ballot in the Iranian presidential election in TehranThe Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader and theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in domestic and foreign policy issues of Iran, delivered a commencement speech recently to the graduates of the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran.

He drew on the topic of nuclear negotiations between the six world powers (known as the P5+1; the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China), primarily lashing out at the United States and its demands.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has pitched and sold us a nuclear deal using a different narrative arguing that Iran’s nuclear sites, which are suspected to have military dimensions, will be thoroughly and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

This is Obama’s own narrative, or at least what he has chosen to sell to the public.

On the other hand, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly pointed out in his recent speech that “[r]egarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center.”

So, Iran’s paramount leader, a person whose approval is needed for a final nuclear deal, is clearly announcing to President Obama and the world that he will not allowed anyone to enter the Islamic Republic and inspect his country’s military sites.

The crucial question is where are President Obama’s comments on this critical statement of Iran’s Supreme Leader? Rationally speaking, Obama is supposed to address these statements from Iran’s top leader, which contradict his promises and the narrative of the nuclear deal.

But, President Obama is silent.

It appears that from President Obama’s perspective, what Iran’s paramount leader is clearly articulating is not really crucial. For President Obama, the nuclear deal is already a done agreement. In other words, he will accept the demands of the Iranian leaders, and he will have his name on the nuclear deal.

When it comes to the American people, President Obama will pitch a different story than what the reality and terms of the deal truly are. He will not draw on the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leaders is not going to allow IAEA inspectors to investigate and monitor Iran’s nuclear activities.

He will tell the American people that everything with regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions, and Iran’s behavior are resolved.

He will argue that Iran’s nuclear threat has been eliminated, thanks to his efforts. He will argue that Iran is going to comply with all the terms of the deal. And after that, Obama will claim Iran deserves to have the sanctions lifted against it.

In another statement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated on his official website that “[t]hey say the right to interview nuclear scientists must be given….This means interrogation. I will not let foreigners come and talk to scientists and dear children of the nation who have developed this science up to this level.”

President Obama has chosen to be silent about this crucial matter as well.

The Supreme Leader has also reasserted the Islamic Republic’s interventionist policies in the region, reconfirmed Iran’s unwillingness to change its behavior and instigate chaos in the Middle East and other Arab countries.

The Ayatollah stated, “I have some news that enemies in cooperation with some stupid officials in the region intend to bring proxy wars close to the borders of Iran,” and he added, “They should know that if they cause mischief, Iran’s reaction will be very harsh.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force, which operate on the behest of the Supreme Leader, continue to arm Shiite militia groups in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. They continue to sponsor terrorism and express their clear anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

President Obama has chosen to ignore these critical developments. The White House has decided to ignore what Ayatollah Khamenei is stating, and it has chosen to view the nuclear deal as a done deal.

Nevertheless, President Obama did make one comment when he was recently interviewed, defending the Islamic Republic. In his interview, he projected the Islamic Republic as a rational actor. Referring to Iran’s Supreme Leader, he pointed out that the “fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival… and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

So, now instead of criticizing the ayatollah, President Obama is defending him as a rational political figure. Yet, President Obama did have some criticism to express. Not for Iran, but for Israel. instead of criticizing the Supreme Leader or addressing the ayatollah’s comments regarding IAEA inspections, President Obama has chosen to criticize Israel, and primarily Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He pointed out that Netanyahu’s message regarding Arab voters was “contrary to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence” and warned of “foreign policy consequences.”

“I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody … what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium….The same values that led to the end of Jim Crow and slavery. The same values that led to Nelson Mandela being freed and a multiracial democracy emerging in South Africa.”

While President Obama seems proficient at preaching and criticizing Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu and Israel’s values, he has chosen to totally be silent about the anti-Semitic statements issued recently by Ayatollah Khamenei and the Ayatollah’s remarks regarding foreign inspections. These are the real issues that President Obama needs to address.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

LIKE on Facebook and Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions.

رئيس البرلمان العراقي ينتقد الجهود الحكومية لاستعادة المناطق السنية التي استولى عليها مسلحو "الدولة الإسلامية"

رئيس البرلمان العراقي ينتقد جهود الحكومة لاستعادة المناطق السنية التي استولى عليها تنظيم "الدولة الإسلامية"، وناشطون يتهمون السلطات العراقية بالعمل على منع آلاف من النازحين من الوصول الى أماكن آمنة، وبتريوس يدعو لتغيير استراتيجية أمريكا بالعراق.