“We are the world… we are the children;  We are the one’s who make a better life, so let’s start giving….  There’s a dream we’re making, we’re saving our own lives, it true we’ll make a better world, just you and me….

Sound familiar?  Could you sing it if we only provided the first stanza?  Most likely the answer is yes.  The bigger question is “why”?

How about another one?  More subtle maybe; this one from 2011:

This week’s biggest Africa news isn’t from Africa. It’s from a massive online and social media campaign launched by the American advocacy group Invisible Children to capture indicted war criminal and Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony. 

As with their previous campaigns Displace Me and How it Ends, Invisible Children launched Stop Kony 2012 on Tuesday to mobilize the next generation of young Americans to help end the conflict in northern Uganda – except this time, they called on their mostly white, privileged, and educated youth followers to get involved through web-activism on their Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and YouTube accounts. (more…)

Against the backdrop of the recent poll showing Donald Trump easily defeating Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup with registered voters, the Andrea Mitchell interview takes on a new light.

* Trump 54%, Clinton 36%.
* Trump 53%, Sanders 39%.
* Trump 53%, Biden 37%.
* Trump 54%, Gore 36%.

Obviously Mitchell (wife of Alan Greenspan) has always been a Hillary devotee, so there’s no substantive questions.  However, there is information to showcase how Hillary is prepped for defending her absolutely horrible record as Secretary of State. Specifically the introduction of the “bathtub principle” regarding the current EU immigration crisis:

• 01:00 – 12:00 Discussion of email issues.  “no apologies”.
• 12:00 – 14:00 Discussion of presidential race. Joe Biden as challenger
• 14:00 – 17:00 Discussion of Iran.  Hillary support for deal.
• 17:00 – 20:00 Discussion of Donald Trump. Attacks on Huma Abedin
• 20:00 – 23:00 Discussion of current EU immigration crisis. Hillary begins “bathtub principle” obfuscation.  {more below}
• 23:00 – 27:00 Discussion of China and Women’s Rights Issues
• 27:00 – 39:30 Discussion of Hillary losing the election yet again.

(more…)

What this article outlines is, in fact, the termination clause within the Iranian nuclear deal. A full analysis shows how the language used to craft the deal gives Iran the easy out, ‘the-exit-ramp’ as soon as the sanctions are lifted.

WASHINGTON DC – Last Tuesday, a 159-page PDF of the Iran nuclear agreement dropped into my inbox. Scrolling down to page 19, I checked out Paragraph 36. I suggest you do the same.

Plenty of provisions in the Vienna agreement will get attention in the coming weeks, but Paragraph 36 may be the most important of all.

Paragraph 36 tells us when and how the agreement might end. Both friend and foe have touted this deal as “historic” and promised (or moaned) that its provisions will stay in place for the long term. But in practice, this is not a ten-year agreement or a fifteen-year agreement or an eternal agreement. Paragraph 36 tells us the truth: Any party—be it Iran or a future U.S. president—can essentially ditch the Iran nuclear deal with 35 days’ notice. (more…)

WASHINGTON DC – Secretary of State John Kerry, in a talking point similar to White House official Ben Rhodes earlier this week, claimed on Fox News Sunday he never seen discussed the idea of “anywhere, anytime” inspections in the Iran nuclear deal.

Host Chris Wallace mentioned the 24-day period Iran can stave off inspections as part of the agreement and how that hardly constituted meeting those standards before Kerry rebuked him.

“Well, that’s not accurate,” Kerry said. “I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime.”

Like Rhodes’ statement, this contradicts earlier statements made by the Obama administration, and it also makes it painfully clear the White House never thought this extremely important verification measure was ever realistic. (Via WFB)

The vote was 218-208. Backing the bill were 190 Republicans and 28 Democrats; 50 Republicans and 158 Democrats voted against it. Eight members did not vote.

Neither Wall Street nor their 24/7/365 lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, care about U.S. jobs.  Their collective stakes are based on business financial statements which can be improved if expenses are reduced and labor costs are outsourced.

Tom Donohue, CoC President, controls the congressional reelection purse strings.  Both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are beholden to Tom Donohue; that’s why both are working earnestly to deliver something vital to the CoC and President Obama.

Well written article -> (Via Politico) […]  It’s the second time in two weeks that Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) chamber voted to approve the legislation. The legislation was halted last week by House Democrats, who voted against an aid package for workers in an attempt to scuttle the larger trade agenda. This time, Boehner and McConnell devised a complicated process that could deliver Obama his biggest legislative achievement in years.

The legislative maneuvering, on which Boehner and McConnell consulted with Obama during a conference call this week, could result in Obama approving the trade package before the July 4 recess — and eventually usher in a trade deal that would touch 40 percent of the global economy. The fast-track authority is essential, proponents say, because it would bar Congress from making any changes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership after a deal is reached between the U.S. and other negotiating countries. Lawmakers would get only an up-or-down vote on the pact. (more…)

Today the African Union, representing the entire African Continent, held a ceremony to honor the thousands of Africans who have died at sea trying to reach Europe.  Attendance was, well, um…

(source)
There’s an irony here, a painful truth, for those who wish to admit it. (more…)

If you are unfamiliar with the fraud that was the UAC Humanitarian Crisis of 2014, what we outline here might not make sense.  However, for those who do understand that prior fraud there are similarities to point toward.

The New York Post outlines “The Deal” with Iran, or more appropriately stated “the outline”; and points out the stark differences between what President Obama and Secretary Kerry are claiming against the claims of Iran.

Both can be reconciled if you accept the historical reality that everything the Obama administration does and says has to first pass through a domestic political prism.

Passing through that prism, the truth and reality separate.   As Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber honestly admitted, ‘the truth becomes what they say it is’.

After looking at the totality of events that flowed since August of 2014 when New York Times author Thomas Friedman interviewed President Obama:

[…]  On Iran, the president said the chance that American efforts to strike a deal on nuclear weapons is “a little less than 50-50,” in part because some Islamic leaders may fear such a pact would loosen their grip on power.

“That may prevent us from getting a deal done,” Mr. Obama said. “It is there to be had. Whether ultimately Iran can seize that opportunity — we will have to wait and see, but it is not for lack of trying on our part.”  (full article link)

From that moment forward the entire construct of “a deal with Iran” took on a shift.  The administration focused on talking about “compliance” efforts, the Iranian’s focused on talking about “the removal of sanctions”, and internally to their own domestic audience, toward “maintaining their program”. (more…)

Bloomberg News doesn’t call it that, they call it: “Obama’s Next Move May Be Lifting U.S. Protection of Israel at UN”.

(Bloomberg) — While the world remains fixated on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration is facing another foreign policy showdown in the United Nations Security Council.

The administration has signaled that it might abandon the decades-long U.S. policy of protecting Israel at the UN and back a Security Council resolution laying out terms for a two-state solution to the almost 67-year-old dispute between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. (more)

However, make no mistake – it is the Power Doctrine. We could burn another thousand words explaining it again, but, well, honestly, few would accept it until it actually comes to pass. And it will come to pass.

President Obama is a fellow traveler and ideological compatriot of Samantha Power. It’s not a matter of “if”, it is entirely a matter of “when”. (more…)

Let there be no doubt left !

Yesterday the commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards stated “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable.” Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

Against the backdrop of these latest threats, and with President Obama and Secretary Kerry willing to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responds: