Day: October 23, 2017

The Three Bullets of Francesca Mann


Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Sultan Erdogan and the New Janissaries


Though Western Europe and Washington are reluctant to fess up to this unfortunate fact, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long ago given up even the pretence of being a democratic polity and is openly pursuing policies detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and Western security considerations. In short, Turkey has become an Islamist dictatorship every bit as inimical to Western interests as Iran, except for being allowed by the West to maintain the charade that it is still a member of NATO and the Western community of nations. This is a dangerous charade that will inevitably come back to haunt us. For the reality is that Erdogan the Islamist has ambitions that go beyond Turkey and even the Middle East.  Well known for his admiration for the Ottomans, Erdogan imagines himself as the leader of a new Ottoman Empire based on an Islamized Turkey, but exerting its influence far beyond. Many would dismiss this as an unrealistic pipe dream, and it probably is just that ultimately. But in pursuing it vigorously, Erdogan has already done much damage both in Turkey and abroad. Suffice it to say that Turks who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands for decades, voted for Erdogan in greater percentages (60% and 70% respectively) than voters in Turkey itself in the last referendum.  

The key to spreading Erdogan’s Islamist message is an organization called Diyanet, a Turkish directorate for religious affairs that is directly subordinated to him. Few if any Western leaders have ever heard of it, despite its importance. It was originally set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924 for the purpose of training imams for the mosques, but more importantly, it was tasked with preventing the radicalization of Turkish Islam. The type of education received in these madrassa-like institutions, called imam-hatip schools, was considered second-rate and did not qualify their graduates for the university or government work. At the time of Erdogan’s takeover of the government in 2002, there were 450 imam-hatip schools with some 60,000 students. Most of them were the sons of poorly-educated yet devout Muslims, which Erdogan, himself the product of such a school, considered prime islamization cadres. And so, after neutralizing the Turkish military by means of bogus but ultimately effective show trials, Erdogan set about to build up and promote an army of pious imam-hatip graduates devoted to him, not unlike the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves the slaves of the sultan alone. Here it must be mentioned that these madrassas as well as the mandatory religious education curriculum in Turkey is highly discriminatory to the extent that it teaches exclusively the Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim jurisprudence, which is not practiced by the large populations of Alevis and the Kurds, who follow the shafi’i madhab, not to mention the millions of secular Turks.    

Appointing a zealous Islamist (who considered Israel a terror organization on a par with ISIS) to lead the Diyanet in 2010, Erdogan removed all career obstacles previously faced by imam-hatip graduates,  indeed began treating them preferentially for government work and in the military, while providing  the Diyanet with massive amounts of money and islamizing the curriculum to exclude evolution. This promptly made these schools a hugely desirable career choice for aspiring Islamists. And so, by 2015, there were 1961 imam-hatip schools with more than 1.2 million students and a budget of $2 billion.

These exorbitant numbers clearly beyond the needs of the 85,000 Turkish mosques reveal Erdogan’s ambitions in both staffing his government and the military with reliable Islamists, and also his long-term agenda to export his Islamist agenda to Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, the Balkans and beyond. Few people realize that after the relative retreat of Saudi efforts to finance radical Islamic projects in the West, Turkey is increasingly the key actor funding the radicalization of European Muslims. It is well positioned to do that due to the large Turkish communities that immigrated to Western Europe as gastarbeiter in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the significant numbers of native Turkish and/or Turkic populations in the Balkans and Central Asia. Many if not most of the imams sent by Diyanet to serve in Europe, as a rule, do not speak the local language and barely know the societies in which they find themselves, nor are they encouraged to get to know them. The one mantra that Turkish officials repeat ad nauseum is that assimilation is wrong, or as Erdogan put it himself “a crime against humanity.” And it may be working. Sevral recent studies have shown that 3rd generation Turks in Germany are no better integrated than those of the first.

Nor are these are the only disturbing news. Information from a number of Western European countries has come that Diyanet and mosque officials work closely with the Turkish intelligence organization, MIT, to spy on fellow Turks on behalf of the Ankara government. One German source revealed that 6000 MIT spies are active in the mosques, while the Dutch head of the Diyanet admitted publicly to have engaged in spying. There are further Turkish efforts to build a number of mega mosques in places where there are few Muslims, like Bucharest and Budapest, as well as attempts in both Eastern and Western Europe to set up parties designed to serve the Turkish strongman. It is not likely that they will stop before the West finally understands that Islamist Turkey is not a friend and begins to act accordingly.  

Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets it ion national security at tweeter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com 

Though Western Europe and Washington are reluctant to fess up to this unfortunate fact, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long ago given up even the pretence of being a democratic polity and is openly pursuing policies detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and Western security considerations. In short, Turkey has become an Islamist dictatorship every bit as inimical to Western interests as Iran, except for being allowed by the West to maintain the charade that it is still a member of NATO and the Western community of nations. This is a dangerous charade that will inevitably come back to haunt us. For the reality is that Erdogan the Islamist has ambitions that go beyond Turkey and even the Middle East.  Well known for his admiration for the Ottomans, Erdogan imagines himself as the leader of a new Ottoman Empire based on an Islamized Turkey, but exerting its influence far beyond. Many would dismiss this as an unrealistic pipe dream, and it probably is just that ultimately. But in pursuing it vigorously, Erdogan has already done much damage both in Turkey and abroad. Suffice it to say that Turks who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands for decades, voted for Erdogan in greater percentages (60% and 70% respectively) than voters in Turkey itself in the last referendum.  

The key to spreading Erdogan’s Islamist message is an organization called Diyanet, a Turkish directorate for religious affairs that is directly subordinated to him. Few if any Western leaders have ever heard of it, despite its importance. It was originally set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924 for the purpose of training imams for the mosques, but more importantly, it was tasked with preventing the radicalization of Turkish Islam. The type of education received in these madrassa-like institutions, called imam-hatip schools, was considered second-rate and did not qualify their graduates for the university or government work. At the time of Erdogan’s takeover of the government in 2002, there were 450 imam-hatip schools with some 60,000 students. Most of them were the sons of poorly-educated yet devout Muslims, which Erdogan, himself the product of such a school, considered prime islamization cadres. And so, after neutralizing the Turkish military by means of bogus but ultimately effective show trials, Erdogan set about to build up and promote an army of pious imam-hatip graduates devoted to him, not unlike the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves the slaves of the sultan alone. Here it must be mentioned that these madrassas as well as the mandatory religious education curriculum in Turkey is highly discriminatory to the extent that it teaches exclusively the Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim jurisprudence, which is not practiced by the large populations of Alevis and the Kurds, who follow the shafi’i madhab, not to mention the millions of secular Turks.    

Appointing a zealous Islamist (who considered Israel a terror organization on a par with ISIS) to lead the Diyanet in 2010, Erdogan removed all career obstacles previously faced by imam-hatip graduates,  indeed began treating them preferentially for government work and in the military, while providing  the Diyanet with massive amounts of money and islamizing the curriculum to exclude evolution. This promptly made these schools a hugely desirable career choice for aspiring Islamists. And so, by 2015, there were 1961 imam-hatip schools with more than 1.2 million students and a budget of $2 billion.

These exorbitant numbers clearly beyond the needs of the 85,000 Turkish mosques reveal Erdogan’s ambitions in both staffing his government and the military with reliable Islamists, and also his long-term agenda to export his Islamist agenda to Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, the Balkans and beyond. Few people realize that after the relative retreat of Saudi efforts to finance radical Islamic projects in the West, Turkey is increasingly the key actor funding the radicalization of European Muslims. It is well positioned to do that due to the large Turkish communities that immigrated to Western Europe as gastarbeiter in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the significant numbers of native Turkish and/or Turkic populations in the Balkans and Central Asia. Many if not most of the imams sent by Diyanet to serve in Europe, as a rule, do not speak the local language and barely know the societies in which they find themselves, nor are they encouraged to get to know them. The one mantra that Turkish officials repeat ad nauseum is that assimilation is wrong, or as Erdogan put it himself “a crime against humanity.” And it may be working. Sevral recent studies have shown that 3rd generation Turks in Germany are no better integrated than those of the first.

Nor are these are the only disturbing news. Information from a number of Western European countries has come that Diyanet and mosque officials work closely with the Turkish intelligence organization, MIT, to spy on fellow Turks on behalf of the Ankara government. One German source revealed that 6000 MIT spies are active in the mosques, while the Dutch head of the Diyanet admitted publicly to have engaged in spying. There are further Turkish efforts to build a number of mega mosques in places where there are few Muslims, like Bucharest and Budapest, as well as attempts in both Eastern and Western Europe to set up parties designed to serve the Turkish strongman. It is not likely that they will stop before the West finally understands that Islamist Turkey is not a friend and begins to act accordingly.  

Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets it ion national security at tweeter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com 



Source link

Is Uranium One the Final Nail in Israel's Coffin?


The awful possibility that Israel could end-up on the receiving end of nuclear bombs manufactured from American ore starts with the obvious sympathies Barack Obama has had for Iran. A simple review of the Iranians he surrounded himself with (think Valerie Jarrett), and the numerous meetings at the White House with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and you get the picture. Add Hillary’s right hand aide, Huma Abidin, whose family was intimately involved with the Brotherhood, and you see even more proof. Although I suspect Clinton was always more for the money than any religious bent.

Obama hated Israel. From the date of his inauguration he went out of his way to demonstrate his fealty to Iran. From his disrespectful treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his feckless withdrawal from Iraq, to his botched attempts to rid the middle east of its “Zookeepers” in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Zookeepers being those countries leaders that had for generations kept the radical Muslim jihadists in check.  Remember, two of those three countries surround Israel. With the zookeepers gone, the Muslim Brotherhood could ascend and the assault on Israel could commence.

Which it did. In Egypt, with Mubarak gone, the terrorists started forming camps in the Sinai, and digging dozens of tunnels into Israel from which terror attacks would spring. Egypt’s El Sisi dramatically overthrew the Brotherhood and confronted them. In Libya, after the U.S. bombed the country for months and Gadhafi was eventually killed, anarchy ensued and four American’s were murdered. Libya is still a failed state because of that stupidity. But in Syria, Obama found a more determined opponent in Assad, and to this day Assad still stands, although a good portion of that country is in shambles. As for Iraq, although more stable once again with American forces aiding, Iran is said to have established a foothold there. 

That leaves Iran as the last, best proxy to destroy Israel. To make Iran powerful enough to destroy Israel, they would need what? An atomic weapon of course. But how could they make one without the foundation fuel, uranium? Simple, give them some of ours. But it couldn’t be done with a Craig’s List post. It had to have the cover of a “legitimate” business transaction with someone other than the Obama administration. Who would be the best scoundrel to accomplish this task? Hillary Clinton of course. Why was she named Secretary0 of State anyway? Certainly not for her executive experience.

Enter Uranium One, a mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada owning one of the largest mining operations of United States uranium. Acquire them and you would have access to the mother load of uranium. Who bought Uranium One and why was it for sale? Rosatom, a Russian State-owned enterprise, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, bought the company. Why it was for sale has not been reported.

Meanwhile Clinton, being no fool when it comes to rackets, demanded some “skin” in the game from the buyers and sellers before she and Obama would approve of the sale. The Mafia’s got nothing compared to the Clintons.

So, the Russians (buyers) began funneling money to the Clintons through speech fees and direct payments to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One Board Members (sellers) began forking over $145 million to the Clinton foundation, and presto, the sale is approved.

And funnier still was President Obama simultaneously hashing out, in secret, a letter of “understanding” to allow, guess who… Iran, to continue its nuclear reactor activity unsupervised. No inspectors allowed. Some deal right? And any deal that binds the United States to international duties is called a treaty. And that requires congressional approval. But somehow congress forgot that and led by Bob Corker, worked around the Constitutional duty to approve.

But hidden in all of this is the fact that Uranium One stock had been trading for as low as 10 cents a share just a few years before. The price of the stock when sold? With the purchase of the company valued at $3.1 billion, the share price was about $7. Nice mark up and a serious return on their investment in the Clinton Foundation. And the Obama Justice Department quashed an active FBI investigation into this scandal through two terms in office.

Oh, and on a side note, how about the billions Obama released to the Iranians? Some estimates are upwards of $33 billion. Was there anything Obama wouldn’t do to further Iran’s goals?

And now we find that Rosatom has, through Canada, where Uranium One was headquartered, shipped yellow cake uranium out of our country without a license to do so.  Also on Obama’s watch.  Where did this yellow cake uranium finally end up once it left our country and most likely shipped to Russia?

From ZeroHedge, Jan 9, 2017:

Obama “Gifts” Iran With Massive Uranium Shipment From Russia Sufficient “For More Than 10 Nuclear Bombs”


In what amounts to an 11th hour “gift” by the outgoing Obama administration to Tehran’s leadership to keep the country, which on Sunday was involved in yet another shooting incident with a US destroyer, content and compliant with Obama’s landmark “Nuclear deal”, the AP reported that Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant. The move was approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments “seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.

The Mullahs who head the religious dictatorship eagerly anticipate an apocalypse leading to the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, who will then establish a global caliphate, leading to a perfect world. If they are on the receiving end of the Uranium One ore, they might end up with the means to bring about at least the first step of the prophecy, and target the “little Satan” of Israel, next door to their client in Damascus.    

The writer is just a regular guy that likes to try and connect dots.

The awful possibility that Israel could end-up on the receiving end of nuclear bombs manufactured from American ore starts with the obvious sympathies Barack Obama has had for Iran. A simple review of the Iranians he surrounded himself with (think Valerie Jarrett), and the numerous meetings at the White House with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and you get the picture. Add Hillary’s right hand aide, Huma Abidin, whose family was intimately involved with the Brotherhood, and you see even more proof. Although I suspect Clinton was always more for the money than any religious bent.

Obama hated Israel. From the date of his inauguration he went out of his way to demonstrate his fealty to Iran. From his disrespectful treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his feckless withdrawal from Iraq, to his botched attempts to rid the middle east of its “Zookeepers” in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Zookeepers being those countries leaders that had for generations kept the radical Muslim jihadists in check.  Remember, two of those three countries surround Israel. With the zookeepers gone, the Muslim Brotherhood could ascend and the assault on Israel could commence.

Which it did. In Egypt, with Mubarak gone, the terrorists started forming camps in the Sinai, and digging dozens of tunnels into Israel from which terror attacks would spring. Egypt’s El Sisi dramatically overthrew the Brotherhood and confronted them. In Libya, after the U.S. bombed the country for months and Gadhafi was eventually killed, anarchy ensued and four American’s were murdered. Libya is still a failed state because of that stupidity. But in Syria, Obama found a more determined opponent in Assad, and to this day Assad still stands, although a good portion of that country is in shambles. As for Iraq, although more stable once again with American forces aiding, Iran is said to have established a foothold there. 

That leaves Iran as the last, best proxy to destroy Israel. To make Iran powerful enough to destroy Israel, they would need what? An atomic weapon of course. But how could they make one without the foundation fuel, uranium? Simple, give them some of ours. But it couldn’t be done with a Craig’s List post. It had to have the cover of a “legitimate” business transaction with someone other than the Obama administration. Who would be the best scoundrel to accomplish this task? Hillary Clinton of course. Why was she named Secretary0 of State anyway? Certainly not for her executive experience.

Enter Uranium One, a mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada owning one of the largest mining operations of United States uranium. Acquire them and you would have access to the mother load of uranium. Who bought Uranium One and why was it for sale? Rosatom, a Russian State-owned enterprise, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, bought the company. Why it was for sale has not been reported.

Meanwhile Clinton, being no fool when it comes to rackets, demanded some “skin” in the game from the buyers and sellers before she and Obama would approve of the sale. The Mafia’s got nothing compared to the Clintons.

So, the Russians (buyers) began funneling money to the Clintons through speech fees and direct payments to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One Board Members (sellers) began forking over $145 million to the Clinton foundation, and presto, the sale is approved.

And funnier still was President Obama simultaneously hashing out, in secret, a letter of “understanding” to allow, guess who… Iran, to continue its nuclear reactor activity unsupervised. No inspectors allowed. Some deal right? And any deal that binds the United States to international duties is called a treaty. And that requires congressional approval. But somehow congress forgot that and led by Bob Corker, worked around the Constitutional duty to approve.

But hidden in all of this is the fact that Uranium One stock had been trading for as low as 10 cents a share just a few years before. The price of the stock when sold? With the purchase of the company valued at $3.1 billion, the share price was about $7. Nice mark up and a serious return on their investment in the Clinton Foundation. And the Obama Justice Department quashed an active FBI investigation into this scandal through two terms in office.

Oh, and on a side note, how about the billions Obama released to the Iranians? Some estimates are upwards of $33 billion. Was there anything Obama wouldn’t do to further Iran’s goals?

And now we find that Rosatom has, through Canada, where Uranium One was headquartered, shipped yellow cake uranium out of our country without a license to do so.  Also on Obama’s watch.  Where did this yellow cake uranium finally end up once it left our country and most likely shipped to Russia?

From ZeroHedge, Jan 9, 2017:

Obama “Gifts” Iran With Massive Uranium Shipment From Russia Sufficient “For More Than 10 Nuclear Bombs”


In what amounts to an 11th hour “gift” by the outgoing Obama administration to Tehran’s leadership to keep the country, which on Sunday was involved in yet another shooting incident with a US destroyer, content and compliant with Obama’s landmark “Nuclear deal”, the AP reported that Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant. The move was approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments “seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.

The Mullahs who head the religious dictatorship eagerly anticipate an apocalypse leading to the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, who will then establish a global caliphate, leading to a perfect world. If they are on the receiving end of the Uranium One ore, they might end up with the means to bring about at least the first step of the prophecy, and target the “little Satan” of Israel, next door to their client in Damascus.    

The writer is just a regular guy that likes to try and connect dots.



Source link

Finally, the Missing Puzzle Piece



For those who have, over the years, watched with horror and ire as Obama usurped power and ran the government like a dictator, the latest revelations are not especially surprising.



Source link

The Big Mistake in Obamacare Replacement Plans


When Democrats were peddling ObamaCare to an unsuspecting America, they told us that the price of health insurance would go down by thousands of dollars. But the opposite happened, and it continues to happen. The way that real insurance works is that policyholders get lower premiums if they are less likely to file claims and thereby cost their insurance companies money; that is, if they pose less risk. Insurance companies set premiums by using actuarial science to calculate risk.

But ObamaCare policies don’t price for risk, everyone pays the same regardless of risk due to the ACA’s “community rating” policy. However, there’s another way to keep the price of premiums down and that’s for policyholders to agree to pay some of the costs of the medical treatment incurred in their claims, i.e. deductibles and copayments — the lower the premium, the higher the deductible.

So, ObamaCare tried to make premiums affordable by having much, much higher deductibles. But some folks who file claims with ObamaCare can’t pay their deductibles. ObamaCare took care of those folks through CSRs, cost sharing reductions, where government pays the policyholder’s deductible.

Unlike its premiums, the ACA did not provide automatic funding of the CSRs. Instead, Congress must regularly approve the funds for the CSRs, and Congress hasn’t been doing that. This back-loaded little aspect of the ACA has been driven home recently by President Trump’s executive order to stop payment of CSRs. Democrats and their stooges in the media are wailing that the president’s order is “arson” and “sabotage.” They caterwaul that without the CSR payments the price of ACA premiums will, surprise, surprise, shoot up even higher. They seem to think that the ACA should be exempt from the “Laws of Insurance.”

On May 12, 2016 in House v. Burwell, a federal judge found that the payments of CSRs are unconstitutional because Congress hasn’t been appropriating the funds. Law Professor Timothy Jost has written much on the case (archive); here’s what he wrote on the day of the decision. Though Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 is quite clear in requiring that money cannot be “drawn from the Treasury” without an appropriation from Congress, Democrats seem to think that the president should just keep on lawlessly spending money, just as Obama did.

The media has been rather careless in reporting this story; they often refer to the CSRs as “subsidies.” But there’s another ObamaCare subsidy that one receives when the government helps to pay for one’s health insurance premiums. That is the main subsidy, and it has complicated folks’ income tax returns. Unlike premiums, which must be paid every month, the CSRs are subsidies that would never need to be paid if no one filed a claim. But policyholders do file claims, so the true cost of ACA policies needs to include the $7B that the CSRs are costing taxpayers. That’s the same $7B Democrats think Pres. Trump should be spending without congressional authorization.

Congress has the power to appropriate the funds for the CSRs, and recently Sens. Alexander and Murray have reached a deal to do just that. However, the deal is for a two-year appropriation, which Republicans should reject for a much shorter funding period, should they be inclined to vote for this deal. Not only that, Republicans should get some concessions, too:

Just minutes before Alexander announced the deal, White House legislative director Marc Short emerged from a Senate GOP lunch saying that “a starting point” in exchange for restoring the cost-sharing payments “is eliminating the individual mandate and employer mandate” — the central pillars of Obamacare.

But the mandates aren’t “the central pillars of ObamaCare.” ObamaCare made inroads into several huge areas of health insurance, and most of ObamaCare would still stand if the individual mandate were repealed. What would be affected by the elimination of the individual mandate is the Individual Market.

Because most Americans receive health insurance through their employer or through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare trained its corporatist sights on the Individual Market. It is this group that receives all the media attention, but it is by far the smallest sector. Before the implementation of the ACA, the Individual Market, which is also called the “Non-Group” market, comprised just 4 percent of the population.

Repeal of the individual mandate would likely result in throngs of healthy young Americans choosing not to buy health insurance, which would indeed doom the Individual Market under Obamacare. But that should happen anyway. You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

But what we’ve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the government’s involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republican’s “Big Mistake” in their replacement plans.

Here’s a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal government’s continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

With ObamaCare you get both high premiums and high deductibles. But ACA premiums would have been even higher had Democrats structured ObamaCare like real insurance with reasonable deductibles. The people ObamaCare hurts the most are those who pay the full price for health insurance at the exchanges.

If people don’t have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Court’s usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 

When Democrats were peddling ObamaCare to an unsuspecting America, they told us that the price of health insurance would go down by thousands of dollars. But the opposite happened, and it continues to happen. The way that real insurance works is that policyholders get lower premiums if they are less likely to file claims and thereby cost their insurance companies money; that is, if they pose less risk. Insurance companies set premiums by using actuarial science to calculate risk.

But ObamaCare policies don’t price for risk, everyone pays the same regardless of risk due to the ACA’s “community rating” policy. However, there’s another way to keep the price of premiums down and that’s for policyholders to agree to pay some of the costs of the medical treatment incurred in their claims, i.e. deductibles and copayments — the lower the premium, the higher the deductible.

So, ObamaCare tried to make premiums affordable by having much, much higher deductibles. But some folks who file claims with ObamaCare can’t pay their deductibles. ObamaCare took care of those folks through CSRs, cost sharing reductions, where government pays the policyholder’s deductible.

Unlike its premiums, the ACA did not provide automatic funding of the CSRs. Instead, Congress must regularly approve the funds for the CSRs, and Congress hasn’t been doing that. This back-loaded little aspect of the ACA has been driven home recently by President Trump’s executive order to stop payment of CSRs. Democrats and their stooges in the media are wailing that the president’s order is “arson” and “sabotage.” They caterwaul that without the CSR payments the price of ACA premiums will, surprise, surprise, shoot up even higher. They seem to think that the ACA should be exempt from the “Laws of Insurance.”

On May 12, 2016 in House v. Burwell, a federal judge found that the payments of CSRs are unconstitutional because Congress hasn’t been appropriating the funds. Law Professor Timothy Jost has written much on the case (archive); here’s what he wrote on the day of the decision. Though Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 is quite clear in requiring that money cannot be “drawn from the Treasury” without an appropriation from Congress, Democrats seem to think that the president should just keep on lawlessly spending money, just as Obama did.

The media has been rather careless in reporting this story; they often refer to the CSRs as “subsidies.” But there’s another ObamaCare subsidy that one receives when the government helps to pay for one’s health insurance premiums. That is the main subsidy, and it has complicated folks’ income tax returns. Unlike premiums, which must be paid every month, the CSRs are subsidies that would never need to be paid if no one filed a claim. But policyholders do file claims, so the true cost of ACA policies needs to include the $7B that the CSRs are costing taxpayers. That’s the same $7B Democrats think Pres. Trump should be spending without congressional authorization.

Congress has the power to appropriate the funds for the CSRs, and recently Sens. Alexander and Murray have reached a deal to do just that. However, the deal is for a two-year appropriation, which Republicans should reject for a much shorter funding period, should they be inclined to vote for this deal. Not only that, Republicans should get some concessions, too:

Just minutes before Alexander announced the deal, White House legislative director Marc Short emerged from a Senate GOP lunch saying that “a starting point” in exchange for restoring the cost-sharing payments “is eliminating the individual mandate and employer mandate” — the central pillars of Obamacare.

But the mandates aren’t “the central pillars of ObamaCare.” ObamaCare made inroads into several huge areas of health insurance, and most of ObamaCare would still stand if the individual mandate were repealed. What would be affected by the elimination of the individual mandate is the Individual Market.

Because most Americans receive health insurance through their employer or through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare trained its corporatist sights on the Individual Market. It is this group that receives all the media attention, but it is by far the smallest sector. Before the implementation of the ACA, the Individual Market, which is also called the “Non-Group” market, comprised just 4 percent of the population.

Repeal of the individual mandate would likely result in throngs of healthy young Americans choosing not to buy health insurance, which would indeed doom the Individual Market under Obamacare. But that should happen anyway. You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

But what we’ve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the government’s involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republican’s “Big Mistake” in their replacement plans.

Here’s a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal government’s continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

With ObamaCare you get both high premiums and high deductibles. But ACA premiums would have been even higher had Democrats structured ObamaCare like real insurance with reasonable deductibles. The people ObamaCare hurts the most are those who pay the full price for health insurance at the exchanges.

If people don’t have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Court’s usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 



Source link

K-12: Character Assassins


Once upon a time, schools tried to improve the character of their students.  Be neat.  Be punctual.  Be accurate.  Do your homework.  Don’t copy anyone else’s work.  Dot your is and cross your ts.  Remember, practice makes perfect.

In a similar way, the Boy Scouts urged boys to be little gentlemen.  Scout Law dictates: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

For much of American history, few questioned these values.  Benjamin Franklin declared the prevailing view: “nothing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.”

Alas, all that is gone with the wind from the classrooms of America.  Evidently, Progressives figured out that the converse of Franklin’s insight is also true: nothing is more destructive to the public weal than to deform and train down youth in ignorance and immorality. 

Progressives hit the country with a double-whammy: sabotage of both academics and character.

If you haven’t paid attention to K-12 for a few decades, the first thing you notice is that education officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar  spelling, etc.  It’s surprising if students know where Alaska is on a map or who won the Civil War.

Have you gotten used to all that?  You’ll probably still be surprised when you realize that a lot of what goes on in public schools is targeted not at academics, but at the moral development of students.  If they are slouches – shallow, ignorant, and narcissistic – that seems to be what our social engineers want.

These days, our schools are engaged in an anti-gentleman crusade.  Don’t try too hard.  Don’t worry if the dog ate your homework.  It’s  normal to cut corners and leave work unfinished.  Lateness is okay.  Incomplete is as good as complete.  Wrong answers are acceptable if you explain your tactics.  Cheating is okay because everyone does it. 

Here is a scary snapshot from a teacher commenting on this country’s best students (AP Chemistry).

Today … my students are chronically tardy and absent, often refuse to do even the most trivial work, and experience a diluted and simplified version of what I once taught. If I write something on the board, when I turn around a dozen phones have materialized and are actively being typed on. When I try to do fun things like labs and projects, the students complain and mope as if I was walking them to prison. They lament (out loud) how awful it is that they just can’t look up the answers like all the other classes.

Students refuse.  Isn’t that word a terrifying revelation?

Let’s face it: a lot of life is doing things you wish you could avoid.  You don’t want to take extra care with a project, but you do it anyway.  In the process, you get stronger and more disciplined.  This will help you in the future, no matter what job you have.  But the schools are saying, Skip all that; let’s smoke a joint and chill.  They are saying, Become the useless slug no one would want to hire.  Be the weak link in every chain.

Whenever the official experts bother to touch on these concerns, they are the devil’s advocate.  An article on Edutopia blandly asserts what is surely controversial (boldface in original):

Myth #2: Homework Boosts Achievement. There is no evidence that this is true. In Finland, students have higher achievement with little or no homework and shorter school hours. The more important factor is what students experience during the school day. Project-based learning, as one example, places the emphasis on what is done during the day. If students choose to do more after hours, that’s their choice. There also may sometimes be other good reasons to assign homework, but there should be no illusion that homework will help increase student achievement.

You see, there is always some deep reason, some brilliant expert, to give schools an excuse for aiming low.  Why bother with homework?  Edutopia says it doesn’t matter.  Nowadays, almost nothing matters.

I knew a woman five years out of Vassar who still had incomplete papers hanging over her.  Finally Vassar said, you have to do these papers, or you lose all the credits you acquired.  The point is, they corrupted her in the first place.  They let her get away with being lazy, undisciplined, and dissolute.

The part that is not clear to me is, what happens to the cheaters later on?  And how do the lazy, corner-cutting students compete with students who have learned to work hard?  Cheaters know that their grades are meaningless.  They don’t have the knowledge or abilities their schools claimed  for them.  They will have to spend their lives covering up.  Some of our ditzy administrators probably insist they are trying to help students by cushioning them from the shocks of real life.  But that’s not a help; it’s a curse.

According to one pundit, “[s]tudents claim they are so stressed from school that they demand no grades be given for their poor attendance or non-performance; sadly, half the schools in the country have obliged.”

Schools have gotten increasingly permissive.  There is clearly some diabolical intent.  It’s almost as if the social engineers had a meeting and said, Okay, how do we fix it so kids never turn out right?

Can we reverse this trend?  Yes, by going back to what we had 50 years ago and before.  Tell students they can’t cheat, make it difficult for them to cheat, and punish them when they do.  Start in the first grade teaching things simply and systematically, all the while making it clear that the students are expected to learn the material.  Our current schools do it the opposite way: make everything chaotic, but then – wink, wink – make clear that nothing much will be expected.

Put simply, the current education decline was caused by discarding traditional approaches and then letting progressive ideas overrun the landscape.  Let’s do the opposite. 

Get rid of progressive ideas, and restore traditional education.  All that means in practice is that public schools do what private schools do every day.  Sounds good to me.

Bruce Deitrick Price deconstructs theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  His new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?

Once upon a time, schools tried to improve the character of their students.  Be neat.  Be punctual.  Be accurate.  Do your homework.  Don’t copy anyone else’s work.  Dot your is and cross your ts.  Remember, practice makes perfect.

In a similar way, the Boy Scouts urged boys to be little gentlemen.  Scout Law dictates: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

For much of American history, few questioned these values.  Benjamin Franklin declared the prevailing view: “nothing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.”

Alas, all that is gone with the wind from the classrooms of America.  Evidently, Progressives figured out that the converse of Franklin’s insight is also true: nothing is more destructive to the public weal than to deform and train down youth in ignorance and immorality. 

Progressives hit the country with a double-whammy: sabotage of both academics and character.

If you haven’t paid attention to K-12 for a few decades, the first thing you notice is that education officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar  spelling, etc.  It’s surprising if students know where Alaska is on a map or who won the Civil War.

Have you gotten used to all that?  You’ll probably still be surprised when you realize that a lot of what goes on in public schools is targeted not at academics, but at the moral development of students.  If they are slouches – shallow, ignorant, and narcissistic – that seems to be what our social engineers want.

These days, our schools are engaged in an anti-gentleman crusade.  Don’t try too hard.  Don’t worry if the dog ate your homework.  It’s  normal to cut corners and leave work unfinished.  Lateness is okay.  Incomplete is as good as complete.  Wrong answers are acceptable if you explain your tactics.  Cheating is okay because everyone does it. 

Here is a scary snapshot from a teacher commenting on this country’s best students (AP Chemistry).

Today … my students are chronically tardy and absent, often refuse to do even the most trivial work, and experience a diluted and simplified version of what I once taught. If I write something on the board, when I turn around a dozen phones have materialized and are actively being typed on. When I try to do fun things like labs and projects, the students complain and mope as if I was walking them to prison. They lament (out loud) how awful it is that they just can’t look up the answers like all the other classes.

Students refuse.  Isn’t that word a terrifying revelation?

Let’s face it: a lot of life is doing things you wish you could avoid.  You don’t want to take extra care with a project, but you do it anyway.  In the process, you get stronger and more disciplined.  This will help you in the future, no matter what job you have.  But the schools are saying, Skip all that; let’s smoke a joint and chill.  They are saying, Become the useless slug no one would want to hire.  Be the weak link in every chain.

Whenever the official experts bother to touch on these concerns, they are the devil’s advocate.  An article on Edutopia blandly asserts what is surely controversial (boldface in original):

Myth #2: Homework Boosts Achievement. There is no evidence that this is true. In Finland, students have higher achievement with little or no homework and shorter school hours. The more important factor is what students experience during the school day. Project-based learning, as one example, places the emphasis on what is done during the day. If students choose to do more after hours, that’s their choice. There also may sometimes be other good reasons to assign homework, but there should be no illusion that homework will help increase student achievement.

You see, there is always some deep reason, some brilliant expert, to give schools an excuse for aiming low.  Why bother with homework?  Edutopia says it doesn’t matter.  Nowadays, almost nothing matters.

I knew a woman five years out of Vassar who still had incomplete papers hanging over her.  Finally Vassar said, you have to do these papers, or you lose all the credits you acquired.  The point is, they corrupted her in the first place.  They let her get away with being lazy, undisciplined, and dissolute.

The part that is not clear to me is, what happens to the cheaters later on?  And how do the lazy, corner-cutting students compete with students who have learned to work hard?  Cheaters know that their grades are meaningless.  They don’t have the knowledge or abilities their schools claimed  for them.  They will have to spend their lives covering up.  Some of our ditzy administrators probably insist they are trying to help students by cushioning them from the shocks of real life.  But that’s not a help; it’s a curse.

According to one pundit, “[s]tudents claim they are so stressed from school that they demand no grades be given for their poor attendance or non-performance; sadly, half the schools in the country have obliged.”

Schools have gotten increasingly permissive.  There is clearly some diabolical intent.  It’s almost as if the social engineers had a meeting and said, Okay, how do we fix it so kids never turn out right?

Can we reverse this trend?  Yes, by going back to what we had 50 years ago and before.  Tell students they can’t cheat, make it difficult for them to cheat, and punish them when they do.  Start in the first grade teaching things simply and systematically, all the while making it clear that the students are expected to learn the material.  Our current schools do it the opposite way: make everything chaotic, but then – wink, wink – make clear that nothing much will be expected.

Put simply, the current education decline was caused by discarding traditional approaches and then letting progressive ideas overrun the landscape.  Let’s do the opposite. 

Get rid of progressive ideas, and restore traditional education.  All that means in practice is that public schools do what private schools do every day.  Sounds good to me.

Bruce Deitrick Price deconstructs theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  His new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?



Source link