Friday, August 5, 2016

Barak Obama on 400 Million Dollar Payoff

Claim:  Barak Obama used an unmarked airplane to deliver $400 million dollars in various currencies to the Islamic State of Iran in exchange for American hostage release.  Paying a ransom only means more kidnappings, which is what has happened, as the enemy is emboldened (see US Navy gunboat).  

Iran released a video showing the cash and claiming it was that Obama personally approved and paid the ransom.  The varying currency, itself, is criminally connected. 

The Iranians recognize a jizrah when they see it and have broadcast it as such in the supremacy ideology of Islam. 

History:  The origin of Tripolitan War of US Marines battling Islam for kidnapping and enslaving Americans.  When pressed for the justification of violating international law, the Islamic ambassadors cited the Koran's teaching on enslaving "infidels" as higher than any other law.  Lt. Stephen Decatur's bravery stands as a monument to standing against tyranny for Marines for 200 years.  The term "leatherneck" originated from the koran:  they learned that devout Muslim soldiers sought to behead the "infidel" and developed defensive equipment to protect the back of the neck.  

Iran is considered the world's top exporter of Jihad terrorism today.  Americans have seen and heard the Iranian parliament and public chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

Obama said that cash is no different than a check or "just as easy." 

This is the criminal designation of turning rubles, for example, into Russian weapons that will be used against Americans and Israelis.  

Let's look at his statement and then why foreign currencies were used.  The statement by John Kerry is also here.

The news was broke by the Wall Street Journal, a media outlet friendly to Obama, and congress reacted with anger, having it kept secret from them and the American public.  He denied paying ransom:  
"We were completely open with everybody about it, and it’s interesting to me that this suddenly became a story again.  We do not pay ransom for hostages."

Note the sensitivity of being "open", with the word "completely" added in light of   Congressional claims to have been kept in the dark.
Next take note of  the simple use of present tense language rather than to issue a denial.  Technically, the denial is "unreliable."  

“If true, this report confirms our longstanding suspicion that the administration paid a ransom in exchange for Americans unjustly detained in Iran," House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. "It would also mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal."
Many Americans accuse Ryan of criminal neglect in the Obama administration for failure to seek various charges, including treason.  Note the softer language of "misleading" rather than "lying to..."  and "saga" being more narrative or story related than it is incessant deception.  

John Kerry:  

“The United States of America does not pay ransom and doesn’t negotiate ransoms with any country; we never have and we’re not doing that now."

Barak Obama 
"The only bit of news that is relevant on this is the fact that we paid cash," Obama said. Restrictions on U.S. banking relationships with Iran mean "we could not send them a check, and we could not wire them the money."
Note the enormity of the breaking news in light of "only bit" (with both "only" (comparative) and "bit" being small section of a larger).  

Does Hilary Clinton believe the world is safer with a nuclear Iran?

"They  want to continue to criticize the agreement, and I think they are wrong about that," Clinton said of Republican critics. "I have said the agreement has made the world safer, but it has to be enforced. And I’ve spoken out very strongly about how I will enforce this agreement."


Nic said...

Peter, I transcribed BO's q/a re this 400-million dollar payoff. I thought it was too long and "old news" come this morning. In any event here it is:

BO: Mary Bruce

MB: Thank you, Mr. President. What is your response to critics who say that the $400-million dollars in cash that you sent to Iran, was a ransom payment. Was it really, simply a pure coincidence that, a sum that was, a payment that was held up for almost four decades was suddenly sent at the exact same time that the American prisoners were released. And can you assure the American people that none of that money went to support terrorism.

BO: Okay the uh, iiiit’s been interesting to watch this story surface. Some of you may recall, we announced these payments in January. Many months ago. And the-there wasn’t a secret. We, we announced them. For a-to all of you. Josh did a briefing on them. Uh, th-this wasn’t some, uh, nefarious deal. And, at the time we explained that Iran had pressed a claimed before an international tribunal about them recovering money of theirs that we had frozen, that as a consequence of its working its way through the international tri-bunal, it was the assessment of our lawyers that we were now at a point where there was significant litigation risk and we could end up costing ourselves billions of dollars, it was their advice and suggestion that we settle. And that’s what these payments represent. And it wasn’t a secret. We, we were completely open with everybody about it, and it’s interesting to me how suddenly this became a story again. That’s point number one.

Nic said...


BO: Point number two: we do not pay ransom for hostages. We’ve got a number of Americans being held all around the world. And I meet with their families. And it is heartbreaking. And we have stood up an entire uh, section of interagency experts who devote all their time to working with these families to get these Americans out. But those families know that we have a policy that we don’t pay ransom. And the notion that we would somehow start now in this high-profile way and announce it to the world uh, even as we’re looking into the faces of other hostage fami, uh families uh, whose, who-whose loved ones are being held hostage, uh, an-and say to them that we don’t pay ransom, uh, uh, defies logic. So that’s point number two. We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here and we won’t in the future, precisely because if we did, then we would start encouraging uh, Americans to be targeted much in the same way that some countries do pay ransom, uh, end up having a lot more of their citizens, uh, taken by various groups.

Nic said...


BO: Point number three, uh, is that the timing of this was in fact dictated by the f- by the fact that as a consequence of us negotiating around the nuclear deal, we actually had diplomatic negotiations and conversations with Iran for the first time in several decades. So uh, the issue is not so much that it was a coincidence as it is that we were able to have a direct discussion. John Kerry could meet with the foreign minister which meant that our ability to clear accounts on a number of different issues at the same time converged. And it was important for us to take advantage of that opportunity both to deal with this litigation risk that had been raised, it was important for us to make sure that we finished the job on the uh, Iran nuclear deal, and since we were in a conversation with them, it was important for us to be able to push them hard uh, in getting these Americans, uh, out.

Nic said...


BO: And let me make a final point on this, it’s not been well over a year since the agreement with Iran to stop its nuclear program, uh, was signed. And, by all accounts, it has worked exactly the way we said it was going to work. You will recall that there were all these horror stories about how Iran was going to cheat, and this wasn’t going to work and Iran was going to get $150-billion dollars to finance terrorism and all these kinds of scenarios and none of them have come to pass. And it’s not just the assessment of our intelligence community, it’s the assessment of the Israeli military and intelligence community the country that was most opposed to this deal then acknowledges that this has been a game changer and that Iran has abided by the deal and that they no longer have the sort of short-term break out capacity that would allow them to develop nuclear weapons. So wwwhat I’m interested in is if, if there is some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster, say, “You know what, this thing actually worked.” Now that would be a shock. That would be impressive. If some of these folks who had said, “The sky is falling.” suddenly said, “You know what, we were wrong, and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon.” But of course that wasn’t going to happen. Instead what we have is, uh, the manufacturing and outrage of a story that we (chuckles) disclosed in January. And the only bit of news that is relevant on this, is the fact that we paid cash, which, brings me to my last point. The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check. and we could not wire them the money. And uuu, it is not at all clear to me why it is that cash as opposed to a check or a wire transfer has made this into a news story. Now maybe because it kinda feels like some spy novel or you know, some uh you know, crime novel, uh because cash was exchanged. The reason cash was exchanged is because we don’t have a banking relationship with Iran, which is precisely part of uh the pressure we were able to apply to them so that they would ship a whole bunch of nuclear material out and close down a bunch of facilities uh, that, as I remember two years ago, three years ago, five years ago was peoples’ top fear and priority that we make sure Iran doesn’t have breakout nuclear capacity. They don’t. This worked.

Nic said...

Re cash v. check... maybe he should have that conversation with Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada:

[snip]The judge said he could not accept Mulroney’s testimony that his acceptance of at least $225,000 in cash was an error in judgment. Rather, it was an attempt to hide the transactions, Oliphant said.

“The reason Mr. Schreiber made the payments in cash and Mr. Mulroney accepted them in cash was that both wanted to conceal the fact that the transactions had occurred between them,” the judge said in a summary read to the media.[end snip]

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

From the Daily Mail:

Could Trump have been right? Propaganda film suggests Iran DID videotape cash-drop plane and photograph shipment of cash during January prisoner swap

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

(Included is an embedded Iranian news clip allegedly showing video of hostage ransom money.)

Nic said...

From the Daily Mail embedded Iranian news clip:

"The Islamic republic added an expensive offer to the equation: the release of seven Iranian prisoners in the United States, $1.7 billion, and the lifting of sanctions against 16 Iranians who were prosecuted by the U.S. legal system with the unjust excuse of sanctions violations. But these were not the Iranians’ only demands. Lifting sanctions against Sepah Bank was added to Iran’s list. All of this, in return for the release of only four American citizens. A win-lose deal that benefits the Islamic Republic of Iran and hurts the United States. The Democrats’ concern was mostly due to the the fact that Obama’s rivals might find out."

Ode said...

The power of distraction. When an event is on 27/9 all news channels, both network and cable, more than likely something else is ongoing that isn't going to be ON the news, .....what they don't want you to know, it may HURT them.

The destruction and reconstruction continues

Clinton Body Count +5 in Just 6 Weeks
Each person dead was is not a mention, nope, no press coverage.
Gee why? could it be " hits" intentional,.....sponsored by pick one
The D convention, the bankers, the band leaders, fire eater, Clinton,..
.. Obama you didn't become successful unless someone helped you
along the way...

Published on Aug 5, 2016, 9 mins 44 sec
vid a provocative watch:

Hillary will stop at nothing to claw her way into the White House; unfortunately, people are dropping dead left and right in her path and, in the case of the last two found dead earlier this week, the mainstream media is pretending not to even notice they are gone...

Anonymous said...

and the Iranians are just laughing their heads off at the US while mocking Kerry and Obama repeatedly and bragging about how they outwitted them - let's not forget Bergdhal where an admitted deserter was traded for 5 high ranking Gitmo detainees. They showed how desperate they were for a deal from the beginning and were willing to do/give anything to get it and claim that it made us safe? I put that with "you can keep your doctor and your premiums will go down $2,500" and then they come back with "we never said that" until one of their flunkees was caught on tape bragging about how easy it was to dupe the stupid public with their lies. January can't come soon enough and I don't know if any future president will be able to undo all the damage these two clowns have caused the country and the world.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

You probably won't post this, but that's fine, I just hope you read it and maybe take note of it.

Intentionally misspelling someone's name with the intent of making them sound inherently more "ethnic" is absurdly racist and a serious detriment to both your point and your field. Which is a shame because you are good at what you do.

Unrelated to this post, but I'd also suggest that in general you tread lightly when you talk about "behavioral analysis". To anyone who is an actual behavior analyst, you sound silly. Just FYI.

Stick to what you know my man.


Anonymous said...

The northern US states did not travel 10,000 miles to invade the southern states. Syrian, libyan, iraqi wars are not civil wars. Invasion, regime change , and regime change attempt failures.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Anonymous @ 11:23

How is spelling Barack without a "c" racist and/or "inherently ethnic"? FYI, I looked up the origin of "Barak" and this is what I found: is a Hebrew name meaning "lightning". It is a Biblical name, given after the Israelite general Barak.

My daughter's name is not only misspelled, it's mispronounced. All.the.time. Am I to believe she is being made to sound more English than she is? How silly would I sound spouting off a nonsensical thought like that.

FYI, smear and ridicule - it's what Liberals do when they are losing a political argument.

Anonymous said...

sbj wont stop behaviorally analyzing people. I think he needs a vacation in the spam folder. Thanks!

Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

August 6, 2016 at 6:56 AM

How did they know what her son was called?
I don't know about cuts, most look like scratches.

Anonymous said...

Certain the $400M wasnt some of their own unfrozen assets?

Nic said...

“They hit me and they kicked me and they cut me, but I didn’t say a word because I didn’t want my kids to hear anything and come down and they would be victims as well,” said Ruth.

negates that which is said prior to it, this story is about a home invasion/attack however she skips over this quickly and makes the topic about “what” she didn’t do and “why”

I didn’t say a word
what is said in the negative is sensitive

what follows “because” is the answer to a question that was not asked making this very sensitive

I didn’t want my kids to hear
what is said in the negative is sensitive

anything doesn’t describe what she didn’t want them to hear, i.e., her being physically attacked. She is concealing what “anything” is.
she avoids saying what her kids would “see” if they came down, she doesn’t say they would see "anything"

missing information

they would be
future tense, instead of conditional perfect past (they would have been)

“My phone was in my hand and I just walked to the door and I saw the shadow outside,” said Ruth.

is comparative to something else

She describes a single shadow, but there were two assailants, she does not say “a” shadow (something she would have seen for the first time,) or "their" shadow, instead it is “the” (single, known) shadow

“They put me on the floor on the couch they punched me in my chest kicked me in my stomach,” said Ruth.

Out of order, the couch usually sits on the floor
was she on the couch or on the floor

unexpected. Reflexive pronoun used to describe what someone else was doing to her. When someone is doing something to “me”, I say, “they kicked me in “the” stomach, they punched me in “the” chest; however, if I do something to myself, I hit “my” knee, I poked “my” eye

Deception indicated.

“Even when he was using his knife on me he carved my sons name on my back and all I was thinking was be quiet they can't come down they can't come down,” said Ruth.
Is this assailant known? (carved my son’s name)

Anonymous said...

Why is extraordinary effort required by Viktor Orban to protect his country from unwanted and certain disaster? Let the Hungarians live in peace. Let the residents in Twin Falls Idaho live in peace. EU & US have a governance illness. Intentional and wreckless disregard for stability. Idiocy, arrogance, disdane & incompetence or design? Can they be that stupid?

John Mc Gowan said...

“My phone was in my hand and I just walked to the door and I saw the shadow outside,” said Ruth.

Articles like pronouns are instinctive and reliable. There are rules and when they are out of sequence or the wrong way round we are confronted with sensitivity and or deception.

Here for example.

I was walking down the street and a car mounted the curb and almost hit me.

The car then sped away.

Once a car is introduced,(indefinite article) it then becomes "the", (Definite article) having previously been identified.

So, this tells us if "the shadow outside" has not been introduced, and there is no editing in the vt leading up to this sentence, the use of the word "the" indicates she knows who or has knowledge of "the shadow outside"

John Mc Gowan said...

Whoever did this told me, we told you to go back to your country you Indian expletive and he said that many times,” said Ruth.

This suggest she has had contact (in some form or another) with them before. Whomever "they" maybe, and may explain the definite article, "The"

Jamie said...

Agreed! Peter has a well documented history of misspelling names of people from a wide array of ethnicities. He misspells Hillary fairly often and she ain't black. The fact that 88% of his misspellings are of people that Peter shows contempt for is just a coincidence and has nothing at all to do with bias.

Anonymous said...

Peter has lots of misspellings as well as punctuation and grammar errors. Most of the people he writes about are deceptive (that's his job). If any of us were to write as much as he does, we would have lots of mistakes too.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:29, Yeah you're already making grammar mistakes you snotty &ss, so I'd lay off Peter. You put a complete sentence in parentheses in the midst of another sentence with lack of capitalization also. Next time try putting a comma before the word "too" when it comes at the end of a sentence. Seems like you have plenty of your own grammar problems.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

With this recent revelation, following on the heels of all the hype surrounding both Party Primaries, one of my family members raised the question, "How does Statement Analysis work when the speeches are written by a third party speech-writer(or a group effort)?".

Anonymous said...

"The only bit of news that is relevant on this is the fact that we paid cash,"
... "is the fact that we paid cash"

sounds like an embedded confession?


Anonymous said...

Long time reader here, disappointed to see the lack of analysis on Trump. Speaks volumes when you dedicate so much to Obama and Clinton. So, how about some objective analysis of Trump's statements? So much material to analyze.

Deejay said...

I followed Peter's notes about narcissism, using the Trump speech transcript from Wilmington. (Time website, much too long to put all here) He uses "I" more than twice as often as 'we" . Some paragraphs ten or more times.

Here is the controversial quote where he hints at assassination of his rival:

" Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on."

Note from me: No matter what you think of any other candidate- IMHO this guy is very dangerous for several reasons; he is deeply narcissistic, he doesn't have any filter on what comes out of his mouth, he acts very quickly on little info, and he is willing to incite violence to get his way.

Jamie said...

Not surprising. Was it ever revealed that Peter analyzed his own "anonymous statement" (from a comment he made on Breitbart) on the Trump 911 New Jersey video?

Anonymous said...

Is it useless to use statment analysis on Trump if it's all an act?

Trump IS narcissistic and is loving the attention, the deception, and the game. But I'm surprised few Americans have not seen through his charade.

He is too extreme and exaggerated to be for real. Like he's playing a character on SNL.

He's helping Billary and their party look like the only sane, intelligent choice. They are clearly working together to throw the election. Does this sound like something Hillary WOULDN'T do, with her track record?

I did a search of my theory a few weeks ago and found out that Trump is friends with the Clintons and has donated to their campaign in the past.

And as an extra bonus, this brainwashed society only needs one extremist (seemingly) to believe a whole party/group/ethnicity/religion/etc (who they already resent) share the same extreme beliefs. It creates more hate and more division, one of many controlling tactics used successfully by the progs (Rules For Radicals). And the percentage of people who vote for Trump will help make Repub supporters look like morons. Thus erasing ANY credibility conservatives ever had for their beliefs.

Either he (and the RNC?) is a progressive in Conservative's clothing or he is being blackmailed or bribed by Billary, the prog party, or maybe billionaire prog George Soros. Maybe it's not Repub vs Dem anymore. Maybe it's the self-appointed elite vs the rest of us.

As someone posted Hillary will stop at nothing to win. Talk about narcissism.

Don't get me started on JFK Jr's demise or the Florida voting fiasco. Or 911.

nabilmubarak said...

My name is Leah Brown, I'm a happy woman today? I told myself that any loan lender that could change my life and that of my family after having been scammed separately by these online loan lenders, I will refer to anyone who is looking for loan for them. It gave me and my family happiness, although at first I had a hard time trusting him because of my experiences with past loan lenders, I needed a loan of $300,000.00 to start my life everywhere as single mother with 2 children, I met this honest and God fearing online loan lender Gain Credit Loan who helped me with a $300,000.00 loan, working with a loan company Good reputation. If you are in need of a loan and you are 100% sure of paying the loan please contact ( You can also whatsApp them at: at +44-75967-81743 (WhatsApp Only) .. and inform them Leah Brown addressed to you ..