Monday, September 19, 2016
Barak Obama Statement on Paying Iran in Cash
For the first time in US Naval history, an American Navy boat was surrendered without a shot being fired when the Islamic Republic of Iran confronted two small American boats.
The sailors were captured, humiliated and the ship boarded and stripped of its technology.
Hence, payment for hostage emboldens the enemy. The United States learned this lesson, at the cost of lives, just prior to the Marines landing in Tripoli to put an end to the koranic Islamic hostage and slave trade that was the result of piracy.
Barak Obama denied this was a ransom for the 3 hostages, but after exposure from some media outlets, the White House admitted that it was.
Why the need to deceive the American public?
The United States paid the ransom in cash, with various currencies, landing in an unmarked plane. The cash payment permits the world's leader in exporting Islamic terror to further fund terrorism without electronic tracing of the funds.
The State Department released an initial statement refusing to get involved to answer about whether or not money has been wired to Iran.
After more leaks to some media outlets, they admitted that they had, in fact, wired two large payments of money to Iran.
The Obama statement:
"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 the money.”
1. Please first notice that the "because" is expected within the context as he is there to explain why he gave them cash, including foreign currencies, but the word "precisely" is given to modify the reason why. This is to limit any other possibilities of "why" cash was given, in the strictest manner.
It should be unnecessary.
2. Next note that there is now modify the "strictness" of keeping sanctions in place: "so strict" which now heightens the preciseness of why no wire transfer was done. This, too, is unnecessary.
Q. Why didn't you wire the money?
A. Because we are not permitted to by sanctions.
This would end the discussion and would be a strong response.
Instead, there is a need to call in support, beginning with the reason "why"; which suggests that there may be other reasons why no wire transfer was done, that the subject is presently thinking about, but does not wish to address.
3. Now we have another statement, further explaining why. This confirms that the subject has at least one other reason "why" he paid in cash:
"we do not have a banking relationship with Iran."
Before we explore these words, we note that it is an unnecessary statement (he already told us "why" it could not be wired) and it is in the negative which elevates the importance.
Note first: this is an unnecessary statement, making it, therefore, very important to analysis.
If the sanctions did not allow for wire transfer, this answer would have sufficed. Yet, we see hear when a deceptive subject has a need to persuade rather than truthfully report, his own words betray him, no matter how carefully chosen.
Having "no banking relationship with Iran" would have, alone, been the end of any further discussion, satisfying the original question, "Why did you pay them in cash?"
Yet, it is not the first reason offered, though it would be a complete reason.
This order of wording reduces the priority, effectively reversing it. What should have been stated first, should also have been stated only.
It was not.
4. Note the word "that" is used to explain why no "check" (now introduced) with "wire" could be used.
This was to compound the "reason why" with only the first "because" not seen as sensitive in his answer.
When the first "because" was given, he gave us a linguistic hint that something was wrong: he had the need to modify this word, not once, but twice, but then we went even further by introducing an entirely new wording for yet another reason "why" he ordered the payment in cash.
That the cash is reported to have contained foreign currencies, including the Russian ruble, the expediency of arms purchasing for the exportation of terror has been enabled strongly by the president.
Barak Obama used a writer to help deceive the American people into believing that the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the world safer if they are permitted to build a nuclear facility.
Like "Wag the Dog" said writer could not help but need credit for his work. The New York Times expose on Ben Rhodes gives us, in spite of the Times' propaganda and narrative, insight into this world-wide deception.
I understand that some may argue that the Clinton server was most deliberately unstable so that it would be hacked in exchange for major donations to the Clinton foundation, and that espionage lives may have already been lost and that Clinton's "what does it matter?" attitude remains in tact. We saw Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch and were held in contempt by all explanations of such a "chance" meeting.
Yet to understand supremacist ideology, is to grasp that if the Islamic Republic of Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it must use it; either coercively under threat, or actively in accordance to its claims against the United States, Israel, and/or its allies.
The scope of danger far exceeds the selling of military secrets in the 1990's in exchange for campaign contributions, and the deliberate instability of classified information transferred to a vulnerable server.