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. 

The problem?

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.  

Deception Indicated

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.  








29 comments:

PattyCake said...

this was an interesting read! Thank you Peter!!! I love love LOVE your blog:)

Nic said...

Thank you Peter. I'm going to have to read this analysis a few more times yet to get it to sink it. It's like a ball bouncing off my head. The word, "that" highlighted in blue is a new one for me.

Statement analysis aside, if the US was paying ransom (which is wrong to begin with), what difference would it make if they had a "banking relationship" and wired the money? It boils down to intention which was to hide what they were doing and to leave no evidence.

It's interesting how Clinton has come out on record that they are using Trump's words as "propaganda", when the truth of the matter is, it was this covert activity (paying ransom in cash) that was used as propaganda.

Anonymous said...

Please site the White House's admission that the payment was ransom after exposure from some media outlets.

Anonymous said...

OT

Jonbenet Ramsey case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797520/Investigators-claim-family-murdered-JonBenet-Ramsey-heard-talking-911-call-thought-hung-up.html#comments

elf said...

We're screwed.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Essentially, in stating that they could not wire wire the money due to strict sanctions, would it not stand to reason that the lack of a "banking relationship with Iran" would have been a foregone conclusion?

It's interesting that they had a need to discount both common electronic transfer of funds options. Even more interesting, is that the U.S. does have allies that are allied with Iran and the funds could conceivably have been electronically funneled through the World Bank to those allies and funneled into assorted Iranian-backed accounts for delivery (Think Russia to Afghanistan to Iran fro example). The real issue for the Administration was strictly U.S. banking regulations governing documentation on Wire Transfers, Cashier's Checks, Traveler's Checks, Cash Withdrawal histories/financial account anomalies, etc. with regard to drug-trafficking/money laundering/international and domestic terrorism funding.

Intention- A need to explain a need to conceal

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Husband of missing Fairfield woman speaks out

FAIRFIELD, Maine (NEWS CENTER) — She hasn't been seen in more than two weeks, and now, her husband is speaking out for the first time.

Valerie Tieman has been missing since Aug. 30. State police say she was last seen in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart in Skowhegan.

Her husband, Luc, said he went into the store, and when he came out, his wife was gone from their truck. He said for her to be missing this long without making contact is not like her at all — he just wants her found safely.

(missing pronoun is down to author of the article) "Just want her to come out, not be scared," he told NEWS CENTER on Monday. "No one's going to get hurt or cares what she's done."


""No one's going to get hurt"

In the Vt it sounds like he says "her" and not "hurt"

Luc Tieman said the two were on good terms, but said she did mention some things a couple days before she went missing that made him worry, including her talking about another man.

The day she went missing, Luc said his wife told him she was going to leave and never come back.

He said he didn't call police right away because he thought she would either go to her parents in South Carolina or come back home. When he called to check in with them about her, they told him she had not been in contact.

Valerie Tieman's parents made the call to police before Luc was able to.

He says at this point they don't have any leads.

He also praises LE:

From Vt

"We talked to Walmart, and the Police have been very helpful. And they're getting records.. of, they've got cameras everywhere so i'm just hoping they find maybe direction or a vehicle that she jumped in".


http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/husband-of-missing-fairfield-woman-speaks-out/321685247

Anonymous said...

Simple question. No answer. Did whitehouse ADMIT the money was ransom as per above article? Y/N?

GeekRad said...

OT
Has anyone watched and analyzed Burke Ramsey's comments on the Dr. Phil show? I haven't watched it, only snippets, and it seems to me that Burke does not directly answer Dr. Phil's questions, no reliable denial. That, coupled with the airing of the case of JonBennet, has my hinky meter on alert. In particular Burke's odd behavior in interviews as a child and a family friend saying he had a temper and hit her with a golf club. When I have some time I will try to watch the interview with Dr. Phil.

Trigger said...

A friend of the Ramsey family stated that Burke had hit Jon Benet in the face previously, with a golf club, which had left a scar n her face near her nose.

The Ramsey's housekeeper said that Burke had an unnatural focus on his own feces. He liked to smear it on things such as bedding and walls. She said that she found a ball of feces the size of a grapefruit in a bed.

She said that there was feces smeared on a box of candy that was given to Joh Benet as a Christmas gift.

elf said...

Well it seems like a big coincidence that she told him about talking to another man and then she went missing, huh?

GeekRad said...

Whoa Trigger, I missed the feces behavior. Me thinks Dr. Phil is going to be back pedaling following the airing of the Jonbenet case.

Anonymous said...

"No one's going to get hurt"

Oh brother. He's a ding-bat and he killed her.

Anonymous said...

Yeah...they've found Valerie Tieman's body. He killed her and tried to hide her body.

He sits on a throne of his lies and our money said...

Time
9/20/16

Read Barack Obama’s Final Speech to the United Nations as President

Leaking Boulders, nee Marbles, projection of what he knows will
be in 2017 by his pen, phone, while he played golf.

http://time.com/4501910/president-obama-united-nations-speech-transcript/

trustmeigetit said...


First Johns comment that really bugged me in part 3 of this Dr Phil show...

"The real story here is not that a child was murdered, the real story here is what was done to us by an unjust system"

***wow John, so she suffered and the story is about what happened to you?? Still does not use her name. Calls her only "a child" then makes it about them?



Then couple of things that stood out to me about Burke


When asked why he didn't go see what was happening downstairs.....

Burke "I guess I kind of like to avoid conflict or, I don't know, I guess I just felt safer there." "I'm not the worried type," (chuckling) "I guess part of me doesn't want to know what's going on."

*** so which is it? Was he scared or not the worried type? And avoiding conflict? What conflict. Your sister was missing.

Dr Phil "There still are people that believe that you killed your sister. What do you say about that?”

Burke "Look at the evidence or the lack thereof.”

When Dr Phil pushed more....

Burke “I don’t know what to say to that because I know that’s not what happened. There’s been a few people that said that’s not even physically possible for a nine-year-old to do that.”

***lacking a real denial he focuses on "evidence"

John mcgowan said...

Police dog finds body in woods near home of missing Fairfield resident

State police won't say whether the remains are those of Valerie Tieman, whose husband says he last saw her three weeks ago.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/20/police-search-home-of-missing-fairfield-woman/


Ney said...

OT
trustmegietit,
JonBenet Ramsey case:
"I guess I kind of like to avoid conflict or, I don't know, I guess I just felt safer there."
He had very weak commitment there. "I avoided conflict, I felt safer there." would be a solid answer.

Yes, you are right! What conflict? His sister missing would be a conflict only if he did something bad, or his parents did something bad, (and they were arguing with each other or with him). Either way, his answers to Dr Phil indicated to me, he knows what happened there that night. (he just convinced me) He had very hard time denying the handwriting is his mother's.
I wonder who advised Burke to go public now. Why did they (himself,family, friends) think it is a good idea? Especially, if he is innocent, it just made him look more guilty.

elf said...

OT - Dr Phil is about Kyron Horman today and the skankbag Terri.

Anonymous said...

Some lies are OK? WMD's in Iraq. The lie of the Millenium?

tania cadogan said...

Cash is untraceable unlike any electronic transference, checks or other form of payment.

Anonymous said...

Cash in the form of paper currency has a serial # on each bill.

Anonymous said...

So it is traceable?

Anonymous said...

Yes

Nic said...

tania cadogan said...
Cash is untraceable unlike any electronic transference, checks or other form of payment.


Yes! This is why the "world bank" is working very heard to get everyone onto debit cards/credit cards/bit coins, etc. (Contrail.) And why countries (and US states) are challenging [their] right to use gold and silver as a legal form of currency -- and going crazy building gold reserves.

At the moment, there is a whole movement about gold and silver. It's a fascinating subject. Word of the wise: do not invest in paper gold and paper silver. It's only worth the paper it's printed on. i.e., there is more paper than actual bullion. You can actually purchase bullion. It's worth looking into and making bullion part of one's portfolio.

I give the little ones silver coins each year for Christmas.

:0)

Nic said...

Thanks, Elf. As usual I missed it. (I missed the entire JB series.)

Hopefully it'll be uploaded and I can watch it another time.

elf said...

I love my dvr lol my bf was home this afternoon so I didn't get to watch it yet either. I wonder of Terry drops any clues?

trustmeigetit said...

I heard one theory was because there was another show released about the case on A&E so they wanted to help down play that.

Yet neither Burke or daddy seem to have any interest in finding the killer. Not a word about that was ever mentioned.

Nic said...


I believe Peter meant The House (of Representatives).

Peter's analysis of BO's/"WH"'s statement is deception indicated.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ransom-payments-white-house-calls-house-bill-sending-money-iran-ill-advised-2420167

[...]

The bill, Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act, grew out of anger over a $400 million payment to Tehran that was released after Iran freed three American prisoners. The administration said the money was used as leverage in winning the Americans’ release. The money was from a 35-year-old arms deal and was held until the three prisoners were on a plane headed back to the United States. The money was delivered in an unmarked cargo plane.

“Whatever language the administration wants to use, the American people know a pretty simple word for what happened: ransom,House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said. “And when you pay ransom to regimes like Iran you ensure that they will take more hostages.”

[...]

“This bill, while styled as prohibiting future purported ‘ransom payments,’ instead bars virtually any payment from the U.S. government to Iran, including those permitted or even required by law,” the statement said.

Obama has pledged to veto the measure.

__________

Yet BO said "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.”

The ransom, aka "leverage" was supposedly a one-time deal. So why veto a "banking relationship" he says the US doesn't have with Iran?