Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Thursday, 19 May 2016

The European Union Times


Posted: 19 May 2016 06:30 AM PDT

The Investigative Committee (SLEDCOM) has filed a grave report with the Security Council (SC) today stating that it has opened a war crimes file against President Barack Obama and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over allegations of their being “complicit partners/co-conspirators” to Saudi Arabia’s mass killing of Christians and the genocidal bombing of civilians in Yemen for the express purpose of financial gain. [Note: Words appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
According to this report, the specific war crimes (crimes against humanity) against both President Obama and Secretary Clinton being investigated by SLEDCOM are the disappearance of 28 Christian men, women and children who were rounded by Saudi religious police in 2014 (and are believed to have all been buried while still alive) and themass bombing of Shiite civilians by the Saudis in Yemen that began in March 2015.
The Saudi Arabian regime, this report notes, is an Islamic theocracy [a system of government in which religious experts rule in the name of God or a god] based on an extremist ideology called Wahhabism that in 2013 the European Parliament identified as the main source of global terrorism—and who this year the Saudis have set a record in the beheading of people, have imposed a death sentence for anyone caught smuggling a Christian Bible into their country, and are now saying homosexuals should be executed due to fears that social media is “turning people gay”.
This report continues by stating that these Saudi Arabia’s war crimes already committed, and those to happen in the future, could not have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the United States, especially its two leaders, President Obama and Secretary Clinton who “control/controlled” that nations foreign policy apparatus.
Secretary Clinton’s complicity with these war crimes began in 2011, this report says, when her Clinton Foundationaccepted $10 million from Saudi Arabia prior to her decision of if the US should sell the Saudis advanced Boeingwar planes—and which after the massive donation was made she approved the sale and received for her foundationanother $900,000 from Boeing.
In approving the sale of these war planes to Saudi Arabia (which has used them since in its genocidal bombing of Yemen), this report continues, both Secretary Clinton and President Obama violated the United States Leahy Lawthat forbids the sale of weapons (of any type) to nations that violate human rights with impunity—and which the US State Department itself continues to acknowledge that the Saudis do.
Also to be noted about Secretary Clinton in regards to her being bribed by the Saudis, this report says, were recently released (February 2016) secret emails from her illegal private computer server showing that after her foundation received the $10 million, she labeled the sale of these Boeing war planes to Saudi Arabia as her “top priority”—which after the deal was done was celebrated by her and her top aides too.
Particularly to be noted about President Obama’s protection of the Saudi regime, too, this report continues, is his siding with them against his own citizens who suffered through the 9/11 attacks and its aftermath, that left nearly 6,000 dead (total as of 2014), with his opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) that would allow these Americans to (finally) be compensated by Saudi Arabia whose government was complicit in this crime against humanity.
The Saudi regimes involvement in the 9/11 attacks has long been known, this report says, with only the American people not allowed to know the truth of their involvement due to the cover-up of this crime by The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) who classified 28 pages of their report proving this complicity.
However, this report continues, the over decade long “circle of silence” surrounding these 28 pages of the 9-11 Commission report was broken by Commission member John F. Lehman when he admitted that they showed clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers.
With the US Senate having unanimously passed this new JASTA law this past week, this report says, President Obama’s threat to veto it (while the deadline on releasing these 28 pages near) looks unlikely to succeed—and if he is unable to derail this law, the Saudis threat to sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities to collapse the US economy may, in fact, be carried out.
As the Saudi Arabian international credit rating has already been downgraded and it is contemplating paying it contractors with IOU’s, this report warns, their only economic hope is for President Obama to side with them against his own citizens.
To if he will, though, this report concludes, is not known at this time—but should Secretary Clinton be a part of this decision, its outcome is assured as with both her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, having already pocketed $153 million in “payoff speeches” , there is nothing, apparently, they won’t do for money, including selling out the American people like President Obama has done too.
Source
        
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
Posted: 19 May 2016 04:52 AM PDT


In a shocking interview, Pope Francis likened Jesus Christ to ISIS and said Muslim migrants must breed with Europeans to counter “declining birth rates.”
“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,” he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”
The Pope also said he “dreaded” hearing about the “Christian roots of Europe” because, to him, they take on “colonialist overtones” and he called on European nations to “integrate” Muslim migrants into the continent.
“This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate,” he stated. “A demographic emptiness is developing.”
His opinions are stunningly similar to those of top Iman Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, who said Muslims should exploit the migrant crisis to breed with Europeans and “conquer their countries.”
“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement… they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees… soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing,” he stated. “Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst.”
“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”
Pope Francis also promoted socialism during the interview.
“A completely free market does not work,” he claimed. “Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them.”
“In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.”
It’s been estimated that in the 20th century alone, socialism and communism resulted in the deaths of at least 130 million people.
Source
        
Posted: 19 May 2016 04:36 AM PDT

Donald Trump is now viewed more favorably than Hillary Clinton in the latest FOX News poll.
The GOP nominee’s unfavorable rating is not at 56%. That is an improvement of 9% from two months ago.
Trump leads Clinton 45-42 in the latest FOX News poll.
FOX News reported:
American voters dislike Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
A record 61% have a negative view of the likely Democratic nominee, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday. That’s up from 58% in March.
56% have an unfavorable view of Trump, though that’s actually good news for Donald. Because it was 65% two months ago (that was a record high).
37% have a favorable opinion of Clinton, down two points from 39% in March, establishing a new low. The likely Republican nominee’s favorable jumped over the same time period: 41% view Trump positively, up from 31% in March.
Trump’s relationship with women has also improved significantly. The poll also found Republican women are almost twice as likely to have a positive opinion of Trump. And it keeps improving. Currently, 65% of GOP women view him favorably, up from 55% in March 2016 and 49% in September 2015. Only 31% view him negatively today.
        
Posted: 19 May 2016 03:51 AM PDT

Angela Merkel isn’t having a good year. In trying to deal with the refugee crisis plaguing Europe in a manner that pleases and appeases everyone, the German chancellor has sacrificed Europe to the whims of an increasingly despotic Turkish leader.
But it hasn’t taken long for Merkel’s short-sighted handling of the crisis to come back to haunt her. A deal which was meant to continuously ease the flow of migrants and refugees into Europe is now on the brink of collapse over Turkey’s unwillingness to meet Brussels halfway, and criticism is coming from all angles.
Brussels and Ankara have gone back and forth over the details for months. By returning refugees to Turkey from Greece, the deal is supposed to minimize the incentive for people to travel illegally to the EU — taking the pressure off Berlin and Merkel herself. By some assessments, the plan was working. This naturally means all the stops will be pulled out to save it. At issue now is a request from Brussels to have Ankara narrow its definition of terrorism. That’s important, because in the recent past, Erdogan’s government has used the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist sympathizer’ to go after critics, including journalists.
Blackmail or bust
If Ankara complies with Brussels’ full list of 72 requirements, it will receive €3 billion (US$3.4 billion) to help deal with the refugee crisis, a re-energization of talks on Turkey’s ascension to the European Union — and Turkish citizens will receive visa-free travel to Europe’s Schengen zone. But Erdogan has shown no signs of complying. In fact, he’s doing nothing to hide the fact that he is ready and willing to exploit that Europe, desperate for a deal, has had the weaker hand to play. If Brussels doesn’t back down on its requirements, he has threatened to “turn on the migration tap”.
German politicians of all stripes are lining up to drag Merkel over the coals for leaving their country and the entire European Union along with it, exposed to his blackmail. Far-left Linke party member Sahra Wagenknecht has criticized the chancellor for allowing Europe to become “vulnerable to being blackmailed” and for leaving Erdogan feeling as though he can freely “crush human rights” with what could be seen to amount to tacit support from Brussels.
But when even your allies are wondering whether you’ve lost your head, it might be time to rethink your priorities. The leader of the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU), Horst Seehofer, has warned that although he is not against talks with Turkey, it is “dangerous to become so dependent” on it.
When you consider how Merkel has handled — or mishandled — the crisis, it’s hard to disagree with her critics.
Popularity plunge
Unfortunately for Merkel, those critics are now more ubiquitous than ever. Those who were against her original open-door policy feel as though the damage has been done and Erdogan is taking full advantage of Brussels’ desperation to stem the flow of people into the EU, while those who loved her original policy now feel as though she has committed a complete volte-face for negotiating such a deal with Turkey at all.
But it was the moment when Merkel failed to defend a German comedian against Erdogan’s calls for prosecution over an insulting poem that she really proved she’d lost the plot. The humorist, Jan Böhmermann, had read out a satirical poem on TV, provoking Erdogan’s wrath and bruising his delicate ego. Angering millions of Germans and Europeans alike, Merkel put up no objection to Böhmermann’s potential prosecution under a German law which prohibits the insulting of foreign leaders. Instead of defending Böhmermann in the name of free speech, Merkel announced through her spokesperson that the poem had been “deliberately insulting” — as if that somehow made Erdogan’s request to prosecute someone for insulting him OK. The stunning decision on Merkel’s part was a clear demonstration of just how much influence Ankara now has in Berlin.
The comedian later said that Merkel had “served him up for tea” to a despot. Here again it is hard to disagree. The debacle provided ample evidence of Erdogan’s fragile ego and Merkel’s willingness to stroke it, regardless of the cost. Luckily, a German court has so far defended the comedian’s right to free speech above Erdogan’s right to prevent mean things being said about him.
What’s it all for?
Try as one might, it’s hard to imagine what Europe gets out of all this. Either Brussels fails to break the stalemate in talks with Ankara and the refugee crisis takes on renewed urgency once again — or talks continue and Turkey is set on its path to visa-free travel to Europe. Ask any European on the street if that is on their EU wish list and it’s unlikely you’ll receive many positive answers. In fact, for many watching the debacle unfold, it’s completely baffling that visa-free travel for a country that has consistently been accused of harboring and financing Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) fighters is even on the table at all. And that’s not to mention flagrant human rights abuses and the frequent jailing of journalists.
The EU is not a fan of discord among its nations. When one threatens to step out of line, we start to hear a lot about “unity” and how everything is better together. Looking at Ankara’s current relationship with Brussels, it’s hard to imagine how Turkey would ever fit into that equation. Merkel could have attempted to stop Erdogan in his tracks by warning him that continued blackmail and demands would result not in Brussels bending over backwards to cater to his needs, but in a halt to any more discussion of EU membership or visa-free deals with Brussels. Then again, that assumes Erdogan really cares about joining the EU at all. Something tells me he just wouldn’t really like it that much. Remember, this is a man who has claimed that “democracy, freedom and the rule of law” have “no value” in Turkey any longer.
Merkel has been forced to make concessions and sacrifices because there is now no alternative — and yet the deal is still on the brink of collapse because no matter how hard she tried, it has been impossible to please the Turkish leader quite as much as he would like.
For Erdogan, it’s a game of all or nothing. He gets what he wants, or he tells Brussels to shove it. He can turn the ‘migration tap’ on at will and controls NATO bases vital to American strategic interests in the Middle East. With that hand to play, no one else has a chance.
Source
        
Posted: 19 May 2016 03:24 AM PDT


Donald J. Trump releases list of potential United States Supreme Court Justices during the Hannity interview on FOX News and on Facebook.
(New York, NY) May 18, 2016 – Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.
Mr. Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. The following list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”
Steven Colloton
Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.
Allison Eid
Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Raymond Gruender
Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.
Thomas Hardiman
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.
Raymond Kethledge
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Joan Larsen
Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Thomas Lee
Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.
William Pryor
William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
David Stras
David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Diane Sykes
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.
Don Willett
Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.
        
Posted: 19 May 2016 03:09 AM PDT


On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told a crowd of supporters in Kentucky she will put her husband in charge of the economy.
“My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, cause you know he knows how to do it,” Clinton said.
According to the establishment and its pundits, the presidency of Bill Clinton was good for the economy. His tax cuts and budget restraint, it is said, were responsible for the booming economy of the 1990s.
In fact, the budget surplus at the time was the result of a stock bubble inflated by the Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve.
Real economic growth at the time was created by the private sector, not government policy. Much of that growth was created in the technology sector of the economy. Clinton had nothing to do with that growth and, in fact, attempted to thwart it with an anti-trust case against Microsoft.
By the time Clinton left office in 2000, the so-called dot com bubble was beginning to burst and stocks fell to around half their peak value, destroying $10 trillion in wealth. This produced a brief recession at the start of the Bush administration which set the stage for the current “Great Recession,” more accurately described as a depression.
Additionally, the Clinton administration inflated the housing bubble that planted the seeds of the 2008 subprime mortgage blowout.
Charlie Gasparino, writing for the NewYork Post, explains:
How did they do this? Through rigorous enforcement of housing mandates such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and by prodding mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to people with lower credit scores (and to buy loans that had been made by banks and, later, “innovators” like Countrywide).
The Housing Department was Fannie and Freddie’s top regulator—and under Cuomo the mortgage giants were forced to start ramping up programs to issue more subprime loans to the riskiest of borrowers.
Here’s Cuomo talking about discrimination in housing. Note the role then community organizer Barack Obama, working closely with ACORN, played in the fiasco that led directly to the ultimate destruction of the economy:

Clinton’s surplus was the result of increased tax revenues amassed during and era of growth created by risk-taking entrepreneurs and the business sector. Clinton also borrowed from Social Security, increasing intergovernmental debt which, in turn, added to the national debt.
“Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities,” explains Craig Steiner. “The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.”
If Hillary Clinton is elected and Bill becomes her economic wizard, we can expect a rapid acceleration in the decline of the United States.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, took exception to Hillary’s remarks on Monday.
“The president of the United States has an actual job to create jobs, create wealth, create take-home pay,” he told Fox News. “That’s Hillary’s job if she wants to be president. That’s not the first spouse’s job.”
Newt, it would seem, is nearly as confused as Hillary.
It’s the president’s job to get out of the way and let business create wealth and jobs.
Ditto Congress.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 18:22