Who is AG designate Loretta Lynch ?

Who is AG designate 

Loretta Lynch ?

Curious circumstances....

They have started investigating Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick for Attorney-General, and immediately they could see an interesting and unnerving connection. 

 

It appears that when Loretta Lynch started Harvard, she co-founded an African-American only sorority. There was only one other girl in this sorority, Sharon Malone. The name rings a bell...

The name of the wife of the current, corrupt AG, Eric Holder, is Sharon Malone; and she is the sister of a known civil rights activist leader Vivien Malone –Jones (one of 2 black students who enrolled in the all white University of Alabama).
They checked the age: both were born in 1959 and both went to Harvard at the same time. There were very few African-American students in Harvard in 1977-1981, so it is rather certain that Loretta Lynch is an old college friend of Sharon Malone, the wife of the current AG, Eric Holder !

 

Why is this connection important?

 

Holder will inevitably be investigated by Congress for totally lawless gun-trafficking to Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the VA scandal, the DOJ, NSA, EPA, FEC and other scandals. Most importantly, AG Holder covered up Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number (Harrison J. Bounel 042-68-4425) and Obama’s use of several different bogus IDs.

 

It seems that a long time college friend of Holder’s wife was picked up as a gate-keeper by Obama to continue all of the cover up actions by Holder and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, to shield Holder and Obama from criminal prosecution.

 

Remember -- Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick for Attorney-General

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF MATRIX

                            
 CHUCK MISSLER:  SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF MATRIX

 

"That means we are in a simulation, in a digital simulation" "Our universe is but a shadow of a larger reality .. that is what the Bible has said all along" 

"We live in 10 dimensions..four are directly measurable" 

"We read in the Bible ......that the spiritual world is the real world" Chuck Missler

 

Scientific Proof of MATRIX (Virtual Reality) PART 1 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6OiOWurCrs  15 minutes

  

                       

***************************

Scientific Proof of MATRIX (Virtual Reality) PART 4 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61iOf3IM0M 15 minutes

 

Multiple scientists have committed suicide after discovering that our reality is pretty fake. 

Chuck Missler explains how we live in an electrical simulation.

MICHAEL JACKSON'S MURDER

MICHAEL JACKSON'S DAUGHTER REVEALS ILLUMINATI AND WHAT LED UP TO MICHAEL JACKSON'S MURDER

 

Michael Janitch posted: "Paris Jackson reveals the truth about Hollywood (hollyweird). I heard about this when it happened, but was occupied doing my other reports online to actually address the topic.  A topic I've done extensive research on myself personally.... the topic of "" New post on Dutchsinse A warning on secret societies…. by Michael Janitch Paris Jackson reveals the truth about Hollywood (hollyweird). I heard about this when it happened, but was occupied doing my other reports online to actually address the topic.  A topic I've done extensive research on myself personally.... the topic of "secret societies". Some of you may not have heard (or seen) at the time, Paris Jackson - the daughter of the late Michael Jackson - tweeted a series of cryptic "warnings" about several secret societies immoral activities, and how they all lead back to one overall group....   I decided to pull up the tweets contents today, and mash-up her pictures with a series of well known real life uses of the symbols involved. Make note of the colors used by the societies as well: One of the more detailed pictures Paris Jackson drew was of the Order of the Eastern Star (OES). OES tends to have more female members.  However, the list of other "girls" or women's organizations can be seen in this graphic on the right (seen in an old graphic depiction of two sides of a stepped pyramid): Paris Jackson's tweeted pictures also include Freemasonic symbols (the seal of Soloman / talisman of Saturn / 6 pointed Hebrew star), each star point having an eye in it : Also , she drew a skull giving the "shh", and the compass/square "G" of the freemasonic order. Most of these symbols go back HUNDREDS of years, as seen below in a graphic easily searched from the freemasons themselves, showing the symbols of past internal kabbalist sects. What do all these symbols mean? Did you know that lodge members actually meditate on the meanings of the symbols? I've actually BEEN to a few lodges myself.  Here are some pictures of my wife and  I attending a Rosicrucian order meeting here in St. Louis (meeting open to the public showing 14th century "symbols" of the order and quote 'how to use them'). Needless to say, the Rosicrucian meeting was intriguing. To head off any rumors at the pass, I went because I was curious, not because I belong to any secret society :)  That being said, the meeting we attended was NOTHING like this well known video of a leaked freemasonic lodge gathering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F12PVU8RqFQ&x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861   As many of my viewers know, I cover these topics in the hopes of discerning "truth" from "lie" when it comes to an overall "conspiracy" of people working together at high levels behind the scenes. Also, as my viewers/readers may remember, a series of well known celebrities have come out recently actually invoking the illuminati name directly, and flashing symbols used by secret societies. See my whole post on the Madonna, Jim Carrey, Jimmy Kimmel, Weird Al "illumianti" disclosure -- which is really just a mocking of the whole topic. Michael Janitch | January 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p3C2xU-3un Comment    See all comments Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://dutchsinse.com/a-warning-on-secret-societies/

ERIC HOLDER HAS MADE IT HARDER

          
HOLDER HAS MADE IT HARDER FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LEGALLY SEIZE YOUR PROPERTY

The Daily Signal

Jason Snead

January 22, 2015    

In a stunning announcement last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would immediately stop “adopting” state civil asset forfeiture cases. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement came exactly one week after leaders on Capitol Hill called on him to halt the controversial program as a step toward broader reform of the nation’s civil forfeiture system.

Before today’s announcement, federal agencies could take over, or “adopt,” forfeiture cases from local or state law enforcement agencies. In other words, state or local law enforcement personnel would seize property and then turn it over to the federal government to process.

Pursuant to agreements with the federal government, once the property was successfully forfeited in federal court, the originating state or local agency got a portion of the proceeds, potentially as high as 80 percent. That money had to be used for law enforcement operations, placing it beyond the control of local governments and state legislators.

The program became the subject of controversy for effectively allowing local agencies to circumvent restrictive state laws in favor of the potentially more lucrative federal route, raising serious federalism and good government concerns. Even where states had strong procedural safeguards for property owners or limitations on the use of forfeiture funds, law enforcement could partner with the federal government and use federal rules to seize property and make use of the profits.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., and John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote that “these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities.”              

     

Apparently responding to these concerns, the attorney general’s new policy bars federal authorities from adopting local or state seizures of “vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments.”

The AG was able to make this change unilaterally because the statutes underlying federal civil forfeiture made the equitable sharing payments optional. 

The Department of Justice has the authority to craft, and to change, the rules of the program. The Treasury Department, which operates its own forfeiture fund, announced its forfeiture operations will conform to the same guidelines as those laid out by Holder. 

Although this is an important step, there are some important limitations and potentially significant loopholes to the new rule:

• “Adoptive” forfeitures make up a declining, and relatively minor, percentage of the equitable sharing program’s payouts to the states – about 17 percent in 2010, according to the GAO. This means the vast majority of the equitable sharing program is untouched by the new rule.

• Federal adoptive forfeitures are still allowed for four express categories representing “public safety concerns” – firearms, ammunition, explosives and child pornography. These types of adoptive forfeitures have accounted for a mere 0.1 percent of forfeitures since 2008, according to The Washington Post.

• The attorney general’s order allows for “seizures pursuant to federal warrants, obtained from federal courts to take custody of assets originally seized under state law.” It is relatively easy for federal authorities to obtain a warrant from a federal magistrate that would enable those authorities to take custody of assets “originally seized [by state law enforcement authorities] under state law.” If federal authorities do this routinely, this exception could prove to be broad indeed, grossly undercutting effective limitations on federal adoption of state forfeiture matters.

• Property seized as part of a joint task force, composed of federal and state or local law enforcement officials, is unaffected by the new rules. If “joint federal-state investigations” are defined to mean instances where there is genuine and continuous cooperation, then this exception may be relatively narrow. But if this is defined more broadly—as any task force that simply receives federal money, or has any contact, however incidental, with a federal law enforcement agency—this exception could render the order a dead letter.

• Although “adoption” is now prohibited, federal civil asset forfeiture by referral is not. In other words, local law enforcement may simply give a heads-up to federal law enforcement to make the initial seizure. Pursuant to federal law, state or local law enforcement agencies still might be eligible for equitable sharing funds. This type of action violates the spirit of last week’s move but not the letter.

• The assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division can approve adoptions going forward. It remains to be seen how often, and on what grounds, adoptions will be granted under this exception, which also could prove to be quite broad.

• Finally, the order represents internal DOJ policy and not a change in statute. It thus could be reversed at any time.

Will this reform be a case where the exceptions swallow the rule? That remains to be seen. The exact limits placed on equitable sharing are as yet unclear.

Today’s announcement in no way will hinder forfeiture actions executed solely by federal authorities, and it leaves open the option for state and local law enforcement to pursue in state courts the civil forfeiture cases they otherwise would have transferred to the federal government. This puts renewed focus on the need for legislative reform of state civil forfeiture laws. Washington, D.C., and Minnesota have enacted broad reforms meant to protect innocent property owners; other states should follow suit.

And regardless of how broadly or narrowly these exceptions prove to be, if one of these exceptions is invoked, it still allows state and local agencies to skirt any state law limitations regarding how and when forfeited funds obtained under current equitable sharing rules can be used by local authorities.

While the Justice Department continues its top-to-bottom review of the civil forfeiture program, Congress should continue to take up the challenge of forfeiture reform, addressing this and the many other issues of federal forfeiture that remain untouched. Numerous bills have been proposed in both houses of Congress, and this is one of the few truly bipartisan issues.

The prospects look good: Sen. Grassley, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Friday’s announcement but indicated he would still push for legislative reforms.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/22/holder-just-made-harder-federal-government-legally-seize-property/   

In Index of Economic Freedom, U.S. Is 12th Freest Economy....

    

Anthony B. Kim / @AKFREEDOM / January 27, 2015      

Photo: Getty Images

Commentary By

Anthony B. Kim/ @AKFREEDOM

Anthony B. Kim researches international economic issues at The Heritage Foundation, with a strong focus on economic freedom. Kim is co-editor of the Index of Economic Freedom, the flagship product of the Heritage Foundation in partnership with The Wall Street Journal. Read his research.

There is no single formula for overcoming challenges to economic development and maintaining economic dynamism, but one thing is clear: Around the globe, governments that respect and promote economic freedom provide greater opportunities for innovation, progress and human empowerment. The 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, released today, tracks policy developments affecting economic freedom across the world by looking at four primary areas: rule of law (property rights, freedom from corruption), government size (fiscal freedom, government spending), regulatory efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, and monetary freedom), and market openness (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

Here are five key points you should take away from this year’s Index:

• The United States continues to be only the 12th-freest economy, seemingly stuck in the ranks of the “mostly free,” trailing such comparable economies as Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland. Although the downward spiral in U.S. economic freedom since 2008 has come to a halt with modest gains in six of the 10 economic freedoms, the 1.6-point decline in overall economic freedom over the past five years reflects broad-based deteriorations in key policy areas. Increased tax and regulatory burdens, aggravated by favoritism toward entrenched interests, have undercut America’s historically dynamic entrepreneurial growth. As Americans more than ever look to their future with growing frustration, 2015 should be the year of action to put America back on the path to freedom and revitalize its entrepreneurial pulse.
• The global average economic freedom score has advanced to its highest level ever. Despite the continuing challenges that confront the world economy, the global average economic freedom score has improved over the past year by one-tenth of a point, reaching a record 60.4 (on a 0-to-100 scale) in the 2015 Index. Although the rate of advancement has slowed in comparison to last year’s near record 0.7-point increase, the world average has now reached a level a full point higher than that recorded in the aftermath of the financial crisis and recession.
• 101 countries, the majority of which are less developed or emerging economies, showed advances in economic freedom over the past year. 37 countries, including Taiwan, Lithuania, Georgia, Colombia, Israel, Cabo Verde, Montenegro and Côte d’Ivoire, achieved their highest economic freedom scores ever in the 2015 Index.
• Competition for the top spot in the Index rankings has intensified more than ever. The 2015 Index has recorded a number of noticeable realignments and achievements within the top 20 global economic freedom rankings. For example, although Hong Kong has maintained its status as the world’s freest economy, a distinction that it has achieved for 21 consecutive years, the gap between that territory and Singapore, the second-freest economy, has further vanished.
• Countries with higher levels of economic freedom continue to outperform others in reducing poverty, achieving greater prosperity, and ensuring broader progress in many dimensions of social and human development. As the Index has catalogued, nations with higher degrees of economic freedom prosper because they capitalize more fully on the ability of the free-market system not only to generate, but also to reinforce dynamic growth through efficient resource allocation, value creation and innovation. Policies that promote freedom, whether through improvements in the rule of law, the promotion of competition and openness, or suitable restraints on the size and economic reach of government, turn out in practice to advance practical solutions to a wide range of economic and social challenges.

A recurring theme of human history has been resilience and revival. The country profiles in the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom include many examples of countries that have accelerated their economic and social progress in the face of difficult challenges and a sometimes harsh international environment. Their successes can be emulated by others. The Index charts not just one path to development, but as many as the ingenuity of humans can produce when they are free to experiment and innovate.

The 21st edition of the Index of Economic Freedom assesses economic policy developments in 186 economies in six regions around the world. Since its inception in 1995, the Index, an annual cross-country analysis by The Heritage Foundation, in collaboration with The Wall Street Journal, has tracked the progress of economic freedom and measured the impact of advancing economic liberty around the globe.

Societynews

Firearms Sellers Say They’re Being Choked Off From Payment Processors....

Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / January 12, 2015           

Photo: Newscom

Go to a gun show, and you won’t find many merchants using PayPal.
You’ll also find few vendors using popular payment processors such as Square, Stripe and Spark Pay.

That’s because some payment processors explicitly prohibit the use of their systems for online — and some in-store — sales of firearms, ammunition and certain accessories.
Retailers in the gun industry say they’re being discriminated against.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

Email address

“Being shut out from mainstream payment processors makes us feel like we are part of some type of shady business when, in fact, there is more regulation and documentation required for federally licensed firearms dealers than most businesses,” said Trevor Blandford of Terminal Performance Associates in Caroline, Va.
Blandford, 21, has been working gun shows for his family’s business since he was 14 years old. Recently, his parents named him general manager of Terminal Performance, which is known for its custom-built pistols and rifles and originally finished wraps. He and his family sell their merchandise online and at local trade shows.

Terminal Performance, an online gun merchant based in Caroline, Va. , custom builds their own pistols, rifles, and sells originally-finished wraps. (Photo: Terminal Performance)

To process payments, most merchants use some sort of payment processor.
Payment processors are companies, often third-party outlets, which handle credit card transactions between merchants and banks.
The concern some firearms sellers expressed to The Daily Signal is that restricting their access to some of the largest payment processors in the country — who offer the lowest transaction fees in the business — puts them at an unfair disadvantage to other industries.
>>> Commentary: This Terrible Anti-Gun Treaty Goes Into Effect Christmas Eve
Add that to the long list of regulations firearms sellers already face, and some say it’s not even worth attempting to start a business.
“In most of the states, especially California and New York, you’re a lunatic if you start a gun business,” Cody Wilson, co-founder of Defense Distributed told The Daily Signal.

“In most of the states, especially California and New York, you’re a lunatic if you start a gun business,” says Cody Wilson.

Wilson had his bank account closed by Chase.
He was blocked from his PayPal account twice and shut out from Stripe.
Stripe is a San Francisco startup that provides an easy way for websites and mobile apps to take payments using a range of payment systems from credit cards to Apple Pay.
Wilson’s case is more murky than other gun merchants. Instead of directly selling firearms and accessories, he provides blueprints on the Internet to manufacture 3D-pistols at home. The government classifies his business as the equivalent to distributing weapons without a license.

Defense Distributed provides blueprints on the Internet to manufacture 3D-pistols. (Photo: Defense Distributed)

Still, Wilson claims, the roadblock against gun dealers in the industry is real and it hurts small businesses most.
Policy Play
Some payment processors publicly state their policy against gun sellers. Square, for example, which is famous for its tiny white credit card reader that plugs into iPhones and other cellular devices, explicitly prohibits sellers from accepting payments in connection with firearms.

Photo: CC by 2.0

It wasn’t always Square’s policy to box out firearms sellers. A handful of vendors at “The Nation’s Gun Show” in Dulles, Va., told The Daily Signal on Jan. 2 that they used to enjoy the many benefits of using Square and similar payment processors.
But after Square updated its policies, merchants such as Blandford of Terminal Performance are left using what they consider second-rate payment processors.
On May 10, 2013, Terminal Performance received an email notification regarding Square’s updated seller agreement.
In it, Blandford discovered that Square added firearms to its “prohibited” seller list.

Under its “Seller Agreement,” Square publicly prohibits customers from accepting payments for the sale of firearms. (Photo: Square)

Proactively, Blandford’s family business terminated its relationship with Square because just a few years earlier, PayPal had frozen its account with money still inside.
“The inability to utilize Square and Paypal has been detrimental to our business both in monetary ways as well as inconvenience,” said Blandford.
In a statement to The Daily Signal, PayPal said the company has prohibited the use of its system for the online sale of “firearms, ammunition and certain firearm parts and accessories” since 2003. It does, however, allow “certain” merchants to sell these items in their stores.
“As a leader in global payments, we have to comply with laws and regulations around the world,” said a PayPal spokesperson.
Square did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The Outlier 
With few options, Terminal Performance then turned to Transnational, a payment processor located in Rosemont, Ill., that is not shy in boasting its support for the Second Amendment.
Although it processes payments for a range of industries, Transnational has capitalized on the trend of payment processors choking firearms merchants from their customer lists.
“Our decision to provide services within the firearms industry mostly is predicated by the fact that we believe through the obtaining of an [federal firearms license] it’s one of the more heavily regulated processes that has good governance and good oversight,” Jae Haas, President of Transnational told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
Having been in the payment processing business for 16 years, Haas said he’s observed a growing trend of banks and payment processors adding firearms dealers to their “prohibited” or “high-risk” lists.
>>> These 7 Emails Show Federal Officials Scheming to Target Legal Businesses
Bank Role
It’s unclear what role — if any — banks play in how payment processors go about setting their policies.
But the connection between payment processors and banks is inseparable: In order to exchange money from a buyer to a merchant, a bank must process and move that payment.
To do business, payment processors must enter agreements with banks to sponsor its payments.
Square, for example, has a commercial entity agreement with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.
A business owner using Square is essentially entering an agreement with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo as well.
Haas, president of Transnational, which is sponsored by several different banks, said “there’s no secret” that banks have some influence over payment processors in regards to who they can or cannot do business with, although that influence varies depending on the agreement.
‘Operation Choke Point’
The federal government also may have an outside role in the decision of payment processors not to do business with firearms merchants.
The Daily Signal previously published a series of articles exploring the relationship between banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is the governmental body responsible for regulating and auditing more than 4,500 U.S. banks.
Republican members of Congress have accused the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among other government agencies, of having undue influence when it comes to banks’ decision not to do business with firearms merchants.
The program, initiated inside the Justice Department, is known as “Operation Choke Point.”
Whether the implications of Operation Choke Point seeped into policy decisions at third-party payment processors is unknown.
>>> Congressman Wants FDIC to Pay for Trying to ‘Choke’ Legal Businesses
When asked by The Daily Signal whether it plays any role in advising payment processors against doing business with gun sellers, an FDIC spokeswoman would not respond, instead pointing to testimony given before Congress in July 2014.

It is the FDIC’s policy that insured institutions that properly manage customer relationships are neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing services to any customer operating in compliance with applicable law…The FDIC has a responsibility to cooperate with other government agencies and to ensure that the banks we supervise are adhering to laws, including those governing anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.

No matter its origin, Blandford hopes the “blatant discrimination” that exists against the firearms industry will come to an end so that in the future, he can enjoy the freedom to utilize “any and all payment processors” in the market.

Internationalcommentary

What the Firearms Industry Thinks About the UN Arms Trade Treaty Signed By Obama Administration

Ted Bromund / @Bromund / January 27, 2015       

Photo: Courtesy Michael Bazinet/SHOT Show

Commentary By

Ted Bromund/ @Bromund

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

LAS VEGAS—Supposedly, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which took effect Christmas Eve, is no big deal.

But people who work in the business of manufacturing, importing and exporting firearms are concerned about the treaty and what it means for them and their industry.

I talked to several last week at the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show in Las Vegas. Although they were grateful for the strong stand against the treaty taken by both the Senate and House, they were confused about what is going on with the treaty and how such agreements work their way through the Senate.

The idea behind the treaty, supposedly, is to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of terrorists or mass killers. But the treaty has been championed by avowedly “progressive”—in other words, left-wing—organizations, which have a long history of hostility to the Second Amendment and Israel, and a track record of seeking to use international institutions to impose their views on the United States. It’s not in our interest to play along with them.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

Email address

Understandably, the treaty was a nonstarter for the United States until President Obama took office and changed the country’s stand on it. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty, but the administration has not yet submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

Already, a majority of the Senate—led by Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and James Inhofe, R-Okla.—has signed letters pledging to oppose the ATT.

This doesn’t erase the U.S. signature from the treaty. But the Senate’s letters (and similar efforts in the House, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.) do send a powerful signal that the Senate would reject the treaty if the administration ever gets around to submitting it.

But even if the Senate votes against the treaty, the U.S. signature would remain on it.

Only the president, by doing what is colloquially known as “unsigning” the treaty, can erase that U.S. signature. President George W. Bush, for example, unsigned the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court in 2002, which President Bill Clinton had signed in 2000.

And even if the Senate votes against the treaty, that does not “kill” the treaty. Treaties are like zombies: They rarely die.

For example, the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, but the U.S. signature remains on it, and it continues to sit in the in-box of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, waiting for a day when an administration that supports the treaty senses the Senate is likely to look favorably upon it.

There is no expiration date on pending treaties, even ones the Senate has rejected. If you get the sense it’s really hard to get rid of a treaty, you’re right.

In short, the only thing that would come close to “killing” the ATT as far as the United States is concerned would be for a president to unsign the treaty.

Of course, that would not kill it around the world, but it at least would make the U.S. legal and political stance clear. And even then, a future president could re-sign the treaty and pull the zombie back out of the grave, though this would be a highly unusual step that likely would cause political controversy.

It goes to show that, to vary the analogy, bad treaties are like bad pennies—they just keep turning up. It also shows how important it is for the United States to stay engaged internationally: We can’t always stop bad treaties from being negotiated, but we can at least try.

All this begs a question: Why hasn’t the administration transmitted the ATT to the Senate? After all, Kerry signed it in September 2013.

It’s possible the administration hasn’t completed its legal review of the treaty—in which case, it effectively signed the treaty without reading it. It’s also possible the administration realizes the Senate won’t approve the ATT anytime soon, so it sees no point in bothering, especially as it has other bad treaties that it wants to get ratified first.

A third possibility is the administration actually prefers to keep the treaty in its back pocket.

Now that the United States has signed it, we are in theory bound not to defeat its object and purpose, meaning the administration can claim to be on the road to ratification and—using the president’s famous administrative pen—can keep U.S. policy aligned with it. Especially given the Senate’s hostility, this is likely one reason the administration hasn’t acted.

But there’s a final possibility.

When an administration sends a treaty to the Senate, the treaty is accompanied by a transmittal package—in essence, a full analysis of the treaty, including its deficiencies and the administration’s recommendations for correcting them. This does not in any way limit the Senate, which has full power to add its own limits, conditions and interpretations to its approval of the treaty, and even to re-write the text of the treaty itself. But the administration’s package naturally forms a starting point for the Senate’s deliberations.

It is possible the administration is unwilling to offer its own analysis of the treaty for Senate and public scrutiny because an accurate analysis would have to concede, for example, that the treaty cannot hope to do all—or even most—of what its advocates claim, and that it was adopted via a process that violated one of the administration’s own red lines. No analysis that ignored this would be credible.

In short, the administration may be stuck—unable to go forward because of the Senate’s hostility and the treaty’s flaws, unwilling to unsign, and therefore ready to settle for simply keeping the treaty in its back pocket and using its pen as it sees fit.

If that is the case, the leadership of the Senate and House becomes all the more important.

Although the Senate cannot unsign a treaty, it can offer powerful guidance to the nation and to the courts that it has not given its advice and consent to the treaty, does not plan to do so, and rejects the argument the United States is bound to uphold its object and purpose. That, in turn, paves the way for a future president to unsign the treaty.

And in the interim, there is a lot—11 things, at least—for the Senate and House to do to keep the treaty from encroaching on our sovereignty and posing other threats. It’s hard to get rid of a bad treaty. But it’s not impossible, and it’s time we get started.

‘Isolated’? The Irony Behind New Russia and Iran Defense Deal

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/21/isolated-russia-and-iran-sign-defense-deal/

‘Isolated’? The Irony Behind New Russia and Iran Defense Deal

January 21, 2015 By Stuart Hooper

Stuart J. Hooper
21st Century Wire

We’ve heard for months now that Russia is isolating itself from the international community; with it’s support of Assad in Syria and opposition to what can only be described as a violent coup in Ukraine. However, what we are now coming to understand is that the term ‘international community’ describes only part of the world – the West, NATO and NATO allies.

Russia has had no problem signing huge energy deals with China, ensuring its energy and economic security, and even cooperating further with the Chinese to coordinate potential responses to the proposed U.S. missile defence shield; ensuring territorial and military security. Now, we learn Russia is extending its relationships with other international partners such as Iran. The two nations have signed a “military cooperation deal that implies wider collaboration in personnel training and counter-terrorism activities”. These activities are surely looking to stand in direct opposition to the growing threat of a Western funded ISIS, looking to protect both nations from a proxy army that has gotten far out of control. The deal will also mean advanced Naval cooperation, which should help to deter any Western attempts to attack Iran in the future.

To further this deterrence of unwanted interference, the cooperation will also facilitate an S-300 missile deal previously “cancelled in 2010 by then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, to fall in line with UN sanctions imposed on Iran”. As military Generals in Washington now admit they are backing radical Islamic terrorists, who can blame these two nations, constantly framed by Western media as our enemies, for wanting to work together? Such a relationship between the nations can only bring about positive results for them, and hopefully protect against foreign encroachment.

The irony here is that the ability of Russia to enact international deals, such as these with Iran and China, has been enabled by decades of Western-led, neoliberal economic globalisation. While the West has the ability to impose sanctions upon Russia, the Russians have the ability to work with other potential international partners instead; all thanks to Western, neoliberal globalisation. If a global free market was truly the West’s aim, we hope that they will not find an issue here; yet, you would not be advised to hold your breath on that hope.

In a world of rising powers and declining Anglo-American hegemony leading to desperate responses, Russia is poised with its vast resources to forge new and prosperous relationships throughout the world.

Follow here: http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper

While some nations choose conflict, others choose cooperation…

Russia and Iran sign defense deal, ‘may resolve’ S300 missile delivery issue

RT NewsMoscow and Tehran have signed military cooperation deal that implies wider collaboration in personnel training and counter-terrorism activities. It may also resolve the situation concerning the delivery of Russian S300 missiles, Iranian media reported.

Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and his Iranian counterpart Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan, signed the document during a visit by Russia’s top brass to Iran’s capital on Tuesday.

Under the new agreement, the broadened cooperation will include military personnel training exchanges, increased counter-terrorism cooperation and enhanced capabilities for both countries’ Navies to use each other’s ports more frequently…

WHAT THE HECK IS THE CORPORATE GOLD FRINGE DOING AROUND THE RUSSIAN AND THE IRANIAN FLAGS ?? DOES ANYONE SMELL SOMETHING FUNNY...??

Continue reading the full story at RT.com
READ MORE RUSSIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russia Files