What’s Really Behind the Senate’s Override of Obama Veto of Saudi 9/11 Lawsuit Bill?

1-Obama-Saudi-Arabia-isis
21st Century Wire says…

While the US media follows the red herring of this legislative drama which is Saudi Arabia, the real point of this bill – and why President Obama is so vehemently opposing it – is going completely unnoticed. 

If any case was brought to court by 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for ‘state-sponsored terror’ regarding the attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001, the court would find there is no real forensic case proving Saudi involvement in this event. Other problems will crop up too. For starters, at least 7 of alleged hijackers were actually found to be alive after their faces were plastered on US TV screens after 9/11. As it stands, the US government’s official story of 9/11 is so flimsy and full of holes, including the complete omission or mention of the collapse of WTC Building 7 (which was hit by nothing, and yet collapsed into its own footprint in 7 seconds) and the lack of any plane wreckage at the Pentagon (we’re meant to believe that the passenger airliner evaporated into thin air on impact, and no real CCTV footage has been provided to back the government’s own wild explanation). In actuality, the US government would love a dead-end lawsuit against Saudi Arabia which could only result in some out-of-court settlement anyway – because this would supply a nice diversion away from any further scrutiny of the US government’s bogus explanation of what really happened that day.

More to the point, however, is the real potential story here. If passed, this bill would allow a number people, particularly those in Syria, to sue the US, British, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Turkish and Saudi Arabia and Qatar too, all of who are actively involved in supplying money, equipment, arms and military training to a number of known Salafist Terrorists fighting groups in Syria.

KEY POINT: Why is Obama protecting Saudi Arabia? One of Obama’s top financial partners in the dirty war on Syria is Saudi Arabia, who has also paid for “off-the-books” CIA operations there. Unlike Saudi and 9/11, by definition, this is state-sponsored terrorism.

The House is expected to hold a vote later this week. It could be the first override of a Presidential veto during the Obama administration….

obama-shoosh2
Karoun Demirjian
Washington Post

The Senate on Wednesday voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks. The vote was 97 to 1.

The House is expected to vote later in the day and if successful, it will be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during the Obama administration.

“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cast the lone vote to sustain the veto after receiving a letter from Obama arguing the consequences could be “devastating,” and urging him “to vote to sustain the veto.” Reid voted against the override despite telling reporters earlier this month that “I support that legislation” and Schumer’s efforts.

“He’s always had the president’s back,” said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.

Both chambers passed the legislation without dissent earlier this year, but now several lawmakers are echoing the White House’s argument that the legislation could set a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to respond by suing American diplomats, military personnel and other officials in foreign courts.

Critics of the bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law. Approximately 20 senators have signed onto a letter expressing their intention to return to the issue during the lame duck if there are negative consequences once the 9/11 bill becomes law…

Continue this article at the Washington Post

READ MORE 911 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 9/11 Files

Advertisements

Man Perfectly Calls out Black Lives Matter For Ignoring Louisiana Flood Victims…

Remember the Alton Sterling shooting, when Black Lives Matter and other leftist activists were concerned about black lives in Louisiana (see Baton Rouge PD Shoots Alton Sterling. What We Know… and Cecile Richards Uses #AltonSterling Shooting to Push… ‘Reproductive Justice’?!)? Now that black lives need help after flooding has destroyed their homes and left them with nothing, the activists? No where to be seen.

This guy was there. Not so much anyone else.

Which begs the question…

A man is going viral for questioning where Black Lives Matter activists are during the flooding in Louisiana. Jerry L. Washington, a Baton Rouge native, posted a video to Facebook, asking why activists haven’t done anything to help the majority African-American city. “Where are the Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers?” Washington says in the video. “Because I ain’t seen one Black Panther boat or one Black Lives Matter boat. All I see is our own people from our own city saving us.” — “All the drama that was going on with the Alton Sterling killing, they came out with guns ready to go to war. But here we go, all these people flooded out and truly in need of help and we can’t find not one of them,” Washington says. “If y’all out there, where ya at? Where ya boats? Where ya money? Where ya food? Where ya services at? … Black Lives Matter: Obviously we must [not] matter too much, because I ain’t seen y’all yet, when we really need ya.”

Far be it from me to be cynical, but it’s almost as if black lives only matter when there’s a political agenda that can be pushed. Or is that racist to point out?

We’ve seen this narrative a thousand times before. Okay, that’s hyperbole, but you get my point. Seems whenever a black man or looney toon black woman with a death wish (here’s looking at you, Korryn Gaines), gets shot by police officers (even if it’s a totally justified shooting), suddenly Twitter lights up with hashtags. Protesters crawl out of the woodwork. News goes wall to wall coverage spreading the narrative that OH MY GAWD, POLICE BRUTALITY and RACISM!

Reaction1

But only if police are somehow involved. Or if they’re doing their jobs. Sometimes it doesn’t even matter if the cop who did the shooting is black. Read The ‘Racist’ Milwaukee Officer Who Shot Sylville Smith? Yeah, He’s Black…

If, however, black lives are in danger in any other way? Say being aborted in record numbers, or in this case, being flooded by Mother Nature?

ElmoShrug GIF

Jerry L. Washington is right to call out Black Lives Matter. Because, as we’ve said here before, if the sanctity of black lives really mattered to BLM, they’d be consistent across the board. They would be the first to man the boats and the first to call for aid in Louisiana. They might also be the first to point out how Obama, their first black President, has been golfing while their homes have floated down the stream. Where’s Shaun King? Is he incapable of helping his “brothers” down in Louisiana? Or is there just too much sun shine and he’s worried about burning his lily white skin? He is, after all, whiter than Mary’s little lamb.

Narratives matter more to BLM than actual black lives. Their movement isn’t about defending life at all, it’s about maligning police officers, while trying to paint themselves as helpless little victims to “police brutality.”

When black lives are actually victims? To a flood or abortion? Crickets.

So much for black lives “matter,” eh?

Speaking of narratives, allow us a few more minutes to torpedo their most famous cases of “police brutality.”

NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT’S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.

Trump Is Right: Here’s Proof Hillary & Obama Founded ISIS

Hillary even admitted U.S. created al-Qaeda, the precursor of ISIS

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are founding members of ISIS by bankrolling, arming and supporting jihadists in Syria and Libya to both destabilize the Middle East and expand the domestic police state.

Clinton even even admitted in 2009 that the U.S. government – staffed with many of her closest allies – was responsible for al-Qaeda, which morphed into ISIS.

“I mean, let’s remember here: The people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago, and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union,” she said.

Clinton continued:

They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control central Asia, and we went to work, and it was President Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, “You know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea! Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let’s go recruit these Mujahedin! That’s great! Let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union!” And guess what? They retreated, they lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there’s a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.

She’s right: al-Qaeda was created by Western intelligence and has always been under the influence of the West, starting with al-Qaeda’s precursor, the Mujahideen of Afghanistan.

In 1979 the Mujahideen was America’s secret weapon in Operation Cyclone, the CIA project to arm and finance Jihadi warriors in a proxy war against the USSR.

It was geopolitical strategist and Clinton ally Zbigniew Brzezinski, then National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, who used the Mujahideen to draw the Soviet Union into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

To aid in this endeavor, U.S. intelligence picked a mujaheddin fighter named Osama bin Laden to lead the Afghan resistance against the USSR and gave him the codename “Tim Osman.”

Tim Osman

He was chosen primary because his wealthy family was connected to the Bush family as a long-term business partner in the West.

The CIA also paid Osama to operate a “charity” front called the Maktab al-Khidamat (also known as the as Al-Kifah) which funneled recruits and money to the Mujahideen, and the US government later said MAK was the “precursor organization to al-Qaeda.”

And a few decades later, in 2012, Clinton’s State Dept. was backing al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups as a proxy army to topple Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, a close ally to Russia and an enemy to Saudi Arabia, an Obama administration ally.

“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” a leaked memo between her State Dept. and the Pentagon stated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”

This secret document confirms that Clinton’s State Dept. – and the Obama administration in general – was directly responsible for the rise of ISIS.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, confirmed the document’s importance.

“I don’t know that [the Obama administration] turned a blind eye [to ISIS], I think it was a decision; I think it was a willful decision,” he said.

The document likely stemmed from a discussion during the 2012 Bilderberg conference held in Chantilly, Virginia, in which participants envisioned a Syrian puppet government taking orders from the U.S. State Department, the European Union and NATO.

A couple years later, in 2014 a $1.1 trillion federal spending bill rammed through Congress provided a half-billion dollars to arm and train ISIS-linked Syrian rebels.

The spending bill authorized the Secretary of Defense $500,000,000 to equip “appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” who will defend “the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” but a few months before, ISIS signed a truce with the remaining rebel groups and they began working together against the Syrian government.

That, however, didn’t stop Obama; on Oct. 1, 2015, he authorized a shipment of guns to ISIS-linked militants in Syria.

“The approval came at a National Security Council meeting on Thursday,” CNN reported at the time. “…The President also emphasized to his team that the U.S. would continue to support the Syrian opposition as Russia enters the war-torn country.”

Once again, it should be emphasized that the so-called “Syrian rebels” were either ISIS militants or allied with ISIS.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun [in Syria],” Bassel Idriss, the commander of a Free Syrian Army rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star in 2014. “ISIS wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area.”

“After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills, many units pledged allegiance to ISIS.”

Another rebel, Abu Ahmed, also said his unit was willing to collaborate with ISIS and its affiliates.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra [an ISIS affiliate] because that means power and influence,” he told the Guardian.

In fact, at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups had pledged allegiance to the al-Nusra Front.

Clinton even admitted to BBC that these Syrian “rebels” serving the administration’s interests in Syria are terrorists.

“We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition in Syria,” she said.

But that didn’t stop the Obama administration from saving ISIS militants from U.S. airstrikes by giving them a 45-minute warning prior to an airstrike on their oil tankers.

“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the warning leaflets given to ISIS read.

U.S. military pilots also confirmed they were ordered not to drop 75% of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they couldn’t get clearance from their superiors – which is exactly the kind of order the Obama administration would give to protect ISIS.

“We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.)

One of the reasons why the Obama administration sponsored and protected ISIS was because Assad stood in the way of a critical natural gas pipeline that would have deposed Russia as Europe’s primary source of energy.

“Syria is the site of the proposed construction of a massive underground gas pipeline that, if completed, could drastically undercut the strategic energy power of U.S. ally Qatar and also would cut Turkey out of the pipeline flow,” Aaron Klein of WND reported. “Dubbed the ‘Islamic pipeline,’ the project may ultimately favor Russia and Iran against Western energy interests.”

In other words, ISIS is a tool used to geopolitically isolate Russia, which under Putin has deflected attempts by the global elite to bring the country under their control – disconnected from the will of the people.

Additionally, due to the centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, a close Obama ally, wants Assad’s Shia government out of power.

There’s also trillions of dollars in potential oil and gas revenue in Syria that Saudi Arabia could tap into if a Western puppet is placed into power in Syria.

Donald Trump is spot-on: Clinton and Obama have aided and abetted ISIS to achieve their geopolitical objectives shared by their close allies and their predecessors who also created the precursors of ISIS.

Facebook: RealKitDaniels

House rejects effort to ban illegal immigrants from military service

In a break from previous votes on the issue, the House on Thursday rejected two GOP proposals to prevent the Obama administration from enlisting young illegal immigrants to serve in the military.

Lawmakers voted down two measures offered by immigration hard-liners Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would have prohibited the use of federal money to enlist young illegal immigrants who have been granted work permits under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

More than 30 Republicans with more centrist views on immigration joined all Democrats in opposing the two amendments offered to a Defense Department spending bill. The amendments failed narrowly with votes of 207-214 and 210-211, respectively.

Certain young illegal immigrants qualify for DACA if they came to the U.S. as minors and have worked toward at least a high school education, among other requirements.The Obama administration has already enlisted some DACA recipients through a program, Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI), that recruits immigrants with valued foreign language or medical skills to serve in the military. Gosar said the Pentagon confirmed to his office that it had recruited 141 DACA recipients as of April.

The amendments would have blocked the Obama administration from using the MAVNI program to enlist people in the DACA program.

Democrats sought to tie the provisions to the harsh rhetoric on immigration from presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“Clearly, House Republicans are taking their anti-immigrant cues from Donald Trump,” said Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), the chairman of House Democrats’ campaign arm.

“They come here in the spirit of Donald Trump,” Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) said of the House GOP. “What we’re seeing with these amendments is part of a larger pattern of hostility toward Hispanic Americans on the part of the Republican Party.”

King and Gosar said that the Obama administration is stretching the limits of MAVNI.

“It’s not for the president to use this as a blanket amnesty,” King said.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran, argued that the military should be able to recruit anyone who could help the nation.

“Simply put, we shouldn’t let political posturing stand in the way of our military’s requirement goals,” Gallego said.

It’s the second time in a week that House Democrats have used an immigration-related provision in an appropriations bill to try to tie the GOP to Trump.

The annual spending bill for legislative branch operations typically passes with a wide bipartisan majority. But the measure passed largely along party lines last week because Democrats opposed a provision to keep the phrase “illegal alien” in subject headings, contrary to a Library of Congress decision.

Republicans maintained that the phrase simply reflects that some people are in the country illegally. But Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (Calif.) urged fellow Democrats to vote against the spending bill, arguing that the term “perpetuates racism and promotes hate.”

Debate over allowing illegal immigrants to serve in the military nearly sunk the annual Defense authorization bill last year.

The House Armed Services Committee had approved a provision establishing a “sense of the House” that the Pentagon should review allowing DACA recipients to enlist during its markup of the bill. But the House later voted to eliminate the language in response to conservative outcry.

BREAKING NEWS: Obama, EPA Lose MAJOR Property Rights Case At Supreme Court

Obama, EPA Lose Major Property Rights Case At Supreme Court

Homeowners and landowners won a major victory over the EPA and the Obama administration Tuesday when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that property owners have the right to challenge, in federal court, efforts to use the Clean Water Act to restrict land use.

The court ruled that property owners can go directly to court if the US Army Corps of Engineers says the land falls under Clean Water Act restrictions.

The Obama administration had argued that property owners must wait to sue until they are denied a permit – a lengthy bureaucratic process which could take years.

Want To Know About The REAL Constitution And What The Founders Truly Intended?

“If that were correct, the Act’s ominous reach would again be unchecked by the limited relief the Court allows today,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote of the federal government’s argument.

The justices, in an 8-0 decision, ruled that Hawkes Company, which mines peat in Minnesota, has the right to file a suit challenging a Corps of Engineers decision not to grant a permit to dig peat on the property. The Corp ruled that the area was part of the “water of the US.”

“They may proceed without a permit and argue in a Government enforcement action that a permit was not required, or they may complete the permit process and then seek judicial review, which, the Corps suggests, is what Congress envisioned,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of Hawkes.

The Corps argued that it had the right to stop Hawkes from digging peat because it was mining in wetlands on a tributary of a river.

If Hawkes Company proceeds without a permit or court ruling on its side, it would be subject to fines as high as $37,500 a day.

What is your reaction to this story? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Tired Of Losing Freedoms — And Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.

© Copyright Off The Grid News

Across America, State Officials Are REBELLING Against Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Decree

Across America, local and state officials are pushing back very strongly against the Obama administration’s decree concerning transgender use of school bathrooms and locker rooms.

Across America, local and state officials are pushing back very strongly against the Obama administration’s decree concerning transgender use of school bathrooms and locker rooms.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are the latest to criticize the Obama proclamation, which orders that schools “may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.”

Nearly 100 legislators in the state expressed their outrage in a letter to the president asking him to rescind the order immediately.

The Pennsylvania letter became widely disseminated on Wednesday. At roughly the same time, officials in Mississippi indicated that the Magnolia State will not follow the guidance issued by the Obama administration.

Read more

Update: Military Martial Law Bill Sneaked Through by Senate

Bill gives Obama power to deploy military anywhere – including on U.S. soil

“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy,” Defense One reported.

In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.

Several senators, including Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, were surprised by McDonnell’s decision to fast-track the bill after a year of deep in-fighting over similar measures in the Senate.

“He did?” he asked the Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday morn­ing when reporters informed him about the bill.

Even some Senate Democrats have an issue with a new authorization without geographical restrictions placed on the president.

“I’m for the Con­gress vot­ing on an AUMF; of course it de­pends what the AUMF looks like,” Sen. Robert Men­en­dez said Thursday. “I don’t want a blank check.”

It’s also interesting to note McConnell is trying to push through the bill on a Friday as an unprecedented blizzard slams the northeast U.S., including Washington, D.C.

FOLLOW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

FOLLOW on Twitter: