OBAMA WANTS US TO REMAIN IN THE DARK ON 9/11 -JOSH EARNEST FURTHERS OBAMA'S LIES!

Obama Sides With Saudi Arabia Against Americans, Says Will Veto 9/11 Victims Families Bill by Geoffrey Grider The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - Barack Obama “Given the long list of concerns I have expressed ... it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. 4/18/16: White House Press Briefing Go to 20:20 in the video to hear the official White House paid liar explain why the traitor Obama is going to veto the 9/11 victims families bill. Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries were to pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts. “It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said. “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.” The legislation drew widespread attention after Saudi officials reportedly informed the Obama administration that they would sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if the bill became law, a threat that carries widespread economic consequences if the Saudis follow through. Earnest appeared to strongly caution the Saudi government against taking such a step. “A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States,” he said. The fierce debate over the legislation has bubbled up at a precarious time for Obama, who is set to land in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to meet with King Salman. Earnest said he is not sure if Obama will raise the issue during a meeting in which the leaders are expected to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "If this issue were to come up ... the potential consequences of rolling back this core principle of international law is how the president would explain our position to his counterparts," he said. The nuclear agreement has already strained relations between Washington and Riyadh, and the 9/11 legislation could raise tensions even higher. Saudi officials have for years denied their government had any role in the plotting of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission report said the Saudi government “as an institution” or its senior officials individually did not fund the attackers. But there has long been speculation that lower-level officials may have been involved. And victims' families and lawmakers in both parties have pressed for the release of 28 pages of a 2002 report on the attacks that reportedly detail Saudi officials’ role in the plot. The legislation, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would allow victims of terror attacks on U.S. soil to sue the governments of nations that support terrorism. It has bipartisan support; Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) both authored the bill. They argue it would allow American citizens to recoup damages from countries that have provided financial support to groups like al Qaeda. Earnest said Obama has "devoted significant time in office to fighting for the 9/11 families and those who have risked their lives to rebuild after 9/11." Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both bucked Obama andbacked the legislation ahead of Tuesday’s New York primary. Sanders also said he supports making the 28 pages of the 9/11 report public. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes on Monday appeared to acknowledge concerns shared by critics of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. He said the Saudi government paid “insufficient attention” to money flowing to extremist groups before the 9/11 attacks from wealthy Saudis. “There was, certainly, at least kind of a insufficient attention to where all this money was going over many years from the government apparatus,” Rhodes said in an interview with former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod. source Geoffrey Grider | April 19, 2016 at 8:39 amURL: http://wp.me/p1kFP6-b1e Obama Claims Risk Of Releasing 9/11 Info But His TPP Does Much Worse   CFR insider Charlie Rose sat down with Hussein Obama for some propaganda designed to influence the direction of public thought. Obama described US military action in Iraq around Mosul, formerly a city liberated by the Americans, in terms of, “As we see the Iraqis willing to fight and gaining ground.” He would be more correct in stating it as “As we see the Iraqis and new Iranian sponsors willing to fight and regain ground that I pissed away, some of it deliberately, let’s make sure that we’re providing them more support, after two and a half years of supporting their ISIS enemies.” Obama is quick to point out, “We’re not doing the fighting ourselves, but when we provide training, when we provide Special Forces who are backing them up [no fighting allowed], when we are gaining intelligence [excuse for troops being there not fighting], working with the coalitions that we have [everybody’s doing it excuse for being there], what we’ve seen is that we can continually tighten the noose. [isn’t that racist?]” Hussein Obama continues, saying, “My expectation is that by the end of the year,” when he can officially turn tail and run without being labeled a bigger coward, and when a real American president can take over, “we will have created the conditions whereby Mosul will eventually fall. Everything that doesn’t have to do with the destruction of the United States involves a long, drawn-out process. Regarding the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report, Rose asks, “Have you read it.” Unwilling to answer definitively yes or no, Obama uses ambiguous double speak, saying, “I have a sense of what’s in there but this has been a process which we generally deal with through the intelligence community and Jim Clapper, our Director of National Intelligence has been going through to make sure that whatever it is that is released, [after more redactions to serve Obama’s interests] is not going to compromise some major national security interest of the United States. [Or reveal any of his or the Bush’s shady deals] and my understanding is that he’s about to complete that process.”    Of course the whole reason for this being brought up at all as Obama attempts to nail down as many loose ends as possible before he finally becomes the pimple that the Clearasil finally dried up and makes his exit, is to try to control what is ultimately released to the public. We can be sure that whatever is made public be in the form of a whitewashing of the first degree. Rose asks Obama about pending legislation in Congress that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. The response exposes a major hypocritical flaw in the Obama argument, when he replies that he’s opposed because, “This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries.” It’s more of the lies of Hussein Obama, as one of the major problems that he chooses to completely discount as a legitimate concern is the ability under TPP for foreign governments, corporations, NGO’s and other entities to sue the United States in secret courts, made up of their own cronies, for damages which don’t even exist and which are created out of the actions on behalf of the national interest, which final and cannot be appealed. Why is it that the 9/11 families can’t be allowed the same privileges as Mitsubishi or Sanyo? Why does it scare Obama when the American people are armed with information and the legal means to do something with that information? Would it upset his international order, the UN global government and the Saudi or Iranian fat cats who are paying him the big bucks to do their bidding? Laura  J Alcorn Let's  Invite More to our social network.   Send these post to your email groups and friends. Like us on  Facebook