===
Back from our 39th consecutive annual week at Tybee.
Stella, Dagny and Blake were great for the most part. A few, not surprising, melt-downs because they got over tired but weather was great, no sharks in the water and all had a good time.
===
This is a long memo because I have some things I want to say and a lot of catch-up postings.
I will begin with some thoughts pertaining to conclusions from my visit to museums displaying Western Art and Artifacts.
I sent an un-edited copy to a friend and he responded I remain "irrepressible." Hope you will read and come to your own conclusions.(See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
===
The next series of op eds and articles etc. pertain to Obama and Kerry's deal with Iran. They mostly question their logic, challenge the rationale and accord with my view. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions. (See 2, 2a, 2b , 2c, and 2d below.)
(2d is written by Allen West, The SIRC President Day Dinner Speaker,Monday Feb 15, 2016.)
===
They say "silence is golden." Perhaps it is but Obama seems to be silent when whites are killed by those his policies fail to deter but he becomes quite verbal when blacks are killed committing crimes because he deems most police departments are staffed by racist thugs. (See 3 and 3a below.)
And then a Broadway Show and a campaign fund raiser beckons when Marines are killed in a "work place incident!" earlier that day. Welcome to Obamaworld! (See 3b below.)
===
And then there is Cuba. (See 4 and 4a below.)
(Both were sent to me by a dear friend, fellow memo reader and an escapee from Castro!)
===
Finally, there is an increased level of angst and frustration expressed among some of my memo readers and friends.
I always believed "Affirmative Action" was a poor way to resolve the need to jump start Black opportunities because of the wrongs and deprivations caused by segregation. Reverse discrimination , in my humble opinion, was no way to address discrimination.
That said, it became a politically correct matter and now we are paying for the negative aspects of a well intended approach.
As I have stated before, Obama is one example of Affirmative Action, because he was given passes and now we are paying for his failure to be tested and challenged by the demands of having to prove yourself truly capable. Yes, once again we learn that "hell is paved with good intentions." (See 5 below.)
===
These are some interesting articles that discuss random subjects. (See 6, 6a, 6b and 6c below.)
6, by Wayne Root, is a bit overboard but much of what he writes strikes a responsive chord but I believe it is a lot of "wish begets the thought" writing.
As for the Corker Bill, I believe it is a sham and provides cover for those who want/need to be seen as casting a meaningful but hopeless vote against the Obama/Kerry Iran Deal. Obama claims it is not a treaty and therefore Congress has no authority or power to stop him.
Even if they did, can you see the signatories following our Congress. They are already lining up to do business in Iran, to make millions just as American Scrap Dealers did in selling the materiel which sank our ships at Pearl Harbour! Greed trumps virtue when money is the issue.
Major Garrett had the guts to challenge Obama and Obama responded by turning the table and revealing what a slimy scoundrel he really is.
At least there is one courageous journalist still around serving and protecting the people's interests!
Lawyer Silverlieb like Root, is chasing rainbows. He raises legitimate issues and probably is correct in his facts but this dog will not hunt. It is an academic exercise in futility.
===
Now for a little non PC humor:
"Seven wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paraloympics after they tested positive for WD40"
"I spent a couple of hours defrosting the fridge last night, or "foreplay" as she likes to call it."
"I woke up this morning at 8 am, and could sense something was wrong. I got downstairs and found the wife
" Bought the missus a hamster skin coat last week. Took her to the fair last night, and it took me 3 hours to get her off the Ferris wheel."face down on the kitchen floor, not breathing! I panicked. I didn't know what to do.Then I remembered McDonald's serves breakfast until 11:30 am. "
"A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor. "
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)I know this may sound corny but after our recent 41 day coast to coast drive, and our visits to many museums that featured art of the west, most particularly, The National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City and the Pacific War Museum in Fredericksberg, Texas and a lot of reading of books I purchased about these museums' missions and Obama's recent betrayal as evidenced by the Iran deal, I believe I can connect the downward slide of our country with the death of John Wayne whose movies made him a national icon for portraying the distinct American character of individualism, manliness and courage the values of what being an American was all about and the 1960's.
I grew up watching Westerns and they left an indelible impression on me which was reignited when I visited these museums. The '60's was a very dispiriting period and was antithetical to everything Wayne portrayed.
Congress has become an absolute joke, a political eunuch. The Supreme Court has lost its Constitutional moorings and this president is an abject liar and disgrace.
Wayne has to be turning over in his grave.
1a)
The irrelevance of Congress
Omri Ceren writes to elucidate the unfolding process in the Iran deal brought to us by President Obama. Omni’s message explores the issue:
Lead negotiator Wendy Sherman confirmed for journalists yesterday that the Obama administration will, over the next few days, pursue a binding United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) that will lift sanctions on Iran. The resolution was circulated yesterday by the U.S. and a leaked text is already online [1]. When asked how the move could be reconciled with the 60-day Congressional review period mandated by the Corker legislation, Sherman sarcastically responded that you can’t really say “well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress” because there has to be some way for “the international community to speak.” [2]. She noted that at least the UNSCR would have a 90 day interim period before its mandatory obligations kick in.
The gambit undermines the Corker bill – to say nothing of American sovereignty – on multiple levels. On a policy level, the UNSCR on its own would compel American action even if Congress rejects the Iran deal. On a political level, the administration intends to take the UNSCR and go to lawmakers while they’re considering the deal and say ‘you can’t reject the agreement because it would put America in violation of international law.’
The pushback from the Hill yesterday was immediate and furious. Corker: “an affront to the American people… an affront to Congress and the House of Representatives” [3]. Cardin: “it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution” [4]. Cruz: “our Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends” [5]. Kirk: “a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and Congressional prerogative” [6]. McCarthy: “violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law… inconceivable – yet sadly not surprising” [7].
The Washington Post article [by Karen DeYoung here covers some of those statements and has a bunch of background. The story will develop throughout the day and through the beginning of next week. It’s going to be particularly brutal given that the Corker legislation was created and passed to stop exactly this scenario.
Remember how we got here. The March 9 Cotton letter, signed by 47 Senators, declared that without Congressional buy-in any deal with Iran would not be binding on future presidents [8]. Iranian FM Zarif responded with a temper tantrum in which he revealed that the parties intended to fast-track an UNSCR that would make Congress irrelevant and tie the hands of future presidents: “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law”[9]. That created a firestorm of criticism from the Hill [10]. Zarif doubled down from the stage at NYU: “within a few days after [an agreement] we will have a resolution in the security council … which will be mandatory for all member states, whether Senator Cotton likes it or not” [11].
And so Congress responded with the Corker legislation. 98 Senators and 400 Representatives passed the bill with the intention of preventing the Obama administration from immediately going to the U.N. after an agreement and making good on Zarif’s boast. President Obama signed the bill. Now the administration is doing exactly what the legislation was designed to prohibit.
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[2] http://www.c-span.org/video/?
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/
[4] http://thehill.com/homenews/
[5] http://www.cruz.senate.gov/
[6] http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=
[7] http://www.majorityleader.gov/
[8] http://www.cotton.senate.gov/
[9] http://www.npr.org/sections/
[10] http://www.thedailybeast.com/
[11] http://freebeacon.com/
[2] http://www.c-span.org/video/?
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/
[4] http://thehill.com/homenews/
[5] http://www.cruz.senate.gov/
[6] http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=
[7] http://www.majorityleader.gov/
[8] http://www.cotton.senate.gov/
[9] http://www.npr.org/sections/
[10] http://www.thedailybeast.com/
[11] http://freebeacon.com/
1b) All presidents take an oath to protect and defend America from all enemies.
I have often pointed out this president has been derelict in his Constitutional responsibility and now we have another instance where he will assuredlyfail once again.
In my opinion Obama should:
1) Demand all recruiting personnel be armed.
2) All window fronts, entrances and exits be replaced with bullet proof glass and comparable protection.
3) Obama should go before Congress and demand that a declaration of war be enacted against The Caliphate Nation State of ISIS.
4) America invented the Internet, American Taxpayers fund it. ISIS should be cut off from use of the Internet and all reports of their atrocities should be banned under war power sanctions.
4) America invented the Internet, American Taxpayers fund it. ISIS should be cut off from use of the Internet and all reports of their atrocities should be banned under war power sanctions.
5) All immigration from Arab and Muslim nations should be suspended until the various security agencies get their act together in terms of making sure those who are deemed threats are prevented from getting visas etc.
6) The FBI should be allowed to be become pro-active and to interrogate suspicious persons before the fact not after. If this is profiling so be it.
Will he? Of course not. It is dumb/futile of me to even suggest as much
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Here’s the Truth About 6 of Obama’s Iran Deal Claims
President Obama made some dubious claims during his remarks about the Iran nuclear deal. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/dpa/picture-alliance/
Michaela Dodge specializes in missile defense, nuclear weapons modernization and arms control as policy analyst for defense and strategic policy in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
MONTHS of Iranian pressure on the United States brought its fruition. Iran got a deal that legitimizes its nuclear program, rewards its defiance of international treaties and obligations, and provides it with additional billions of dollars to continue its terrorist activities in the Middle East.
Here are the White House’s most egregious misinterpretations of the deal, looking at claims President Obama made during his remarks about the deal this morning.
1. “A comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
The concluded deal does not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the future. The deal imposes temporary restrictions on Iran’s illegal nuclear program.
After their expiration, Iran will have better resources to pursue more advanced nuclear technologies and potentially build a nuclear weapon faster than would be the case had sanctions remained in place.
The deal also allows Iran to obtain currently restricted materials to advance its ballistic missile program.
2. “Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.”
Iran is permitted to retain its enrichment infrastructure, including advanced centrifuges. The administration’s concession on uranium enrichment is a serious blow to a decade old principle of U.S. nonproliferation policy.
The United States worked very hard in the past to prevent allies from developing indigenous uranium enrichment capability because technologies for uranium enrichment and weapons grade enrichment are the same.
Yet Iran, which developed this capability in defiance of its existing international obligations, is being rewarded for its bad behavior by lifting sanctions on its country, including sanctions concerning shipping, arms sales, transportation, banking and precious metal trade.
3. “The deal is in line with a tradition of American leadership.”
In reality, the deal undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy in the Middle East and in the world. The United States has demanded that other countries in the Middle East not pursue enrichment efforts.
While allies obliged, adversarial Iran is getting a deal that legitimizes its illegal uranium enrichment program.
Allies will demand the Iranian deal for themselves and the United States has given up any legitimacy it had in demanding otherwise. Saudi Arabia has already stated it will pursue a similar nuclear program. Others are likely to follow creating a less stable environment in already tense Middle East.
4. “America negotiated from a position of strength and principle.”
Time and again Obama conceded on key principles that would improve a chance that the United States is getting a deal beneficial to its national security interest. From a deal that stops Iran’s nuclear weapon pursuits to a deal that delays them at best (and speeds them up at worst). From a deal that allows anytime anywhere inspections given Iran’s past deception, to more restricted inspections that cannot interfere with Iran’s national security and military activities. Iran is not permitted under the Nonproliferation Treaty to pursue a nuclear program with military applications.
5. “The same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future.”
Obama is in a better position to negotiate Iran’s nuclear deal because of congressional and international sanctions that Obama is promising to dismantle. Any future president will have to deal with consequences of Obama’s concessions on all aspects of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.
Future U.S. presidents will have to deal with Iran that has hundreds of billion dollars more resources to pursue its nuclear program, access to modern technologies, and has been able to maintain nuclear know-how and infrastructure, both nuclear and ballistic missile, to threaten U.S. interests on an unprecedented scale.
6. “Consider what happens in a world without this deal. Without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning Iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program.”
The world has already joined the United States in sanctions. An alternative to a no-deal is to continue them. After all, sanctions are the only reason why Iran negotiated to begin with.
A continuation of sanctions is a sound alternative to a bad deal that the Obama administration has negotiated. Continuing sanctions will limit Iran’s ability to fund terrorism across the Middle East, access to advanced technologies and rare materials that will allow Iran to further improve its nuclear and ballistic missile program, and the pressure of sanctions would give the United States more time to negotiate a better deal.
2a)Obama's age of nuclear chaos!
Obama's age of nuclear chaos (by Caroline Glick - senior contributing editor, The Jerusalem Post.
On Tuesday, we moved into a new nuclear age.
In the old nuclear age, the US-led West had a system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It had three components: sanctions, deterrence and military force. In recent years we have witnessed the successful deployment of all three.
In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, the UN Security Council imposed a harsh sanctions regime on Iraq. One of its purposes was to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, we learned that the sanctions had been successful. Saddam largely abandoned his nuclear program due to sanctions pressure.
The US-led invasion of Iraq terrified several rogue regimes in the region. In the two to three years immediately following the invasion, America’s deterrent strength soared to unprecedented heights.
As for military force, the nuclear installation that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad built in Deir a-Zour with Iranian money and North Korean technicians wasn’t destroyed through sanctions or deterrence. According to foreign media reports, in September 2007, Israel concluded that these paths to preventing nuclear proliferation to Syria would be unsuccessful.
So then-prime minister Ehud Olmert ordered the IDF to destroy it. The outbreak of the Syrian civil war three years later has prevented Assad and his Iranian bosses from reinstating the program, to date.
The old nuclear nonproliferation regime was highly flawed.
Pakistan and North Korea exploited the post-Cold War weaknesses of its sanctions and deterrence components to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons and technologies.
Due to American weakness, neither paid a serious price for its actions.
Yet, for all its flaws and leaks, the damage caused to the nonproliferation system by American weakness toward Pakistan and North Korea is small potatoes in comparison to the destruction that Tuesday’s deal with Iran has wrought.
That deal doesn’t merely show that the US is unwilling to exact a price from states that illicitly develop nuclear weapons. The US and its allies just concluded a deal that requires them to facilitate Iran’s nuclear efforts.
Not only will the US and its allies remove the sanctions imposed on Iran over the past decade and so start the flow of some $150 billion to the ayatollahs’ treasury. They will help Iran develop advanced centrifuges.
They even committed themselves to protecting Iran’s nuclear facilities from attack and sabotage.
Under the deal, in five years, Iran will have unlimited access to the international conventional arms market. In eight years, Iran will be able to purchase and develop whatever missile systems it desires.
And in 10 years, most of the limitations on its nuclear program will be removed.
Because the deal permits Iran to develop advanced centrifuges, when the agreement ends in 10 years, Iran will be positioned to develop nuclear weapons immediately.
In other words, if Iran abides by the agreement, or isn’t punished for cheating on it, in 10 years, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world will be rich, in possession of a modernized military, a ballistic missile arsenal capable of carrying nuclear warheads to any spot on earth, and the nuclear warheads themselves.
Facing this new nuclear reality, the states of the region, including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps the emirates, will likely begin to develop nuclear arsenals. ISIS will likely use the remnants of the Iraqi and Syrian programs to build its own nuclear program.
Right now, chances are small that Congress will torpedo Barack Obama’s deal. Obama and his backers plan to spend huge sums to block Republican efforts to convince 13 Democratic senators and 43 Democratic congressmen to vote against the deal and so achieve the requisite two-thirds majority to cancel American participation in the deal.
Despite the slim chances, opponents of the deal, including Israel, must do everything they can to convince the Democrats to vote against it in September. If Congress votes down the deal, the nuclear chaos Obama unleashed on Tuesday can be more easily reduced by his successor in the White House.
If Congress rejects the deal, then US sanctions against Iran will remain in force. Although most of the money that will flow to Iran as a result of the deal is now frozen due to multilateral sanctions, and so will be transferred to Iran regardless of congressional action, retaining US sanctions will make it easier politically and bureaucratically for Obama’s replacement to take the necessary steps to dismantle the deal.
Just as the money will flow to Iran regardless of Congress’s vote, so Iran’s path to the bomb is paved regardless of what Congress does.
Under one scenario, if Congress rejects the deal, Iran will walk away from it and intensify its nuclear activities in order to become a nuclear threshold state as quickly as possible. Since the deal has destroyed any potential international coalition against Iran’s illegal program, no one will bat a lash.
Obama will be deeply bitter if Congress rejects his “historic achievement.” He can be expected to do as little as possible to enforce the US sanctions regime against his Iranian comrades. Certainly he will take no military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
As a consequence, regardless of congressional action, Iran knows that it has a free hand to develop nuclear weapons at least until the next president is inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
The other possible outcome of a congressional rejection of the deal is that Iran will stay in the deal and the US will be the odd man out.
In a bid to tie the hands of her boss’s successor and render Congress powerless to curb his actions, the day before the deal was concluded, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power circulated a binding draft resolution to Security Council members that would prohibit member nations from taking action to harm the agreement.
If the resolution passes – and it is impossible to imagine it failing to pass – then Iran can stay in the deal, develop the bomb with international support and the US will be found in breach of a binding UN Security Council resolution.
Given that under all scenarios, Tuesday’s deal ensures that Iran will become a threshold nuclear power, it must be assumed that Iran’s neighbors will now seek their own nuclear options.
Moreover, in light of Obama’s end-run around the Congress, it is clear that regardless of congressional action, the deal has already ruined the 70-year old nonproliferation system that prevented nuclear chaos and war.
After all, now that the US has capitulated to Iran, its avowed foe and the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, who will take future American calls for sanctions against nuclear proliferators seriously? Who will be deterred by American threats that “all options are on the table” when the US has agreed to protect Iran’s nuclear installations and develop advanced centrifuges for the same ayatollahs who daily chant, “Death to America”? For Israel, the destruction of the West’s nonproliferation regime means that from here on out, we will be living in a region buzzing with nuclear activity. Until Tuesday, Israel relied on the West to deter most of its neighbors from developing nuclear weapons. And when the West failed, Israel dealt with the situation by sending in the air force. Now, on the one hand Israel has no West to rely on for sanctions or deterrence, and on the other hand, it has limited or no military options of its own against many of the actors that will now seek to develop nuclear arsenals.
Consider Israel’s situation. How could Israel take action against an Egyptian or Jordanian nuclear reactor, for instance? Both neighboring states are working with Israel to defeat jihadist forces threatening them all. And that cooperation extends to other common threats. Given these close and constructive ties, it’s hard to see how Israel could contemplate attacking them.
But on the other hand, the regimes in Amman and Cairo are under unprecedented threat.
In theory they can be toppled at any moment by jihadist forces, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS. It’s already happened once in Egypt.
The same considerations apply to Saudi Arabia.
As for Turkey, its NATO membership means that if Israel were to attack Turkish nuclear sites, it would run the risk of placing itself at war not only with Turkey, but with NATO.
Given Israel’s limited military options, we will soon find ourselves living under constant nuclear threat. Under these new circumstances, Israel must invest every possible effort in developing and deploying active nuclear defenses.
One key aspect to this is missile defense systems, which Israel is already developing.
But nuclear bombs can be launched in any number of ways.
Old fashioned bombs dropped from airplanes are one option.
Artillery is another. Even suicide trucks are good for the job.
Israel needs to develop the means to defend itself against all of these delivery mechanisms. At the same time, we will need to operate in hostile countries such as Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere to destroy deliveries of nuclear materiel whether transferred by air, sea or land.
Here is the place to mention that Israel still may have the ability to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. If it does, then it should attack them as quickly and effectively as possible.
No, a successful Israeli attack cannot turn back the clock. Israel cannot replace the US as a regional superpower, dictating policy to our neighbors. But a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear program along with the adoption of a vigilantly upheld strategy of active nuclear defense can form the basis of a successful Israeli nuclear defense system.
And no, Israel shouldn’t be overly concerned with how Obama will respond to such actions.
Just as Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran has destroyed his influence among our Arab neighbors, so his ability to force Israel to sit on the sidelines as he gives Iran a nuclear arsenal is severely constrained.
How will he punish Israel for defying him? By signing a nuclear deal with Iran that destroys 70 years of US nonproliferation strategy, allows the Iranian regime to grow rich on sanctions relief, become a regional hegemon while expanding its support for terrorism and develop nuclear weapons? Years from now, perhaps historians will point out the irony that Obama, who loudly proclaims his goal of making the world free of nuclear weapons, has ushered in an era of mass nuclear proliferation and chaos.
Israel can ill afford the luxury of pondering irony.
One day the nuclear Furies Obama has unleashed may find their way to New York City.
But their path to America runs through Israel. We need to ready ourselves to destroy them before they cross our border.
Obama will be deeply bitter if Congress rejects his “historic achievement.” He can be expected to do as little as possible to enforce the US sanctions regime against his Iranian comrades. Certainly he will take no military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
As a consequence, regardless of congressional action, Iran knows that it has a free hand to develop nuclear weapons at least until the next president is inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
The other possible outcome of a congressional rejection of the deal is that Iran will stay in the deal and the US will be the odd man out.
In a bid to tie the hands of her boss’s successor and render Congress powerless to curb his actions, the day before the deal was concluded, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power circulated a binding draft resolution to Security Council members that would prohibit member nations from taking action to harm the agreement.
If the resolution passes – and it is impossible to imagine it failing to pass – then Iran can stay in the deal, develop the bomb with international support and the US will be found in breach of a binding UN Security Council resolution.
Given that under all scenarios, Tuesday’s deal ensures that Iran will become a threshold nuclear power, it must be assumed that Iran’s neighbors will now seek their own nuclear options.
Moreover, in light of Obama’s end-run around the Congress, it is clear that regardless of congressional action, the deal has already ruined the 70-year old nonproliferation system that prevented nuclear chaos and war.
After all, now that the US has capitulated to Iran, its avowed foe and the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, who will take future American calls for sanctions against nuclear proliferators seriously? Who will be deterred by American threats that “all options are on the table” when the US has agreed to protect Iran’s nuclear installations and develop advanced centrifuges for the same ayatollahs who daily chant, “Death to America”? For Israel, the destruction of the West’s nonproliferation regime means that from here on out, we will be living in a region buzzing with nuclear activity. Until Tuesday, Israel relied on the West to deter most of its neighbors from developing nuclear weapons. And when the West failed, Israel dealt with the situation by sending in the air force. Now, on the one hand Israel has no West to rely on for sanctions or deterrence, and on the other hand, it has limited or no military options of its own against many of the actors that will now seek to develop nuclear arsenals.
Consider Israel’s situation. How could Israel take action against an Egyptian or Jordanian nuclear reactor, for instance? Both neighboring states are working with Israel to defeat jihadist forces threatening them all. And that cooperation extends to other common threats. Given these close and constructive ties, it’s hard to see how Israel could contemplate attacking them.
But on the other hand, the regimes in Amman and Cairo are under unprecedented threat.
In theory they can be toppled at any moment by jihadist forces, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS. It’s already happened once in Egypt.
The same considerations apply to Saudi Arabia.
As for Turkey, its NATO membership means that if Israel were to attack Turkish nuclear sites, it would run the risk of placing itself at war not only with Turkey, but with NATO.
Given Israel’s limited military options, we will soon find ourselves living under constant nuclear threat. Under these new circumstances, Israel must invest every possible effort in developing and deploying active nuclear defenses.
One key aspect to this is missile defense systems, which Israel is already developing.
But nuclear bombs can be launched in any number of ways.
Old fashioned bombs dropped from airplanes are one option.
Artillery is another. Even suicide trucks are good for the job.
Israel needs to develop the means to defend itself against all of these delivery mechanisms. At the same time, we will need to operate in hostile countries such as Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere to destroy deliveries of nuclear materiel whether transferred by air, sea or land.
Here is the place to mention that Israel still may have the ability to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. If it does, then it should attack them as quickly and effectively as possible.
No, a successful Israeli attack cannot turn back the clock. Israel cannot replace the US as a regional superpower, dictating policy to our neighbors. But a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear program along with the adoption of a vigilantly upheld strategy of active nuclear defense can form the basis of a successful Israeli nuclear defense system.
And no, Israel shouldn’t be overly concerned with how Obama will respond to such actions.
Just as Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran has destroyed his influence among our Arab neighbors, so his ability to force Israel to sit on the sidelines as he gives Iran a nuclear arsenal is severely constrained.
How will he punish Israel for defying him? By signing a nuclear deal with Iran that destroys 70 years of US nonproliferation strategy, allows the Iranian regime to grow rich on sanctions relief, become a regional hegemon while expanding its support for terrorism and develop nuclear weapons? Years from now, perhaps historians will point out the irony that Obama, who loudly proclaims his goal of making the world free of nuclear weapons, has ushered in an era of mass nuclear proliferation and chaos.
Israel can ill afford the luxury of pondering irony.
One day the nuclear Furies Obama has unleashed may find their way to New York City.
But their path to America runs through Israel. We need to ready ourselves to destroy them before they cross our border.
2b)"Alan Dershowitz is a proud and loyal Democrat. BUT HE IS NOT BLIND!
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it’s better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a real-politick world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all.
But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options?
We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead, we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a deal to implement President Obama’s world vision and to enhance his legacy.
This approach to the deal — surrendering leverage from the outset — violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their ayatollah checkmated our president.
But the real losers were those countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by it, since they did not have a vote. The deal was imposed on them, in much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
The end result of this porous agreement may well be, to turn President Obama’s words against his own conclusion: “A greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Churchill correctly predicted that the Chamberlain deal with Hitler would bring war. Let’s hope the Iran deal — based on deeply flawed negotiations — will not produce a similar catastrophe.
2c) Why TheyAre Cheering In Iran - TheInspection Charade
By FREDERICK KAGAN
The nuclear agreement with Iran announced Tuesday is an astoundingly good deal, far surpassing the hopes of anyone . . . in Tehran. It requires Iran to reduce the number of centrifuges enriching uranium by about half, to sell most of its current uranium stockpile or “downblend” it to lower levels of enrichment, and to accept inspections (whose precise nature is yet to be specified) by the International Atomic Energy Agency, something that SupremeLeader Ali Khamenei had wanted to avoid.
But the agreement also permits Iran to phase out the first-generation centrifuges on which it now relies and focus its research and development by exclusively using a number of advanced centrifuge models many times more efficient, which has been Tehran’s plan all along. The deal will also entirely end the United Nations’ involvement in Iran’s nuclear program in 10 years, and in 15 years will lift most restrictions on the program.
Even that, though, is not Tehran’s biggest win. The main achievement of the regime’s negotiators is striking a deal that commits the West to removing almost all sanctions on Iran, including most of those imposed to reduce terrorism or to prevent weapons proliferation. Most of the sanctions are likely to end in a few months. Thus the agreement ensures that after a short delay Iran will be able to lay the groundwork for a large nuclear arsenal and, in the interim, expand its conventional military capabilities as much as the regime pleases. The supreme leader should be very proud of his team.
The agreement consists of 159 pages of opaque prose, and key sections are referred to but are not clearly marked. Even figuring out the timeline embodied in the deal is hard, but it appears to run about as follows:
“Finalization Day” was July 14. The agreement stipulates that a resolution will be submitted to the United Nations Security Council “promptly after the conclusion of the negotiations . . . for adoption without delay” that will “terminate” all preceding U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iran. The document doesn’t mention the 60-day window for review by the U.S. Congress, and the language in this section suggests that action in the U.N. will not await any congressional vote.
“Adoption Day” is the next major milestone, coming either 90 days after the approval of the Security Council resolution or “at an earlier date by mutual consent.” If the Security Council moves smartly, Adoption Day could come in October. At that point Iran commits to apply the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which governs enhanced international inspections. But this commitment is provisional, “pending ratification by the Majlis”—the Iranian parliament. It is again noteworthy that no mention is made of any action to be taken by the U.S. Congress, despite the nod to Iran’s legislature.
Determining when “Implementation Day” happens is even more difficult, since it depends on the completion of a series of negotiations between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The timeline for those negotiations, however, is spelled out in a separate document: Discussions are to be complete by Oct. 15, 2015, and the IAEA director general will submit a final report to his board of governors by Dec. 15.
Iran at this point will be rewarded. The European Union will end a large number sanctions; President Obama will issue waivers for a number of U.S. sanctions or rescind the executive orders that imposed them. Iranian banks will be allowed back into the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications system, or Swift, allowing Iran to reintegrate into the dollar economy and move money freely.
The agreement also specifies that the EU will lift sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Quds Force and possibly its commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani; and a large number of other individuals and entities sanctioned not simply for their roles in the nuclear program but for terrorism and human-rights abuses. This sanctions relief will come by 2023 at the latest. The agreement does not appear to oblige the U.S. to lift sanctions on those people and entities.
The survival of the international arms embargo against Iran, however, depends entirely on the U.N. Security Council resolution passed to implement this agreement. Nothing in the text of the agreement itself supports President Obama’s assertion that the embargo will last for another five years, although he may have that time frame in mind.
The current embargo was implemented by two resolutions: No. 1696 (2006) and No. 1929 (2010). The first bars the sale or transfer to Iran of any material or technology that might be useful to a ballistic-missile program, and the second does the same for “battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems.”
A new resolution that simply terminates all of the previous sanctions would allow Russia and China to provide Iran with any military technology they choose. To preserve the embargo, the U.S. would need to add the appropriate language to the resolution that must be passed by the Security Council this summer. But that means getting agreement from the Russians, who have already said that the embargo should be ended immediately. The U.S. is not in a very strong position to engage the Russians on this point, since the Obama administration must get the resolution through the Security Council quickly or risk having the entire nuclear deal fall apart.
Experts will debate the value of the concessions Iran has made on the nuclear front, but the value to Iran of the concessions the U.S. has made on nonnuclear issues is immeasurable. It is hard to imagine any other circumstance under which Tehran could have hoped to get an international, U.N. Security Council-backed commitment to remove the Republican Guard and Quds Force from any sanctions list, or to have the fate of the arms embargo placed in the hands of Vladimir Putin.
It is still more remarkable that the agreement says nothing about Iran’s terrorist activities, human-rights violations or role in regional weapons proliferation—all of which were drivers of the embargo in the first place. Iran makes no commitment to change its terrorist or oppressive ways, but the international community promises to eliminate those sanctions anyway.
Nor is there much mystery about what Iran will do with these concessions. Tehran has recently concluded an agreement giving Syria’s Bashar Assad a $1 billion line of credit. The Iranian regime has announced that it is preparing to take delivery of the Russian S-300 antiaircraft missile system. The supreme leader has released a five-year economic plan calling for a significant expansion of Iran’s ballistic-missile and cyberwar programs and an increase in Iran’s defense capabilities.
The Obama administration seems to be betting that lifting sanctions will cause Iran to moderate its behavior in both nuclear and nonnuclear matters. The rhetoric and actions of the regime’s leaders provide little evidence to support this notion and much evidence to the contrary. The likelihood is, therefore, that this agreement will lead to a significant expansion in the capabilities of the Iranian military, including the Republican Guard and the Quds Force. It comes just as Iran is straining to keep Bashar Assad in power, dominate the portions of Iraq not controlled by Islamic State and help the Houthis fight Saudi Arabia in Yemen. That makes it a very good deal for Iran.
Mr. Kagan is the director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.
2d) Obama Announces Iran Deal, Says Bye-Bye to Western Civ
Now we know what hope and change really meant.
Somewhere Frank Marshall Davis must be smiling. Barack Obama toasted what he always wanted, the decline of the West, as our president finally rolled over and made a big nuclear deal with Iran, giving the ayatollah virtually everything he could have dreamed of, let alone needed — including control over nuclear inspections, making them meaningless — and getting nothing in return.
Among the first to respond, Senator Marco Rubio:
Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today commented on the Obama Administration’s announcement of a nuclear deal with Iran:“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism. Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security. President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed. I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama’s deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States. It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security
More from Rep. DeSantis, chairman of the Subcommittee for National Security :
This Iran deal gives Ayatollah Khamenei exactly what he wants: billions of dollars in sanctions relief, validation of the Iranian nuclear program, and the ability to stymie inspections. It even lifts sanctions against Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers during the campaign in Iraq. The deal will further destabilize the Middle East, allow Iran to foment more terrorism, and aid Iran’s rise as the dominant power in the region. By paving Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, the deal harms American national security and effectively stabs our close ally Israel, which Iran has threatened to wipe off the map, in the back. Congress needs to move swiftly to block this dangerous deal.
Good words all around, but not enough. Words by themselves are not going to cut it, only action and serious organizing of the apathetic American people. This is not courtly congressional business as usual. This is nothing less than the sabotage of Western civilization by itself, covered by weasel-like spin and outright prevarication. The time has come for the all the candidates, indeed the entire country, to speak out as one. This monstrosity cannot pass
3) Megyn Kelly: Why Is Obama Silent About Murder of Kate Steinle?
In the wake of 32-year-old Kate Steinle’s murder by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, the Obama administration has remained silent, Fox News host Megyn Kelly pointed out.
“Surrounded by friends and family, it does not appear at this hour that anyone from the Obama administration was in attendance,” Kelly said of Steinle’s funeral services that were held Thursday evening.
“Kate’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, and crime, with the White House ducking this issue of its own acquiescence in these cities’ decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted,” Kelly said.
Kelly pointed out that the absence of any comment on the part of the administration is unique in comparison to Obama’s reactions to other recent murders around the country. She continued:
A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, a man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally, and the administration also sent in the DOJ [Department of Justice] and 40 FBI agents, dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.
“Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again, his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials,” Kelly highlighted. “And again, the president spoke personally to Freddy Gray’s death, and again sent the DOJ in to investigate.”
“When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the president spoke to his death, which was later ruled to be in self-defense.”
“But Kate Steinle?” Kelly asked.
“Nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation. Nothing. Why?”
By Allen West
3a)Obama’s silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening
After Trayvon Martin was killed, President Obama spoke emotionally about his death, declaring “this could have been my son.” After Michael Brown was killed, Obama promised to ensure that “justice is done” and declared: “We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old. His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.” He even sent administration officials to attend Brown’s funeral.
After Freddie Gray was killed, Obama walked out to the Rose Garden and declared: “We have some soul-searching to do. This has been going on for a long time. This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”
But after Kathryn Steinle was killed July 1, allegedly by an illegal immigrant with seven felony convictions, Obama said . . . nothing.No promises of “justice.” No calls for “soul-searching.”
What is a ‘sanctuary city’ and why is it news? Obama's silence has been deafening.
Sanctuary laws are in the national spotlight after an illegal immigrant with prior deportations and a criminal history pleaded not guilty to murdering a woman at a San Francisco pier. Here is what you need to know about those laws and how they protect illegal immigrants. (Jayne W. Orenstein and Osman Malik/The Washington Post)
It got little notice, but on May 28, Sarah Saldana, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, admitted in a letter to Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, the Obama administration had released “121 unique criminal aliens who had an active [deportation] case at the time of release and were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses.” Think about that: 121 times over the past four years, the administration has released an illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions who went on to be charged with murder. That is one every 12 days. In one case, an illegal immigrant and felon named Apolinar Altamirano allegedly gunned down a 21-year-old Arizona convenience store clerk, Grant Ronnebeck, over a pack of cigarettes. Altamirano had been convicted of felony burglary and was in the middle of deportation proceedings. But ICE released him after he posted a $10,000 bond — which allowed him to allegedly go kill an innocent young man. Asked by Sens. Flake and Grassley whether she had notified state and local authorities when Altamirano was released, Saldana replied, “ICE does not routinely notify local authorities when a detainee is released on bond from ICE custody.” ICE also does not routinely notify local authorities when it releases illegal immigrants who are sex offenders. Last month, a Boston Globe investigation found that between 2008 and 2012, ICE released 424 sex offenders into communities across the country — including “convicted rapists, child molesters and kidnappers” — and that “immigration officials have released them without making sure they register with local authorities as sex offenders.” The paper further found that “At least 34 of the 424 released sex offenders . . . were back in jail as of last month, state records show, some for heinous crimes committed after ICE released them.” In 2013, the Obama administration released 36,007 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions — 1,000 of whom were subsequently convicted of other crimes after their release. Last year they released 30,558 such immigrants. According to the House Judiciary Committee, only 8 percent of those were due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, which requires that illegal immigrants be released after 180 days if their home countries won’t take them back. The other 92 percent were released because of Obama’s policies. Obama doesn’t want to talk about that. He also doesn’t want to talk about San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy. Steinle’s alleged killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, said he came to San Francisco because he knew the city would not turn him over to federal immigration authorities. He was right. ICE officials asked San Francisco police to notify them when Lopez-Sanchez was released so that they could take him into custody, but San Francisco refused. Why didn’t Obama come out and condemn the San Francisco police’s refusal to cooperate with his own administration’s request? He calls out local police departments all the time for everything from alleged racial bias to acting “stupidly.” Why not in this case? Perhaps it’s because Obama opposes cracking down on “sanctuary city” policies such as the one that got Kathryn Steinle killed. After Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were killed, Obama had liberal public policy points he wanted to make — about gun control, “stand your ground” laws, racial profiling and police bias. In the Steinle case, there are no issues Obama wants to highlight — because his administration supports the policies that led to her death. No wonder Obama is silent.
3b)
After Marines Slaughtered By Islamic Terrorist Obama Jets Off To Broadway Show, FundraiserBy Katie Pavlich
Just hours after four U.S. Marines were shot and killed by Islamic terrorist Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez in Chattanooga Thursday, the White House announced President Obama has plans to go see Hamilton on Broadway over the weekend. More from The Hill:
Obama will also attend a DNC fundraiser tonight, which is typical behavior after major national tragedies. Less than 24-hours after the 9/11 Benghazi attacks, he jetted off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. After American journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS, he hit the golf course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
The yacht of Tony Castro, Fidel's younger son.
It is identical to Bill Gates' yacht.
4a)
As a Cuban exile, I feel betrayed by President Obama
By Carlos Eire
I am furious, in pain, and deeply offended by those who laud this betrayal of the Cuban people as a great moment in history.
My family and native land were destroyed by the brutal Castro regime. In 1959, as an 8-year-old, I listened to mobs shout “paredon!” (to the firing squad!). I watched televised executions, and was terrified by the incessant pressure to agree with a bearded dictator’s ideals.
As the months passed, relatives, friends, and neighbors began to disappear. Some of them emerged from prison with detailed accounts of the tortures they endured, but many never reappeared, their lives cut short by firing squads.
I also witnessed the government’s seizure of all private property – down to the ring on one’s finger – and the collapse of my country’s economy. I began to feel as if some monstrous force was trying to steal my mind and soul through incessant indoctrination.
By the age of 10, I was desperate to leave.
The next year, my parents sent me to the United States. I am one of the lucky 14,000 unaccompanied children rescued by Operation Pedro Pan. Our plan to reunite within a few months was derailed by the policies of the Castro regime, which intentionally prevented people like my parents from leaving Cuba. Although my mother did manage to escape three years later, my father remained stuck for the rest of his life. When he died, 14 years after my departure, the Castro regime prevented me from attending his funeral.
I am now a professor of history and religion at Yale University.
And I long for justice. Instead of seeing Raúl Castro shaking President Obama’s hand, I would like to see him, his brother, and all their henchmen in a court room, being tried for crimes against humanity. I also long for genuine freedom in Cuba. Instead of seeing his corrupt and abusive regime rewarded with favors from the United States, I long for the day when that regime is replaced by a genuine democracy with a free market economy.
The fact that I am a historian makes me see things differently, too. I earn my living by analyzing texts and documents, sifting evidence, and separating facts from lies and myths. I have been trained to read between the lines, and to discern the hidden meaning in all rhetoric.
While much attention has been paid to President Obama’s Cuba policy speech, hardly any has been paid to dictator Raúl Castro’s shorter speech, broadcast in Cuba at exactly the same time.
In his spiteful address, the unelected ruler of Cuba said that he would accept President Obama’s gesture of good will “without renouncing a single one of our principles.”
What, exactly, are those principles?
Like his brother Fidel, whose name he invoked, and like King Louis XIV of France, whose name he dared not mention, Raúl speaks of himself as the embodiment of the state he rules, as evidenced by his mention of “ourprinciples,” which assumes that all Cubans share his mindset. Raúl claims that he is defending his nation’s “self-determination,” “sovereignty,” and “independence,” and also dares to boast that his total control of the Cuban economy should be admired as “social justice.”
In reality, he is defending is his role as absolute monarch.
Cubans have no freedom of speech or assembly. The press is tightly controlled, and there is no freedom to establish political parties or labor unions. Travel is strictly controlled, as is access to the Internet. There is no economic freedom and no elections. According to the Associated Press, at least 8,410 dissidents were detained in 2014.
These are the principles that Raúl Castro is unwilling to renounce, which have driven nearly 20 percent of Cuba’s population into exile.
Unfortunately, these are also the very principles that President Obama ratified as acceptable, which will govern Cuba for years to come.
Although President Obama did acknowledge the lack of “freedom and openness” in Cuba, and also hinted that Raúl Castro should loosen his grip on the Cuban people, his rhetoric was as hollow as Raúl’s. He didn’t make any demands for immediate, genuine reforms in Cuba. Equally hollow was his reference to Cuba’s “civil society.” He made no mention of the constant abuse heaped on Cuba’s non-violent dissidents, or of the fact that the vast majority of them have pleaded with him to tighten rather than ease existing sanctions on the Castro regime.
But it was not just what was left unsaid that made his rhetoric hollow. Some of the “facts” cited in support of his policy changes were deliberate distortions of history that lay most of the blame for Cuba’s problems on the United States.
Among the most glaring of these falsehoods was the claim that “our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe.” The real culprit is not the embargo, but the Castro regime itself, which actively prevents Cubans from accessing the Internet. Cuba has been purchasing all sorts of cutting-edge technology from other countries for use by its government, its military, its spies, and its tourist industry.
If studied carefully, what President Obama’s artful speech reveals is a fixation on the failures of American foreign policy, and on his role as a righteous reformer. Moreover, the speech is riddled with false assumptions and wishful thinking.
Does President Obama really believe that somehow, magically, an influx of American diplomats, tourists, and dollars is going to force Raúl Castro and his military junta to give up their beloved repressive “principles”?
Dream on. President Obama knows all too well that the Castro regime has had diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world and hosted millions of tourists from democratic nations for many years. Such engagement has brought no freedom or prosperity to the Cuban people. He also knows that tourism has only served to create an apartheid state in which foreigners enjoy privileges that are denied to the natives.
President Obama’s disingenuous formulation of a new Cuba policy has been praised by many around the world, but will be challenged by the legislative branch of the government of these United States.
Thank God and the Constitution for that.
The American people and the Cuban people deserve a much better future and a much better interpretation of history than those offered to them in President Obama’s shameful speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Why the Democrats Will Do and Say Anything To Stop Donald Trump
Jul. 6, 2015 9:17am
Wayne is the author of the newly released national bestseller: "The Murder of the Middle Class". Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, successful entrepreneur, small business defender, business speaker, Capital Evangelist, and media personality- appearing on over 5000 interviews in the past 5 years. Wayne’s web site:ROOTforAmerica.com.
Someone is getting very nervous. President Barack Obama; Valerie Jarrett; Eric Holder; Hillary Clinton; Jon Corzine … to name just a few. And I know why.
I wrote a book entitled “The Murder of the Middle Class” about the unholy conspiracy between big government, big business and big media. They all benefit by the billions from this partnership and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all, and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich. Everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies.
But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. I’ve never seen them this outraged, this vicious, this motivated, this coordinated – NEVER in all my years in politics, have I seen anything like the way the mad dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump
When white extremist David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana he wasn’t treated with this kind of outrage, vitriol and disrespect. When a known fraud, scam artist and tax cheat like Al Sharpton ran for president, I never saw anything remotely close to this. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened like never before.
Why? Because David Duke was never going to win. Al Sharpton was never going to win. Ron Paul was never going to win. Ross Perot was never going to win as a third-party candidate.
None of those candidates had the billion dollars it takes to win the presidency. But Donald Trump can self-fund that amount tomorrow and still have another billion left over to pour into the last two-week stretch before election day.
No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business and political elite understand that Donald Trump is no joke and could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy the Donald. No, this is a coordinated conspiracy led by President Obama himself. Obama is making the phone calls and giving the orders – the ultimate intimidator who plays by the rules of Chicago thug politics.
Why is this so important to Obama?
Because most of the other politicians are part of the “old boys club.” They talk big, but in the end they won’t change a thing.
Why? Because they are all beholden to big money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, multi-national corporations like Big Pharma or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock stock and barrel by foreigners – like George Soros owns Obama, or foreign governments own Hillary with their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money.
But one man – and only one man – isn’t beholden to anyone. One man doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Autoworkers, or the Teachers Union, or the SEIU, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help.
That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slavemasters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet they’ve never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal Executive Action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
Well first, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs or are secretly gay or are stealing taxpayer money; the NSA knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew Hastert was withdrawing large sums of his own money, from his own bank account.Trust me – the NSA, SEC, IRS and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They know everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called “racists.” So they are scared to ever criticize Obama, or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth, why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a “good boy” you’ve got a $5 million dollar per year lobbying job waiting.
The big money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose … they win.
But Donald Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice cozy relationship between big government, big media and big business. All the rules are out the window if Donald wins the presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides. But not Donald.
Remember Trump was the only politician who publicly questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.
Now he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do – question ourrelationship with Mexico; question why the border is wide open; question why no wall has been built across the border; question if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; question why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes yet are not deported; question why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Donald Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick? Good question.
I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michele Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare web sites. (By the way that tab is now up to $5 billion.)
Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. He will ask if Obama himself committed fraud when he said, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records.
Trump will prosecute Hillary Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover-up Benghazi before the election.
Trump will no doubt investigate if Obama’s Labor Department committed fraud by making up job report numbers to steal the 2012 election.
Obama, the multi-national corporations and the media need to stop this. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Donald could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Donald would dare to prosecute. Donald Trump will not hesitate. Once Donald gets in and gets a look at “the cooked books” and Obama’s records, the game is over. The gig is up. The goose is cooked.
Eric Holder could wind up in prison. Valerie Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Jon Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Hillary Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails; or accepting bribes from foreign governments while serving as secretary of State; or for “misplacing” $6 billion as head of State Department; or for the Benghazi coverup.
The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison for targeting and persecuting critics of the president and then purposely destroying evidence. Obamacare will be defunded and dismantled. The Obama Crime Family will be prosecuted for crimes against the American people. And Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters.
Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved…just for fun.
That will all happen on Trump’s first day in the White House.
Who knows what the Donald will do on day two?
That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump. That’s why we must all support Donald. This may be our only shot at saving America, uncovering the crimes committed against our nation and prosecuting all of those involved.
6a) Congress Must Ditch the Corker Bill and Treat the Iran Deal as Either a Treaty or Proposed Legislation to be Voted Up or Down
by Andrew C. McCarthy
It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.
Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed
the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.
Enough is enough – way beyond enough.
The Congress, particularly the Senate, has not only a clear justification but a constitutional duty to scrap the legally defective and, now, factually nigh-irrelevant Corker review process, codified as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.
I am proud of having been an adamant opponent of the Corker Bill since it was first proposed, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Even supporters of the Corker Bill must now see that the legislation anticipated and is designed to address an international agreement that is fundamentally different from the one the Obama administration has struck with America’s enemies.
Obama’s Iran deal has thoroughly marginalized the Corker Bill. Congress should treat it that way, too.
It is manifest that the Corker Bill prescribes a process for congressional review only of “Agreements with Iran Related to the Nuclear Program of Iran.” In fact, it is even narrower than that, addressing only review of “the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran”
(see, e.g., Sec. 135(b)(3), (4), (5) and (6)).
But Obama’s Iran deal is not limited to sanctions enacted by the United States Congress in connection with Iran’s nuclear program. Not by a long shot. Obama’s deal extends to Iran’s ballistic missiles programs and other weapons activities – including the lifting of international arms embargoes covering, as Kagan notes, both “any material or technology that might be useful to a ballistic-missile program,” and “battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems.”
That is not what Iran and the Obama administration led the American people and its elected representatives to believe they were negotiating. Indeed, Iran has claimed all along – implausibly but assiduously – that its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and have nothing to do with weaponizing uranium and plutonium. By the mullahs own account, then, ballistic missiles and conventional military weaponry can have nothing to do with “the nuclear program of Iran.” It was over the nuclear program alone that the administration told Congress it was negotiating; that is why the statutory sanctions against that program are the narrow subject of the Corker Bill.
Based on what they were being told about the Iran negotiations by the Obama White House and State Department, look at what the congressional leaders who wrote the Corker Bill prescribed. Under Section 135(b) and (c), lawmakers may resolve to approve, disapprove, or take no action on “Nuclear Agreements with Iran.” The act then provides, in Section 135(d), for “Congressional Oversight of Iranian Compliance with Nuclear Agreements.”
That’s it. The Corker bill does not prescribe congressional authority to review or approve agreements on ballistic missiles and other weapons. And as has become embarrassingly clear, it does not even prescribe congressional authority to review all the sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program.
On Thursday, we learned that the administration has begun preparing to circulate a proposed resolution under which the Security Council – before Congress has any opportunity to review, much less approve, the Iran deal – would begin implementing the Iran deal. That includes implementing provisions that relate to nuclear sanctions that were not imposed by U.S. statutes. For the most part, these are Security Council resolutions. In other words, Obama would collude with other countries, but without congressional participation, to modify America’s international legal commitments.
Of course, you may have been under the impression – perhaps from reading our quaint Constitution from those dark pre-Fundamental Transformation days – that We the People are sovereign, that our government must take its marching orders from us. To the contrary, President Obama is claiming in his Iran deal that he – unilaterally and without congressional advice, consent, or legislation – may huddle with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communist government, some European leaders, and our Iranian enemies to devise enforceable law. We and our elected representatives are expected meekly to submit.
We must not submit.
As a practical matter, because the Iran deal is night and day different (and orders of magnitude worse) than what Congress and the public were led to believe before the Corker Bill was enacted, we are in virtually the same posture we would be in if there were no Corker bill.
Many of the sanctions and understandings Obama’s Iran deal aims to undo were not adopted to block Iran’s nuclear program. They were adopted to combat Iran’s promotion of terrorism, and its acquisition and proliferation of weapons. Moreover, even with respect to the sanctions and understandings that were directly related to nuclear activity, Congress and the public were led to believe that the administration was negotiating to deprive Iran of nuclear capabilities. The president, in stark contrast, has struck an agreement that obliges the United States and other nations to build up Iran’s nuclear capabilities. That is not just outside the scope of what Obama led Congress to believe he was doing; it is the opposite of what he said he was doing – and patently unacceptable. Congress needs to start from scratch.
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has reacted to the administration’s attempt to use the Security Council to end-run Congress by threatening to block State Department nominees and funding. What a novel concept: Congress using its constitutional powers to thwart abuse of executive power.
Senator Cruz is on the right track, but what he has proposed is not sufficient. His demand is that Obama agree not to take any action on the Iran deal in the Security Council until Congress has completed the Corker review process. As explained above, though, the Corker review process is limited to statutory sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear activities – it entirely misses all sanctions that target Iran’s terror promotion and weapons activities, and even all nuclear sanctions that are not statutory. So even if Obama agreed to Cruz’s terms – and don’t bet on it – the Corker process would not reach most of the Iran deal. Plus, as we’ve previously explained (see, e.g., here, here and here – use link at end of article if you want to read these backgrounders), in reviewing what little it does cover, the Corker process guts the Constitution’s treaty and legislation requirements.
This is hugely consequential. The president is recklessly compromising national security, materially supporting the world’s leading sponsor of jihadist terror, undermining the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, and grossly eroding American sovereignty by transferring to Putin, the Chinese, the Europeans, and the mullahs decisions about American defense requirements that belong to the American people.
The Congress has an obligation to stop this. Yet, the curiously influential Senator John McCain has managed to convince himself
that Congress’s considerable foreign affairs powers are not rooted in the Constitution but dependent on what label (“treaty,” “agreement,” “convention” …) a willful president decides to stick on deals he cuts with foreign sovereigns. This is quite a turnaround for Senator McCain, who did not seem to think President Bush’s labeling of an interrogation tactic as “enhanced” stopped Congress from calling it “torture” and using every power available to lawmakers to undo it.
In any event, contrary to what the Senator and many of his fellow bipartisan Beltway graybeards appear to believe, the framers did not write preemptive surrender into Article I. Congress’s foreign affairs powers are not a function of the president’s indulgence; they are the powers of a co-equal branch, largely intended to check the president.
Congress must use its power of the purse, its appointment power, its power over legislation, and, if necessary, and its power to impeach executive branch officials (the State Department might be a good place to start) to pressure Obama. The objective is not to get His Majesty to hold off on a Security Council resolution until the Corker review process is complete – the Corker review process as enacted does not cover the Iran deal as written.
The point is to force Obama to submit his Iran deal to the Senate as a formal treaty requiring supermajority approval, or at least to submit it to Congress as proposed legislation under the Constitution’s normal legislative process that requires majority approval by both houses. Congressional approval, by the way, does not mean “not disapproval” or similar slippery Corker Bill word games.
I am not naïve enough to believe that Obama would agree to this, or that transnational progressives and the media would not scream bloody murder in a way that reliably cows the GOP. The objective is not to convince Obama and the Left; it is to delegitimize the Iran deal as binding law.
While the administration is refusing to yield, the Congress can get busy enacting a constitution-tracking resolution: one that affirms that Congress has the power to insist that international agreements be treated as treaties, or at least regular legislation, if they are to be legally enforceable. If they are not thus approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate or an act of Congress, they have no standing as binding law – they are mere executive agreements that can be abandoned at any time by either the president who makes such an agreement or by a future president.
The Democrats would be expected to fight this, of course, and Obama would veto it (just as he would veto a Corker “resolution of disapproval”). But especially now that we know what is in the Iran deal, many Democrats may not want to be seen as carrying not just Obama’s water but the mullahs’. Moreover, Congress would not be rejecting Obama’s deal; it would be saying that the deal needed to comply with the Constitution to become enforceable – a proposition that should not be controversial. There has to be a better chance of overriding an Obama veto on a resolution that asks Democrats simply to endorse their own indisputable constitutional powers than on a resolution that asks Democrats to reject their president’s deal.
Such a congressional resolution would deprive Obama’s agreement of status as American law. It would deny legitimacy to his scheme to use the United Nations to defeat the Constitution.
Administration officials are already out in the media claiming that, if it disapproves of the Iran deal, Congress would be in violation of international law. That is absurd. The administration would be in violation of American law. So-called international law does not obligate the United States to do anything unless it has been crafted under our constitutional requirements.
Congress is plainly loath to broach impeaching Obama for betraying the Constitution and American sovereignty in order to empower a terrorist enemy that continues to target the United States. For the framers and throughout most of American history, such perfidy would so patently have warranted impeachment that no president would have tried it – truly, the country would never have elected a manner of man who would consider trying it. We live, however, in a uniquely perilous time, when Congress is as determined to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities as Obama is to violate his. Consequently, we have to seek a solution that minimizes the damage.
By taking the steps recommended here, Congress can lay the groundwork for the next president to regard Obama’s Iran deal as a mere executive agreement, reject it, take the position that it has no binding effect, resume enforcing whatever sanctions can still be meaningfully enforced, and make Tehran understand that all options remain on the table to deal with its evil regime.
Concededly, Iran would have been empowered by then. At least some and probably most other countries would have withdrawn sanctions in reliance on Obama’s deal – although Congress’s denial of legitimacy could hopefully give some of them pause. Iran would have struck lucrative new commercial arrangements with Russia, China and some European governments. A Middle East arms race would already have been ignited.
Still, the damage would at least be limited to what Obama can do between now and January 2017. It could be further mitigated if a strong Republican presidential candidate made it clear that the next American administration will regard the jihadist regime as what it is: an enemy, not an ally. That may be the best we can do … but we have to do it.
6b)
I know Major Garrett. We co-hosted a morning television program back in the mid 1990s. And Major is nothing if not a solid news reporter.
That is why it shouldn’t be surprising that he asked very pointed questions when President Obama called on him during his press conference on the Iran nuclear dealWednesday.
That’s a reporter’s job—to ask questions many in the audience want to know the answer to, and in this case, that will provide the American people with relevant information about a very important matter that affects the security of the country.
And yes, Mr. President, many Americans would like to know why we cut a deal with a terrorist regime that is holding four Americans hostage and why our government wouldn’t make the return of those hostages a deal breaker. People might also be interested in knowing why part of the agreement included giving Iran further access to ballistic missiles.
Here are Garrett’s questions verbatim:
Question 1: “As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran—three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?”
Question 2: “And last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you’ve left the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?”
What is illegitimate about these two questions?
It’s not a secret that the four American hostages exist. Is it out of bounds to question why securing their freedom was not part of any deal? And when you consider that this White House has had no problem negotiating with terrorists in the past to gain the release of American hostages like Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier subsequently charged with desertion, it makes one wonder why Garrett was the first reporter to ask this question.
Regarding the lifting of the weapons ban, Iran is without question one of the main sponsors of international terrorism. Heritage Foundation national security expert Michaela Dodge says, “Lifting an arms embargo at any time will give Iran ability to threaten and kill U.S. troops and its allies more effectively. President Obama is doing a major disservice to his successors and U.S. military in conceding on these embargoes.”
And perhaps that is why just last week the president’s own defense secretary, Ashton Carter, when asked about the matter told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “No, we want [Iran] to continue to be isolated as a military … ” and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, replied in the same hearing that ” … under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.”
Hmmm… Garrett had asked some tough questions and it was immediately clear Obama didn’t have very good answers. If he had he would have started with them. Instead, he began by scolding the questioner:
I’ve got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content, as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails—Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better…
Perhaps Obama was annoyed with himself for not having mentioned the hostage situation earlier or addressing why he knows better than his military advisors about arms bans. Regardless, his reaction was that of someone who has been called out and they know it, who has had their victory dance interrupted, and who would rather lecture his audience than answer legitimate, albeit prickly, questions.
Major Garrett has reported for Fox News, CNN and is now with CBS News—I’d call that pretty fair and balanced. He was simply doing his job yesterday. The fact Obama reacted the way he did shows he did it very well
6c) RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB
|
No comments:
Post a Comment