.jpg)
.jpg)
===
Iran's Foreign Minister interprets our Constitution and offers advice.
Between nationwide protests, illegals coming to America at will and foreigners telling us what and what not our Constitution means are we losing total control of our nation?
Is this the change Obama had in mind and is actively implementing?
Thank you radical Democrats! (See 1 below.)
===
Response from long time female friend and fellow memo reader: "Dick share your thoughts re: takeover.
It is the final piece in the Alinsky model.
I would not put it past Obama to declare martial law to protect us from ourselves. Pathetic to see complete incompetence from Baltimore's city mgmt and police. What is worse...I do not see any recognition of what is being done to us among the average person on the street. Complete and willful oblivion.
Hope you are well in spite of the trash whirling past us. B-----."
===
My friend, Khaled, reminds us there are Palestinians being killed by their own brethren but the world, Obama and Jimmy Carter only focus on Israel. (See 2 and 2a below.)
03.23 Graham Israel Floor Remarks
===
Why Hillarious does not deserve to be elected. (See 3 below.)
She could bathe all day and night and she still will never come clean. (See 3a below.)
===
Former New York Governor, George Pataki, is someone worth listening to.
===
DickMy friend, Khaled, reminds us there are Palestinians being killed by their own brethren but the world, Obama and Jimmy Carter only focus on Israel. (See 2 and 2a below.)
03.23 Graham Israel Floor Remarks
===
Why Hillarious does not deserve to be elected. (See 3 below.)
She could bathe all day and night and she still will never come clean. (See 3a below.)
===
Former New York Governor, George Pataki, is someone worth listening to.
===
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Iran's Zarif Says Congress Can’t Stop Obama
By Josh Rogin
If Iran strikes a deal with the West, all sanctions will be lifted very quickly and there’s nothing the U.S. Congress can do to stop it, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told a New York audience Wednesday.
In a set of blustery and self-righteous remarks, Iran’s top diplomat assured the crowd at New York University that President Barack Obama would be compelled to stop enforcing sanctions only days after any nuclear agreement was signed and would have to figure out how to lift congressional sanctions on Iran within weeks, no matter what Congress has to say about it. He also said that any future president, even a Republican, would be compelled to stick that agreement.
Zarif also took several shots at the U.S. Senate, just as it debated amendments to a bill designed to slow the lifting of sanctions against Iran and give Congress an oversight role on the deal.
“As a foreign government, I only deal with the U.S. government. I do not deal with Congress,” Zarif said. “The responsibility of bringing that into line falls on the shoulders of the president of the United States. That’s the person with whom we are making an agreement.”
Zarif said that if there is a nuclear agreement by June 30, the negotiators' latest self-imposed deadline, then within a few days the United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution lifting all UN sanctions and requiring Obama to stop enforcing all of the U.S. sanctions immediately.
“He will have to stop implementing all the sanctions, economic and financial sanctions that have been executive order and congressional. However he does it, that’s his problem,” Zarif said. “The resolution will endorse the agreement, will terminate all previous resolutions including all sanctions, will set in place the termination of EU sanctions and the cessation of applications of all U.S. sanctions.”
The U.S. would have to endorse this resolution “whether Senator Cotton likes it or not,” Zarif said, jabbing at Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton, who initiated an open letter to the Iranian leadership promising that Congress could unravel any deal Obama makes with them.
At the event, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius pointed out that according to the Obama administration’s statements, sanctions would be lifted only after the Iranians met an initial set of conditions. Zarif responded that it would take “only a few weeks” to meet those conditions and that “preparatory steps” would be taken in advance of such verification. He added: “That is the point where we take these measures, preparation for these measures, and the sanctions will be removed. How this will be done, we know the concept. The concept is these will be simultaneous.”
Zarif also said that if the next president tries to change or withdraw from the agreement, as some Republican presidential candidates have promised, the U.S. would risk isolating itself in the world and ruining its credibility.
“The American president is bound by international law, whether they like it or not. And international law requires the United States live up to any agreement this government enters into,” he said. “You know that, maybe Senator Cotton doesn’t.”
Zarif criticized the effort in the Senate to pass a bill from Senator Bob Corker that would delay the lifting of sanctions by several weeks while Congress reviews any deal. Several Republican senators are trying to add amendments making the bill tougher on Iran. Zarif said the U.S. will pay if Congress successfully interferes with nuclear deal.
“If the U.S. Senate wants to send a message to the rest of the world that all of these agreements that the United States has signed are invalid, then you will have chaos in your bilateral relations, although you are welcome to do it,” he said.
Zarif also insisted that Obama would not be able to “snap back” sanctions after they are lifted, as the White House has repeatedly claimed. And he accused the U.S. government of violating the interim agreement in various ways, including the Treasury Department having added sanctions designations on Iranians that were not related to the nuclear program.
“If people are worrying about snapback, they should be worrying about the U.S. violating its obligations and us snapping back,” he said. “That is a point that the United States should be seriously concerned about. This is not a game.”
The last round of nuclear negotiations will begin in earnest next week, and will go non-stop until June 30, said Zarif. This week, negotiators are working on a first draft, which will identify differences remaining between the sides and set the baseline for new negotiations.
That June 30 deadline could change, he said, and but he declined to specify where the remaining gaps lie.
Zarif also commented on the Iranian Navy’s seizing of a cargo vessel Tuesday that was flagged from the Marshall Islands, a country that depends on the U.S. for and security. He said the Iranian Navy was executing a legal order based on a failure by the owner, the Danish company Maersk, to pay fees some 15 or 20 years ago. Zarif said the diversion of the Maersk Tigris wasn't meant to send a signal to the U.S. or anyone else amid the heightened tensions caused by the crisis in Yemen. He said the incident should have no impact on the nuclear negotiations.
“It has nothing to do with Yemen,” he said. “This was a legal case … We shouldn’t read to much into it. Some people do try to read too much into it in order to torpedo a process that is independent of this.”
Zarif also commented on several other regional issues. He denied that Iran has a controlling influence in any of four Arab countries -- Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen -- but that the citizens of those countries want an Iranian presence. "People of the region feel close to us because we were on the right side of history" in fighting a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, he said.
He said that Iran has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia and would welcome Saudi Arabia developing a peaceful nuclear program similar to Iran's. He also accused Saudi Arabia of creating, funding, and arming the Islamic State. He criticized Saudi Arabia for bombing in Yemen but refused to acknowledge that Assad is using that tactic on much broader scale in Syria.
When asked about the imprisonment of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian at a Tehran prison, Zarif said Rezaian will have to defend himself in court against serious charges. He added that many Iranians are imprisoned abroad, but Rezaian is better known because “the Washington Post has a much better publicity campaign.”
Zarif’s statements about the nuclear negotiations -- and everything else, for that matter -- should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. But the gap between his view and Obama’s of how sanctions relief will occur shows that there is no agreement on the issue. And Zarif may be right that Congress can’t stop the administration from lifting sanctions. On this point, the Iranian foreign minister and the speaker of the House seem to agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
THE PALESTINIANS NO ONE TALKS ABOUT
Author: Khaled Abu Toameh
The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.
Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the “plight” of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.
These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.
A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.
The story and photos of Mahmoud Abu Jheisha, who was fatally shot after stabbing a soldier in Hebron, attracted the attention of many Western media outlets, whose journalists and photographers arrived in the city to cover the story.
But on the same day that Abu Jheisha was brought to burial, a Palestinian woman living in Syria died due to lack of food and medicine. The woman was identified as Amneh Hussein Omari of the Yarmouk refugee camp near Damascus, which has been under siege by the Syrian army for the past 670 days. Her death raises the number of Palestinian refugees who have died as a result of lack of medicine and food in the camp to 176.
The case of Omari was not covered by any of the Western journalists who are based in the region. As far as they are concerned, her story is not important because she died in an Arab country.
Had Omari died in a village or refugee camp in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, her story would have made it to the front pages of most of the major newspapers in the West. That is because they would then be able to link her death to Israeli measures in the West Bank or the blockade on the Gaza Strip. The same journalists who report about the harsh economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not seem to care about the Palestinians who are being starved and tortured to death in Arab countries.
Nor are the journalists reporting to their readers and viewers the fact that more than 2800 Palestinians have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the civil war there four years ago. A report published this week by a Palestinian advocacy group also revealed that more than 27,000 Palestinians have fled Syria to different European countries in the past four years. The report also noted that Yarmouk camp has been without electricity for more than 730 days and without water for 229 days.
Earlier this month, another report said that eight Palestinians died of torture while in Syrian prison. Three of the victims were women, including 22-year-old Nadin Abu Salah, who was pregnant when she died. The report said that 83 Palestinians died of torture in Syrian prison during March this year.
These Palestinians are unfortunate because they do not live in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The international community pays attention to Palestinians only when they are “victims” of Israel.
Similarly, the international media continues to ignore the “plight” of Palestinians living under Palestinian Authority (PA) rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip.
In the West Bank, PA security forces continue to arrest Palestinians who post critical remarks on Facebook or speak out against Palestinian leaders.
Last week, for example, the Palestinian General Intelligence Service arrested Khalil Afaneh, an employee of the Wakf (Islamic Trust) Department, for “slandering” Yasser Arafat on his Facebook page.
On April 25, the PA arrested journalist Ahmed Abu Elhaija of Jenin as he was on his way to attend a conference in Jordan. No reason was given for the arrest, which is not the first of its kind involving Palestinian journalists and bloggers.
Another story that has been ignored by the international media is that involving Jihad Salim, a member of the Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank. Salim was arrested by Palestinian security officers shortly after the Islamic Bloc won the student council election of the university.
Upon his release, he said that he had been physically assaulted by his interrogators, who questioned him about the reasons why the Islamic Bloc won the vote. “The Palestinian Authority does not want democracy,” his mother said after his release. “Why are they arresting students and who does this serve?”
The situation regarding the Gaza Strip is not much different. Most stories that appear in the international media ignore the practices and violations committed by Hamas against Palestinians. Take, for example, Hamas's recent decision to impose a new tax on a number of goods. The decision has drawn sharp criticism from many Palestinians, with some openly calling for a rebellion against Hamas.
A Palestinian woman, shopping at an open-air market in Gaza, complains to Al Jazeera News about a new tax being imposed by Hamas, April 25, 2015. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)
A Palestinian woman, shopping at an open-air market in Gaza, complains to Al Jazeera News about a new tax being imposed by Hamas, April 25, 2015. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)
Again, this is not a story of interest to many Western journalists based in the Middle East, mainly because Israel is not involved.
By turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, journalists are doing a disservice not only to their publics, but also to the Palestinians themselves. The continued obsession of the media with Israel allows the Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, to proceed with their systematic violations of human rights and freedom of speech.
2a) Carter cancels awaited Gaza visit
http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=765153
BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- In a last minute move, former U.S President Jimmy
Carter on Wednesday canceled his visit to the Gaza Strip, scheduled on
Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
Carter on Wednesday canceled his visit to the Gaza Strip, scheduled on
Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
The removal of the Gaza Strip from Carter's itinerary was announced without
reason Wednesday evening by the Elders, a non-governmental organization that
describes itself as a group of "independent global leaders working together
for peace and human rights."
reason Wednesday evening by the Elders, a non-governmental organization that
describes itself as a group of "independent global leaders working together
for peace and human rights."
Carter's stop in the Gaza Strip was to be the first of a larger trip, to be
following by visits to the occupied West Bank and Israel to address pressing
political issues and bring international attention to the current
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
following by visits to the occupied West Bank and Israel to address pressing
political issues and bring international attention to the current
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
In response to Carter's decision to meet with Hamas leadership, Israeli
President Reuven Rivlin said on April 20 he would refuse to meet with the
former president due to his "anti-Israel" positions, according to Israeli
media.
President Reuven Rivlin said on April 20 he would refuse to meet with the
former president due to his "anti-Israel" positions, according to Israeli
media.
Israeli news source Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday that the Israeli
Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to convey
the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.
Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to convey
the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.
Carter is a longstanding critic of what he views as Israel's unjust and
violent policy against Palestinians.
violent policy against Palestinians.
During last summer's war, Carter demanded that the the Israel-Gaza status
quo change, calling for the international community to recognize Hamas as a
"legitimate political actor."
quo change, calling for the international community to recognize Hamas as a
"legitimate political actor."
Carter was scheduled to meet Hamas leaders including Ismail Haniyeh to
discuss national reconciliation, Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef told Ma'an
earlier this week.
discuss national reconciliation, Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef told Ma'an
earlier this week.
He added at the time that since Egypt has no role in mediation now, Carter
would come accompanied by international officials to meet Hamas leaders and
then President Mahmoud Abbas.
would come accompanied by international officials to meet Hamas leaders and
then President Mahmoud Abbas.
Carter was also scheduled to meet faction leaders and ministers in Gaza, and
had planned to discuss a ceasefire with Israel as well as Palestinian
elections.
had planned to discuss a ceasefire with Israel as well as Palestinian
elections.
The former president is assumed to continue as usual with his plans to
Israel and the occupied West Bank, as reported by the Associated Press.
Israel and the occupied West Bank, as reported by the Associated Press.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Hillary and the American Future
Hillary Rodham Clinton must never be elected president. Indeed, she must not even be allowed to run for the office. Because her emails may be in Russian, Chinese, and other hands, she is personally compromised. The future of the country should never be permitted to pass (again) to someone who has secrets that can be used to undermine policies that would otherwise serve the interests of our citizenry. It should be apparent to every voter and each official of every security organization concerned with the survival of the United States that the blackmailing of a sitting president is possible and perhaps likely, given the present climate of distrust among international players. Ms. Clinton is now exquisitely and uniquely vulnerable to such problems given recent revelations.
1) Those officials and worker bees (careerists) in all government departments who have knowledge of any wrongdoing would be retained in place or promoted. These folks might operate either seperately or together as a cabal to further their positions with their special knowledge of corruption without regard to the welfare of the country.
2) As for new employees, only those who could be trusted, bought, or suborned would be asked to come on board, thus further undermining the purer purposes of our government.
3) Fear of exposure would worm its way into all decisions, great and small, thus warping policies. Paralysis would dog each policy proposal, since its merits would be tainted by unspeakable factors that no one outside the inner circle could understand. We still, at this late date, have no idea why Obama’s strengthening of Iran to the point of anointing it as a nuclear power is supposed to benefit the people of the United States.
4) The purpose of free and fair elections in our country would be undermined because the fraud‑tainted group headed by Ms. Clinton would do anything -- anything at all -- to remain in power so as not to be exposed. We now have the situation where all our new citizens (originally illegal aliens) are being franchised with the vote merely to maintain the power of the Dems. This approach is not new, having been used by Roosevelt, Nixon, and now Obama, but the extent of its use by Barack Hussein is breathtaking. Such policies will continue in spades under a Clinton administration, since they will have as much or more to hide than the current menagerie. Grateful new citizens will continue to be unconcerned about the corrupt reasons they have been admitted to the greatest country in the world. And these new citizens will gift power, perhaps for generations, to those who saved them from even greater corruption.
5) We, the cynical, must at least consider the possibility that Clinton is seeking higher office inter alia to avoid possible legal prosecution that may come her way if the Department of Justice begins to take seriously the country’s laws again. It is unnerving to hear Clinton’s supporters screaming that there is no evidence of influence-peddling against her. Of course, there is no evidence of such activities, since “evidence” is a legal term for material presented during trial proceedings. If and when Clinton is tried in a court of law, information will be presented and its veracity will be judged by her peers. Her guilt, given a conviction, will then be a matter of law and the information will then be considered “evidence.”
6) The secretiveness imposed upon the decision-making processes of a future Clinton regime will be in part determined by the secretiveness of the Obama administration of which she was an integral part. There will be no chance for fresh air to enter the system. The very act of criticism has become forbidden (or verboten, if you will) when directed against Hilary Rodham Clinton. While her circumstances have raised some questions about her even in the progressive press, she will never again be wrong if she is elected, not unlike our Obama. And many will suffer given her self‑presumed infallibility. In short, those with personality disorders such as narcissism and psychopathy will remain in charge of government to the continued detriment of the American people, the American legacy, and the future stability of the world.
Are further reasons necessary to spotlight Hillary’s unfitness for the presidency? It’s clear enough that the world can’t afford her, and the United States deserves better.
3a) Hillary Clinton: Congenital Rule-Breaker.
It's past time she come clean for the sake of "restoring trust in our politics."
That's not a partisan attack. It's not a talking point. It's not a fantasy. It's a fact—an agonizing truth to people like me who admire Clinton and her husband, who remember how Bill Clinton rose from a backwater governorship to the presidency on a simple promise: He would fight for people who "work hard and play by the rules."
The evidence is overwhelming and metastasizing: To co-opt a William Safire line, Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule-breaker.
In the three days since my last column on Clinton, the headlines are revealing:
"More than 180 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied her State Department." "That's not illegal," writes Vox reporter Jonathan Allen, "but it is scandalous." The coauthor of a fair-minded Clinton biography, Allen notes that while there's no evidence of illegal corruption, "The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking." He adds, "The Clintons have shown they can't police themselves."
"Clinton Foundation failed to disclose 1,100 foreign donations." The cofounder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate revealed to Joshua Green of Bloomberg Politics that 1,100 donors to the foundation had never been disclosed. "The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of State," writes Green, a widely respected political reporter.
"Clinton charity never provided foreign data." A spokeswoman for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which makes up nearly 60 percent of the Clinton charitable network, told TheBoston Globe that CHAI never submitted information on foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton's tenure as secretary of State. The reviews were required as a condition of her joining President Obama's Cabinet, the Globe reported.
In March, Reuters reported that CHAI didn't disclose any donors to the public, as required. The Washington Post reported that a donation from Switzerland to the group was not reviewed. While digging deeper into the review process, the Globe was told by a Clinton spokeswoman, "The charity deemed it unnecessary."
Just like that, the Clintons deemed an ethics rule unnecessary.
This was not an insignificant mandate. It was part of a "memorandum of understanding" between the White House and Clinton to soothe senators' concerns about known conflicts of interest within the Clinton family charities.
"Transparency is critically important here, obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those of us here in Congress ... to be able to judge for ourselves that no conflicts—real or apparent—exist,'' John Kerry said during a Senate floor speech on January 21, 2009, according to the Globe.
Kerry replaced Clinton as secretary of State. Clinton is now the likely Democratic presidential nominee. She spoke with great passion Wednesday about the importance of institutional integrity in the wake of Baltimore's riots.
"We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans—between police and citizens, yes, but also across society. Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets," she said. "Between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically."
Restoring trust in our politics? Let's remember who and what's behind this controversy:
Hillary Clinton seized all emails pertaining to her job as secretary of State and deleted an unknown number of messages from her private server. Her family charity accepted foreign and corporate donations from people doing business with the State Department—people who hoped to curry favor.She violated government rules designed to protect against corruption and perceptions of corruption that erode the public's trust in government. She has not apologized. She has not made amends: She withholds the email server and continues to accept foreign donations.
It's past time Clinton come clean. Return the foreign donations. Hand over the email server. Embrace an independent investigation that answers the questions and tempers the doubts caused by her actions. Repeat: Her actions.
This is not the fault of a vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, or unfair media coverage. It's the result of actions taken by an experienced and important public servant whose better angels are often outrun by her demons—paranoia, greed, entitlement, and an ends-justify-the-means sense of righteousness.
Can she still be president? Absolutely.
Even if she continues to duck and dissemble? Perhaps. But only because somebody has to win—and the GOP might nominate a candidate even less trustworthy.
But why be president, if only by default?
Clinton should rather be totally honest and transparent, true to her word, and a credible force for restoring trust in our politics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is particularly true in light of the way she lost. She didn’t simply lose the nomination, or the general election. She lost in one of the most ignominious ways possible: a pure dark horse appeared out of left field (metaphors have a life of their own, don’t they?) blew straight past her, and relegated her to an unimpressive second by the time the convention rolled around. For any other politician, that would be the end of the road. For Hillary, it’s one more thing to paper over and ignore.