In the short term, Israel will again become the world's pariah and Obama will attack them for building homes, failing to cave to pressure from Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim nations wanting to eliminate them but eventually the world will pay for its prejudice and feckless behaviour and Obama will be right at the top of the heap. Why? Because whenever the collective world disregards what is right and decent it ultimately pays a terrible price. History cannot be ignored and when it is it exacts a painful price.(See 1 below.)
===
What a great idea and it did not come from government: https://www.youtube.com/
===
I listened to a discussion of the Iran Deal today and the presenter boiled it down to: ' did the deal meet five basic criteria' and concluded it has not met any. It all boils down to: "Money, weapons inter-continental missile and nuclear bombs."
Why is the deal so bad?
1) Sanctions go away and $100 billion is available for Iran to enhance their current program of sponsoring terrorism. No reason to believe Iran will invest in their people.
2) In the fifth year, Iran can buy all the arms they wish and in year 8, the ban on their ability to possess inter -continental missiles disappears.
2) In years 10 to 15, nuclear restrictions go away and with the blessing of the international community Iran can develop as many nuclear bombs as they wish. Meanwhile, Iran can still do advanced work with respect to enrichment while building advanced centrifuges and thus their break up time narrows from a year or so to a few days because they will have achieved weaponization capability.
3) The deal does not result in preventing Iran to build a bomb but rather enhances it.
4) Based on history it is ludicrous to believe Iran can be trusted to adhere to the terms of the deal and, in fact, Iran has already signaled where their intent is because of their continued rhetoric and threats and statements they remain in total disagreement with out interpretation of the terms, specifically with respect to inspection.
Therefore, Congress should pass a resolution of disapproval which would freeze Obama's ability to allow Iran to move forward.
Disapproval allows Congress to maintain all our prior options.
Once again ask yourself why does Iran seek intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear bombs? Why does Iran need nuclear power when they are richly endowed with extensive oil reserves? Finally, why does Obama and Kerry want to reward Iran when they are the main sponsor of world wide terrorism?
The more that comes out about this deal the likelihood of support for it, by all logic, should decline.
Furthermore, the IAEA has negotiated side deals with Iran and their content remains unknown and this has become another matter of serious concern.
Once again, ask yourself why does Iran seek intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear bombs? Why does Iran need nuclear power when they are richly endowed with extensive oil reserves? Finally, why does Obama and Kerry want to reward Iran when they are the main sponsor of world wide terrorism? (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
One of the distinguishing features of our nation from all others is we are a nation of laws. Americans are committed to adhere to our laws and when we have failed to do so we are in violation of one of the moral principles that under gird our nation.
Obama took an oath and swore to uphold our laws and has failed to do so. His attorney generals have failed to act independently and to investigate those who have engaged in activities that, at the very least, are questionable. They failed enforcing laws pertaining to protecting our borders, The IRS' attack on conservative organizations and groups, transference of arms to criminals, the current Planned Parenthood matter and a host of other acts bordering on disregard and contempt for our laws.
This administration has proven its unwillingness to investigate itself and that makes Obama a law breaker but no one has the guts to call his hand.
Yes, Obama has transformed our nation from one anchored in obeying laws to one that has freed itself and selectively chooses which to obey.
===Off to New York for wife's aunt's 93rd birthday celebration.
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
It’s the perfect metaphor for American foreign policy these days. Secretary of State John Kerry is heading to the Middle East next week to discuss the Iran deal with various American allies, but he’s leaving out one important stop: Israel. According to Israel Army Radio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the snub by saying, “He really has no reason to come here.” Unfortunately, the prime minister is right. Though the trip is just one of many that Kerry has made, it is a telling symbol for the approach of the Obama administration on the most important issue facing both countries: the Iran nuclear deal. President Obama and Kerry kept Israel out of the loop during the negotiations and ignored its vital interests when signing off on Iran’s demands. Combined with the rhetoric coming out of both men that seeks to isolate and threaten Israel, Kerry’s pointed omission of the Jewish state on his tour is just one more indication that they seek to expand what is already a serious rift between the two countries. Though friends of Israel are rightly focused on persuading Congress to vote down a terrible Iran deal, they must also ponder the long-term impact of the administration campaign against the Jewish state.
Throughout the six and a half years as well as during the course of the negotiations with Iran, President Obama has maintained that he is a steadfast friend of Israel and will always look out for its security. If he criticized or sought to pressure its government it was, he has told us, only for its own good or because, as he noted in his recent speech to a Washington, D.C. synagogue, he wanted to help return Israel to a mythical past when it had the affection of Western liberals.
At this point, that pretense of friendship is wearing very thin. Secretary Kerry can quote a few stray retired Israeli security experts who endorse the Iran deal, but these largely disgruntled figures with political axes to grind against Netanyahu don’t speak for an Israel whose political leadership from right to left has united against the Iran deal. But the problem here goes deeper than even the profound differences over a pact that grants Iran’s nuclear program Western approval along with the end of sanctions and a vast cash bonus. The crisis in the alliance also transcends the personal disputes between Obama and Netanyahu.
The fact that the United States refused to give Israel all the details on the Iran deal that were part of its confidential appendices even after it was concluded also speaks not merely to the lack of trust between the two governments but also to the desire of the administration to cover up the extent of its effort to appease Tehran. Though it asserted there were no side deals with Iran, the appendices and the failure to make them available to Congress or the public compromise that claim. Even now, European diplomats visiting Israel are still refusing to divulge the contents of these documents to their hosts, making it difficult, if not impossible, to fully gauge the problem facing the Jewish state. All the Israelis do know at this point is that the U.S. has agreed to protect the Iranian program against further efforts to sabotage it. Along with the cooperation that now exists in Iraq and Syria between Washington and Tehran, it now appears that Israel is just one more American ally in the region and not the most influential one. Under the circumstances, Netanyahu’s bitter reflection about Kerry having no reason to come to the country may be unfortunate but it is also accurate.
The administration’s arguments that the alternative to the deal is a quicker Iranian path to a bomb or war are unpersuasive. Congress knows that tougher sanctions brought Iran to the table but that Obama’s abandonment of Western economic and political leverage over Iran during the talks is what left the U.S. with such dismal choices, not an inevitable need to bow to the dictates of the Islamist regime. But just as dangerous are Obama and Kerry’s other arguments aimed at silencing Israel and its friends.
Some of Netanyahu’s Israeli political opponents blame him for the estrangement between the countries. Those criticisms are not entirely off base because there is no secret about the fact that Obama and Netanyahu have a terrible relationship that has been exacerbated by the prime minister’s prickly personality. But the U.S.-Israel crackup isn’t a tabloid romance gone sour. The differences between the two countries are rooted in the administration’s reckless pursuit of an entente with Iran at the cost of its friendships with both Israel and moderate Arab states. That pursuit began in Obama’s first months in office, and nothing Netanyahu could have done or said would have deterred the president from this course of action. His success was achieved by a series of American concessions on key nuclear issues and not by pique about Israel’s stands on the peace process with the Palestinians or perceived rudeness on the part of Netanyahu.
Despite the attempt to portray Netanyahu’s interventions in the debate about Iran as a partisan move or an insult to Obama, keeping silent would not have advanced Israel’s interests or made more U.S. surrenders to Iran less likely. At this point, Israel has no choice but to remind U.S. lawmakers of the terrible blow to American credibility and regional stability from the Iran deal. It is the White House that has turned the Iranian nuclear threat — which was once the subject of a bipartisan consensus — into a choice between loyalty to the Democratic Party and its leader and friendship for Israel.
It is almost a given that the next president — no matter who he or she might turn out to be — will be friendlier to Israel than Obama. But the president’s legacy may not only be the strengthening of a terror state in Tehran. It has also chipped away at the U.S.-Israel alliance in a way that will make it that much harder to maintain the across-the-board pro-Israel consensus in Congress in the coming years. Given the growing dangers that the deal poses to Israel this is something that should have both Republicans and Democrats deeply worried.
1a)
Kerry Explains Why Iran Deal Isn’t a Treaty: Because You Guys Would’ve Said No!
Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged to the House Foreign Affairs Committee today why the administration was insistent that the Iran nuclear deal is not a treaty subject to ratification by the Senate.
Simply put, they counted on Congress not being compliant enough.
“For 228 years the Constitution provided a way out of that mess by allowing treaties to be with the advise and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty?” Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) asked Kerry at today’s hearing.
“Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate. Frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why,” Kerry said.“Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore. And it’s become impossible to, you know, schedule. It’s become impossible to pass. And I sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty, which fell to basically ideology and politics, so I think that’s the reason why.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) confirmed Kerry’s answer: “This isn’t a treaty because it was difficult to pass. Is that — is that correct?”
“Well, it’s not — there are a lot of other reasons. We felt, we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran. It’s very complicated with six other countries. It’s this very complicated process,” Kerry said. “So we thought that the easiest way to get something that had the leverage, had the accountability, could achieve our goal was through a political agreement. That’s what we have.”Kerry got into a testy exchange earlier in the hearing with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who called out the secretary of State’s perpetual response that Congress needs to offer a better option if they don’t like the nuclear deal.
“Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, it is not Congress’s job; this is the administration. And if you would use the treaty process as provided by the constitution, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation,” Perry said. “Furthermore, you know, you say, ‘Well, this is the only deal we could get, that there’s no better deal.’ Congress has a long history of instituting better deals. Example, 280 treaties, including 80 multilateral accords modified by Congress, including the arms control agreement, SALT II and the Threshold Test Ban treaty that failed to reach a vote and were modified.”
“So there is a history for that, of getting a better deal. And if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh, boo-hoo. We’re — we’re here for America. We stand for America. You represent America.”
“Congressman, I don’t need any lessons from you about who I represent. I’ve represented and fought for our country since I was out of college,” Kerry snapped back. “Don’t give me any lessons about that, OK?”
“Now, let me just make it crystal clear to you. This is America’s interest, because America is the principal guarantor of security in the region and particularly with respect to some of our closest friends. Now, we believe that Iran was marching towards a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon, and we’ve rolled that back, Congressman,” he continued.
“OK, that’s your opinion,” Perry interjected.
“That’s indisputable — no,” Kerry countered. “That’s a fact.”
Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)---Huckabee's Critics
Soviet Party leader Leonid Brezhnev and President Richard Nixon at talks in Ukraine in 1974.
(Bettmann/Corbis)
2)---Huckabee's Critics
By Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has warned that the Obama/Kerry deal with Iran could lead to an Iranian-lead nuclear Holocaust against Israel that would, "take the Israelis and basically march them to the door of the oven."
Hillary Clinton, who has endorsed the Iranian deal, has denounced Mr. Huckabee, saying Huckabee’s comments are “personally offensive”. President Obama is likewise offended, as is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida who is the go-to Jewish member of Congress Mr. Obama uses when he wishes to bar Mr. Netanyahu from speaking or when he needs “Jewish” support for policies and actions that appear harmful to Israel.
Mrs. Clinton seems more offended by a few words than by the actual rockets that Iran has aimed at Israel. Instead of wasting our time on this side issue of phraseology, she should be working to stop this catastrophe. Instead of denouncing her opponent’s choice of words, she should be decrying an arrangement that gives Iran $150 billion, allows it to spin nuclear centrifuges, has no worthy verification system to stop Iranian nukes, and, worse, has the U.S. pledging to teach and help Iran defend itself from any necessary attack Israel might make to defend herself from Iran. A true friend of Israel should, would, be opposed to any such deal.
The Obama deal says we, the U.S., will teach Iran the fine points of nuclear science and its implementation. That is most definitely something that should concern us regarding a potential Holocaust, especially since Iran has declared its Number One Goal to be the destruction, the incineration, of Israel’s Jews. Someone, a real friend, concerned with a future Holocaust would be alarmed about that, not remain silent and pipe up only when words are used that "offend" her and President Obama.
In fact, the best way to avert a planned Holocaust is by evoking the language of Holocaust. What is so hard to understand about that? The best way for Paul Revere to announce the British are coming was by warning: “The British Are Coming”. Iran has declared its intentions to wage a Holocaust against Israel. This is “Holocaust” language. They and other Muslim radicals speak of "ovens”. Too many on Obama’s team seem more concerned about the feelings of Obama and Clinton, supporters of the Iran deal, than the actual threat posed to Israel and her population, including Israel’s children who’ll bear the brunt of the incineration. The Clinton and Schultz horror should be directed not at Mr. Huckabee, who truly loves Israel and her people, but at Iran and this dangerously concocted deal.
Let me publicly state: Of the three, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Huckabee, the one I bet on for supporting Israel is Mr. Huckabee. He has always been there for Israel and the Jewish people, while the other two have not.
Meanwhile, Ms. Wasserman Schultz has demanded an apology from Mr. Huckabee, doing so in the name of the Jewish people. Well, Mr. Huckabee, you owe this rabbi no apology. I am grateful that you have focused and brought the inherent danger and disaster of this capitulation to the ears of the American people… and the world. It is Debbie Wasserman Schultz who owes the Jewish community an apology for defending anti-Israel Obama polices that are indefensible. It is Wasserman Schultz who warned Prime Minister Netanyahu not to say anything negative about Mr. Obama’s policies that might hurt Democrats in the 2014 election. It is she who prefers that we Jews be kept in the dark rather than know the truth. She doesn't want us to make informed decisions and thereby push back. She didn’t then in 2012 or 2014 and she doesn't now in 2015, with this Iran betrayal.
Wasserman Schultz's party loyalty appears to override everything else, including Jewish survival and American survival. She attempted to publicly humiliate Mr. Netanyahu when he came to America to speak, labeling his speech a re-election gimmick, disregarding his need to defend and plead for his people. It is she who owes the Jewish community an apology for consenting to be the attack dog against those who love Israel and the Jewish people, while defending harmful policies if coming from liberals and Democrats. The Talmud says: “Do not use faith as a shovel in service to your own personal ambitions”. Wasserman Schultz invokes “Jewishness” to thwart and nullify our attempts at protecting Israel, and Jews, if it stands in the way of her political ambitions.
Unfortunately, there are a few establishment Jewish organizations that can always be counted on to assail great friends of the Jewish people and Israel. Why? Because they have become arms of the Democrat Party. They long ago traded in concern for Jewish survival for the liberal and Democrat agenda and then have the chutzpah to redefine “Jewishness” as liberalism or Obamaism. By now, most of us simply ignore their predictable, partisan statements.
Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Obama: if you truly cared about anti-Semitism, you’d be out there denouncing Mr. Kerry for dredging up those tired old canards used by anti-Semites that Jews control Congress and Israel is at fault for harming U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Kerry in recent testimony warned: “Israel will be blamed if the deal doesn’t go through Congress”. Team Obama is whispering some talking points about “Jewish donors”, Congress under Jewish and AIPAC control… hinting about dual loyalty.
It’s not Mr. Huckabee’s heartfelt emotion regarding a potential Holocaust that bears watching. On the contrary, his words of warning are an expression of love and concern. No, it is those who stand by or participate in smear campaigns, using the oldest, anti-Jewish stereotypes and accusations that are indifferent and worrisome to the Jewish people.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero is author of Push Back as well as Why Israel Matters to You , and is president of Caucus for America.
2a)
Saudi Arabia Responds to Iran Deal: Give Us 600 Patriot Missiles
Just two weeks after Western nations and Tehran struck a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the Pentagon says Saudi Arabia wants to buy 600 new Patriot missile interceptors.
The $5 billion-plus purchase is likely just the first of many more as America’s Middle Eastern allies arm themselves in response to the nuclear deal, which would lift Iran’s conventional-arms embargo sanctions in five years and sanctions on long-range missile projects in eight.
“We saw this coming,” said Thomas Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “This is the consequence of leaving the Iranian missile program intact and in fact signaling sanctions will go down on it.”
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council allies have been upping their missile defenses in recent years. In April, Riyadh bought $2 billion worth of Patriots, and just last week, the Pentagon bought $1.5 billion worth of Patriots for Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, South Korea — and Saudi Arabia again.
“We’re going to see more of this,” Karako said. “So long as the Iranian missile threat exists, GCC and other countries in the region are going to have to invest in counters offensive and defensive.”
“We’re going to see more of this,” Karako said. “So long as the Iranian missile threat exists, GCC and other countries in the region are going to have to invest in counters offensive and defensive.”
Iran has the largest and most diverse missile program in the Middle East, made up of short-range, long-range, anti-ship and cruise missiles, experts say. Middle Eastern nations have as little as four minutes to act if Iran fires one of these missiles their way.
Middle Eastern nations are also likely to boost buys of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors, which can reach farther than Patriot to shoot down missiles.
UAE has already purchased THAAD and Saudi and Qatar are interested in the system. Also likely to pick up steam is the sale of a massive missile-tracking radar to Qatar.
The U.S. has been urging the GCC members to network their missile defense equipment together to better detect launches and so multiple countries don’t fire interceptors at the same missile.
The Saudi deal announced Wednesday is for the newest version of Patriot, called PAC-3. “The proposed sale will modernize and replenish Saudi Arabia’s current Patriot missile stockpile, which is becoming obsolete and difficult to sustain due to age and limited availability of repair parts,” the Pentagon wrote in its required notification to Congress of the deal. “The purchase of the PAC-3 missiles will support current and future defense missions and promote stability within the region.”
In June, Saudi Arabia used a Patriot to shoot down a Scud missile launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Marcus Weisgerber is the global business reporter for Defense One, where he writes about the intersection of business and national security. He has been covering defense and national security issues for nearly a decade, previously as Pentagon correspondent for Defense News and chief editor of Inside the Air Force. He has reported from Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, and often travels with the defense secretary and other senior military officials.
2b)
Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran
Soviet Party leader Leonid Brezhnev and President Richard Nixon at talks in Ukraine in 1974.(Bettmann/Corbis)
These days, like many Israelis and American Jews, I find myself in a precarious and painful situation. Those of us who believe that the nuclear agreement just signed between world powers and Iran is dangerously misguided are now compelled to criticize Israel’s best friend and ally, the government of the United States. In standing up for what we think is right, for both our people and the world, we find ourselves at odds with the power best able to protect us and promote stability. And instead of joining the hopeful chorus of those who believe peace is on the horizon, we must risk giving the impression that we somehow prefer war.
As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.
In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.
Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.
Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens.
By that time, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews had asked permission to leave for Israel. Jackson’s amendment sought not only to help these people but also and more fundamentally to change the character of detente, linking improved economic relations to behavioral change by the USSR. Without the free movement of people, the senator insisted, there should be no free movement of goods.
The Republican administration in the White House objected furiously. It also claimed that by improving relations with Moscow it would be better able to protect us personally and to ensure that some Jews could emigrate each year. This put Jewish activists inside the USSR in a difficult position. We feared opposing our greatest benefactor, yet we wanted freedom for all Soviet Jews, and we believed that would result only from unrelenting pressure to bring down the Iron Curtain. This is why, despite the clear risks and KGB threats, we chose to publicly support the amendment.
American Jewish organizations also faced a difficult choice. They were reluctant to speak out against the U.S. government and appear to put the “narrow” Jewish interest above the cause of peace. Yet they also realized that the freedom of all Soviet Jews was at stake, and they actively supported the policy of linkage.
Now all that was needed for the amendment to become law was enough principled congressional Republicans willing to take a stand against their own party in the White House. It was a Republican senator from New York, Jacob Javits, who, spurred by a sense of responsibility for the Jewish future, helped put together the bipartisan group that ensured passage.
Later, when Javits traveled to Moscow as part of a delegation of U.S. senators, he met with a group of Jewish refuseniks and asked us whether the policy of linkage truly helped our cause. Although we knew that we were speaking directly into KGB listening devices, all 14 of us confirmed that Jackson’s amendment was our only hope.
The Soviet authorities were infuriated by the law and did everything in their power to prove that the Americans had made a mistake. Jewish emigration was virtually halted, and the repression of Jewish activists increased. In 1977, I was arrested and accused of high treason, allegedly as a spy for the CIA; in the indictment, Jackson was listed as my main accomplice. Yet far from discouraging me or discrediting the senator, the many mentions of his name in my sentence gave me hope — hope that the free world would not permit Soviet dictators to continue denying their citizens basic rights and that in the end our cause would be victorious.
It was. The amendment made the principle of linkage the backbone of the free world’s relations with the USSR. The decaying Soviet economy could not support an arms race or maintain tolerable conditions without credit and support from the United States. By conditioning this assistance on the opening of the USSR’s gates, the United States would not only help free millions of Soviet Jews as well as hundreds of millions of others but also pave the way for the regime’s eventual collapse.
Today, an American president has once again sought to achieve stability by removing sanctions against a brutal dictatorship without demanding that the latter change its behavior. And once again, a group of outspoken Jews — no longer a small group of dissidents in Moscow but leaders of the state of Israel, from the governing coalition and the opposition alike — are sounding an alarm. Of course, we are reluctant to criticize our ally and to so vigorously oppose an agreement that purports to promote peace. But we know that we are again at a historic crossroads, and that the United States can either appease a criminal regime — one that supports global terror, relentlessly threatens to eliminate Israel and executes more political prisoners than any other per capita — or stand firm in demanding change in its behavior.
A critical question is, who, if anyone, will have the vision and courage to be the next Sens. Jackson and Javits.
Natan Sharansky, a human rights activist and former political prisoner in the Soviet Union, is chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1947, U.S. President Truman made history by launching the Marshall Plan, sending $13 billion (about $140 billion in today's dollars) to help rebuild post-war Europe, in order to prevent Western Europe from falling to Communist expansion.
MMENTS