web analytics
September 4, 2015 / 20 Elul, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘New York’

NYers Fighting Nuclear Iran Deal Gather on Sept. 1

Wednesday, August 26th, 2015

The grass roots organizations which brought you the thousands-strong Stop Iran Now! rally in Times Square in July is calling on New York area residents to join them for a slightly different kind of event against the Nuclear Iran Deal.

“The first time we came out in huge numbers that electrified people across the country. That rally was for those who wanted to understand the Agreement, who needed to learn more about the deal itself,” Jeff Wiesenfeld, the master of ceremonies and one of the founding members of the Jewish Rapid Response Coalition told the JewishPress.com.

“The Sept. 1 event is to energize people and get them to inform their elected representatives that they oppose the Agreement and will remember in November how their representatives voted in September,” Wiesenfeld explained.

This event is taking place in front of the New York City offices of the two U.S. Senators who represent New York, Senator Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, beginning at 5:30 p.m., in front of 780 Third Avenue, at the corner of 49th Street.

Earlier today it was announced that the Sept. 1 rally will be a bipartisan one. Addressing those gathered will be former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a current candidate for president. The two will deliver a major foreign policy address, one that emphasizes the bipartisan responsibility to protect the United States and our allies from the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, and that the current deal will not prevent that danger.

“The organizers of the initial rally always planned on having a follow-up rally in order to maintain the momentum of the critical message that this catastrophic deal cannot stand,” emphasized Lauri Regan, the New York chair of EMET, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank which deals with the Middle East, and a central organizer of the two events.

“Once Senator Gillibrand came out in favor of what she ironically labelled ‘the imperfect deal,’ it became clear that our focus would turn from asking Senator Schumer to do the right thing to thanking him and telling Gillibrand that New Yorkers will not stand while she surrenders American national security to a mullahcracy with a foreign policy based on ‘Death to America.’

Another one of the organizers, Rabbi Elchanon Poupko, told the JewishPress.com that “Shortly after the [July] rally Chuck Schumer came out opposing the deal.”

Poupko described the thousands of people who came to that first event, and that it sent shock waves throughout the world. “It was reported from Asia to South America!” Poupko and his colleagues hope to send the strongest possible message to Washington to ‘Stop Iran Now!’ As the vote on the deal is approaching, “We hope many more will join us in making that call.”

The July 22 event focused heavily on Schumer who was in a difficult position politically – so many of his constituents and long-time supporters were urging him to vote his conscience and oppose the deal. The administration was pressuring all Democrats in Congress, but especially someone so visible and senior as Schumer, to be a team player and throw his weight behind the Agreement.

The junior Senator from New York, Gillibrand, has since come out in support of the deal, and she will be the heavy focus of attention on Sept. 1.

“As a Senator of New York which suffered the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Ms. Gillibrand must oppose this deal,” said Hillary Barr, the founder of Mothers Against Terrorism and a core organizer of the two NYC Anti-Nuclear Iran Deal events this summer.

“This Iran deal puts the U.S. and its armed forces in grave danger,” Barr said.

US Clams Up on Whether Foreign Aid Helps PA Post Bond in Terror Suit [video]

Tuesday, August 25th, 2015

The U.S. State Dept. clammed up Monday when asked bothersome questions concerning a federal court decision Monday to drastically lower the bond the Palestinian Authority has to put up in a $665 million lawsuit against the Ramallah-based regime.

Spokesman John Kirby also refused to say whether the judge had lowered the bond enough to satisfy the United States, which intervened in the case by arguing that a higher bond could bankrupt the Palestinian Authority and might damage the non-existent “peace process.”

TheJewishPress.com reported here yesterday :

The judge in a New York terrorism case that ended in a victory for the plaintiffs…imposed a $10 million bond on the defendants, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The defendants must also make $1 million monthly payments during the duration of any appeals of the $655 million award to the plaintiffs at the end of the jury trial back in February…

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, which included the Israeli law firm Shurat HaDin, had requested a $30 million monthly bond be paid into an account until the case is resolved.

State Dept. spokesman John Kirby, who is supposed to provide information while making every effort to avoid embarrassing the government, made the Obama administration look a bit stupid Monday by turning on the tape recorder to repeat “no comment” over and over instead of directly answering questions.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee asked:

Is that [$10 million bond]– in the Administration’s view, is that too much to be asking? Does this place an undue – does the Administration believe it places an undue burden on the Palestinians?

Kirby reiterated the facts of the U.S. intervention and concluded:

And I’m not going to be able to comment further.

Lee then asked:

Well, is the United States concerned at all that some or any of this money will be actual money that you might have provided to the Palestinians in the past?

Guess what Kirby answered?

I’m just not going to be able to comment further, Matt.

And when Lee asked why not answer, Kirby reiterated:

I’m not going to be able to comment further on this particular case.

Well, maybe Kirby could comment on Lee; question if “the judge in making his determination today, took your statement of interest on board, or is this onerous to the Palestinians or unhelpful to U.S. foreign policy?”

And Kirby turned on the tape recorder again to say:

I mean, I understand the question, Matt. I’m just not going to be able to comment further today.

Al Quds reporter Sayeed Erekat chimed in to ask:

You being their largest contributor, giving the Palestinians close to $500 million a year, will you guarantee those, like a loan guarantee for $10 million and 1 million more a month?

And Kirby answered, of course:

I don’t have anything further to add on this today.

The no-answer session begins at 48:32 in the video below.

>

Key Democratic Senators Cardin and Mikulski Still on the Fence on Iran

Sunday, August 23rd, 2015

Two Democratic U.S. senators from Maryland – Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski – remain undecided about the agreement. Cardin is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Congress is in the midst of a 60-day period to review the Obama administration-brokered Iran nuclear deal.

While it is expected that virtually all 54 Republicans in the Senate will vote against the Iran deal, 67 anti-deal votes are needed to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a possible Congressional rejection of the pact. The only two Senate Democrats who have publicly come out against the agreement so far are Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.).

Asked where Cardin stands on the nuclear deal, and whether or not his decision will be affected by the recent report that the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog made a side agreement with Iran that allows the Islamic Republic to carry out its own inspections at the Parchin nuclear site, Cardin spokesperson Sue Walitsky said the senator told JNS:

[He] continues to review all aspects of the agreement to determine what decision he’ll make.

He continues to study the details of this deal, reach out to experts for answers to his many questions, and engage Marylanders to get their thoughts.

There is great intensity on all sides of this issue, but the feedback has been decidedly mixed. He believes that each senator and member of Congress has to make his or her own decision based on what is right for our country—not party, not president, but the national security of the United States of America.

He does not plan to rush his decision based on what others may decide.

When contacted by JNS.org, Mikulski’s office said the senator is currently traveling and unable to return a request for comment.

GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Reports for Jury Duty

Monday, August 17th, 2015

U.S. GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump left the campaign trail on Monday to report for jury duty in New York.

“The Donald” arrived in a black limousine at Manhattan Supreme Court, where he was greeted by a crowd of approximately 100 reporters and television crew members.

Trump was fined $250 in March by a state judge for failing to respond to five summonses since 2006 to serve jury duty. The fine was ultimately waived, however, and a representative of the Trump Organization said the prior notices had been sent to a wrong address.

“Any assertion that Mr. Trump doesn’t take his civic responsibilities seriously is absolutely false and only being used as an attempt to discredit his stellar reputation,” said Michael Cohen, executive vice president and special counsel to the Trump Organization in a statement. Cohen added that Trump would have complied if he had received the notices.

NY’s Senator Schumer and Cong. Engel Will Vote Against the Iran Nuclear Deal

Friday, August 7th, 2015

If there was one member of Congress upon whom all eyes came to rest to see which way he would vote on the Nuclear Iran Deal, it was New York’s senior senator Chuck Schumer.

Schumer, a Democrat who all understand is in line for a leadership role in the Senate, was watched closely for many reasons: He is Jewish, he represents New York State, he is a senior senator, and being pro-Israel has always been a badge he proudly wore.

Still, many of those watching Schumer have been seeing him through jaundiced eyes. No matter which way he decided, he would greatly disappoint supporters who have enormous control over his political future. Would he risk angering the leadership of his party and the man at the top of his ticket? Or would he vote to support the Nuclear Iran agreement and anger many of his constituents?

Those with practiced eyes concluded that Schumer would split his decision, first voting against the agreement in the initial round, but then either not voting to override the veto if the vote was close, or voting to override, but only if the count was such that the veto could not be overridden, not matter how he voted.

But the reasoning Schumer provided in his statement announcing his decision may lock him into voting for the same outcome, both times.

Schumer broke the agreement down into three different categories: the restrictions on Iran in the first ten years of the agreement; the restrictions on Iran after ten years; and the non-nuclear components and consequences of the deal. As his guide for which way to vote, he asked himself whether we are better off with this agreement or better off without it.

The senator explained that he sees various weaknesses during the ten year lifespan of the agreement, such as insufficient inspections access, including the need to obtain a majority of the other parties to agree to an inspection, and a cumbersome snapback mechanism. Schumer said that while there were problems with this portion of the agreement, it was possible to decide either way.

During the period following the sunset clause of the agreement, however, Iran would be stronger financially and “better able to advance a robust nuclear program.” Even more importantly, at the end of the agreement and with Iran as a threshold nuclear state, it would also enjoy the blessing of the world community. In other words, its leap into nuclear weapons capability would be sanctioned by the leadership of the world’s leading nations.

Schumer concluded that we would definitely be better off without the deal than with it, given the scenario at the conclusion of the JCPOA.

Finally, the non-nuclear aspects of the deal gave Schumer the most pause. In his opinion, the infusion of billions of dollars into Iran in the wake of sanctions relief could lead to catastrophic consequences. Unless one believes that Iran will moderate and cease its support for terror across the region, the lack of restrictions on how the money will be used was a fatal flaw.

if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Schumer does not believe that Iran is about to moderate or that it will become more moderate during the course of the agreement.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

Schumer’s decision became public just hours after the junior senator from New York, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, also a Democrat, announced that she will support the agreement.

New York Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-D-16) also announced on Thursday evening that he would oppose the JCPOA.  The reasons he gave were similar to Senator Schumer’s: the limitations on inspections capability, the influx of massive amounts of money in the wake of sanctions relief and the lifting of bans on intercontinental ballistic missiles and advanced conventional weapons.

Engel is the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Chuck Schumer Explodes as 60 Jewish leaders Look On

Wednesday, August 5th, 2015

(JNi.media) Sen. Charles Schumer was meeting with some 60 Jewish American leaders in Washington DC last week, when he couldn’t take the pressure any more, and by pressure we mean the voices of Jews everywhere telling him to vote with the Republicans, against President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

One source told The NY Post that Schumer, who is about as even tempered as they come most days, “exploded” in the meeting.

On his Monday press conference in his Midtown office, which included his distant cousin, comic actress Amy Schumer, the Senator said he would discuss gun control, or anything else, really, just not how he would vote on the Iran nuclear deal.

“This is such an important decision that I will not let pressure, politics or party influence [me],” Schumer said.

Schumer has received an estimated 10,000 phone calls to his office over the past two weeks, most of them from opponents of the Iran agreement.

‘Stop Nuclear Iran’ Rally Next Wednesday at Times Square

Wednesday, July 15th, 2015

A mass rally that might attract tens of thousands of people is scheduled for next Wednesday 5:30 p.m. (EDT) at Times Square in New York City.

Police have planned for thousands of people to show up, but Tuesday’s agreement with Iran and the explosive opposition from Israel and the Jewish community in the United States is likely to draw much larger crowds.

The long-rage forecast is for temperatures in the 80s (Fahrenheit) and a 50 percent chance of scattered thunderstorms.

Speakers at the rally include:

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor; John Batchelor, Radio Host WABC-AM; Caroline Glick, Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post;

David Brog, Executive Director, Christians United for Israel; Steven Emerson, founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism; Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy;

Kasim Hafeez, founder of “The Israel Campaign” and Christians United for Israel’s Outreach Coordinator; Pete Hoekstra, former U.S. Congressman and Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Tony LoBianco, “The French Connection” Actor and Activist;

Clare M. Lopez, former CIA officer, Terrorism and Iran Expert at Center for Security Policy; George Pataki, former three-term governor of New York and in office during 9/11; Allen West, former Congressman and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel;

James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA and Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; and Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report and the publisher of the New York Daily News and former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

The rally organizers have stated that their mission is:

— an end to the farce being perpetrated against the American people with a pending deal which will endanger           America and our allies;

— restoration of the ORIGINAL demands – NO nuclear military capability, NO centrifuges and authority for any and all unannounced inspections of all known and any future facilities discovered; and

–providing an understanding that a failure to STOP IRAN NOW will necessitate a military response later.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/stop-nuclear-iran-rally-next-wednesday-at-times-square/2015/07/15/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: