web analytics
February 11, 2016 / 2 Adar I, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Jerusalem Challenges US with Building Freeze on Arabs as Well as Jews

Monday, November 2nd, 2015

A Jerusalem municipal committee has temporarily frozen all building construction permits in eastern Jerusalem, not only for Jews but also for Arabs, Army Radio reported Monday afternoon.

The office of the Prime Minister insists that it had nothing to do with the Jerusalem City Building and Planning Committee’s decision to freeze construction.

The halt in construction comes just before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to visit President Barack Obama to try to mend fences. It also comes shortly after the Obama administration denounced a near-final bureaucratic advancement in plans for building 900 new residential units in the Hareidi Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, adjacent to the Arab Shuafat area.

A source in the municipality said the decision to freeze all building construction permits was made so there will be no question of discrimination.

The freeze puts Washington in a bit of a bind.  

It frequently has opposed building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, a tacit approval of discrimination in favor of Arabs. This time, any criticism from the White House or the State Dept. would have to explicitly state that its policy discriminates in favors of Arabs.

Eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem, unlike Judea and Samaria, are not ruled by the military and instead have full legal status as any other city in Israel. The  United States and virtually the rest of the world continue to define half the capital as “occupied,” even though more than 250,000 Jews live in areas that were restored to Israel in the Six-Dar in 1967, including the Kotel.

The decision was made during a discussion on the approval of the units for the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood. The same apartments were approved in an earlier bureaucratic five years ago on the same day Vice President Joe Biden step foot in Israel for a visit.

The timing infuriated Biden, and the project has caused consternation in Washington every time another step is approved.

US ‘Willing’ to Send Soldiers to Fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Wednesday, October 28th, 2015

 

United States army soldiers might be sent to Syria and Iraq to fight the Islamic State (ISIS), Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

His remarks directly contradict President Barack Obama, who has said the United States will not have any “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria. They also reflect the Obama administration’s concern that Russia has become the one and only Western power broker in the Middle East, filling the vacuum that President Barack Obama has left open by discarding opportunities to take the lead.

Carter told the committee:

We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.

Last week, U.S. soldiers participated with Kurdish forces to free hostages held by ISIS in northern Iraq, but the Pentagon said that the maneuver did not mean the United States was putting “boots n the ground” in the country.

But Carter has said that there probably will be “more raids of this kind and that the rescue mission “represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission.”

In simple English, the United States is putting boots on the ground in specific operations, for the time being, in the war against ISIS, but the White House is saying it isn’t.

 

Report: US Spied on Israel, Prepared to Destroy Israeli Bombers to Protect Iran

Friday, October 23rd, 2015

In an explosive report we learn that ever since 2012, the United States has been spying on Israel in order to prevent the Jewish State from attacking suspected Iranian nuclear sites, according to Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

The White House had sent an additional aircraft carrier to the region after learning that Israeli aircraft had flown into Iranian airspace in what U.S. officials feared was a test run for an attack on Iran’s Fordow plant. The carriers had attack aircraft on board prepared to respond to any Israeli attack on Iran.

If that wasn’t enough to strain the conceit that the U.S. is Israel’s strongest supporter, U.S. officials also revealed to the Journal that Israel was responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Several U.S. officials also claimed that Israel wanted to strike Iran in 2012, and that the United States pressured Israeli officials into retreating.

The U.S. attempted to keep its nuclear power negotiations with Iran concealed from Israel because of disagreements over the extent to which Iran should be permitted to pursue a nuclear program. Israel took the position that because Iran has an abundance of energy resources, it had no peaceful purposes for its nuclear program.

The ‘Iran Deal’ Was Not Signed by Iran or Anyone Else

Saturday, September 19th, 2015

The Nuclear Iran Deal that is at the epicenter of a Congressional battle and the focus of so much attention for months is not actually any deal at all, as not one of the parties, including any representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has signed the Agreement.

This morning, Sept. 18, Cong. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. In that letter Pompeo informed the Secretary that while reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Iran Deal), he noted that there are no signatures on the so-called final Agreement.

Without signatures, there can be no legally binding contract.

There apparently is no “Iran Deal.”

Pompeo asked Kerry to provide a copy of the JCPOA with signatures and signing authority, so that members of Congress and the rest of the American people know that the parties to the agreement have “confirm[ed] each country’s commitment to the agreement” and that “makes clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.”

International affairs scholar and Iran expert Michael Ledeen pointed out more than two months ago that Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini would not allow his country to sign the JCPOA. Ledeen’s point then, and today, is that the desperation exhibited by the Obama administration made clear to the Iranian leader that “there is no reason for him to approve a hated deal with the devil. It’s much better to keep talking until all the sanctions are gone, and Iran’s ‘right’ to pursue its nuclear projects is fully recognized.”

It appears that Ledeen’s prediction was dead-on. If there is no signed agreement, even the feeble conditions placed on Iran by Team Kerry’s negotiators are unenforceable.

When asked what then, is the current status of the JCPOA, assuming the administration did not just, oh, forget to distribute to Congress the signed version, Ledeen told the JewishPress.com: “It’s a verbal agreement. It means the diplomats meeting in Vienna thought it was a good agreement, but that is all. It is not enforceable.”

Ledeen said he could not think of any other major international agreement, certainly not any of the portentous nature of the Iran Deal, where lawmakers moved forward to begin implementation without having a signed agreement in place.

“Anyone who has read in the media that the ‘Iran Deal’ was signed has to now know they were lied to, it has not happened.”

So what next?

Congress could, conceivably, pass a law forbidding the lifting of sanctions. That’s been tried, you say? True, but will the same members of Congress who support the deal, the same ones who never read significant portions of the deal, and who had those portions explained to them by people who themselves never read the deal are willing to once again vote against or even bar a vote on a stay on the lifting of sanctions when they know there is nothing preventing Tehran from violating any of the purportedly agreed-to conditions? Will they really?

Cong. Pompeo’s letter to Secretary Kerry follows:

Dear Secretary Kerry:


I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration.  As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress.  I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran.  Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error.  That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed.  I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA.  In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants.  I can find no international agreement of this “historic” nature that was not signed by the parties.  Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement.  This is not a mere formality.  Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.  In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA.  Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government.  It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it.  Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement.  I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries.  I look forward to your response.

We all do.

Legal Bombshell Could Block Nuclear Iran Deal, if Congress Has the Nerve

Friday, September 11th, 2015

After the Senate’s filibuster of the Nuclear Iran Deal on Thursday, Sept. 10, perhaps the only remaining way for Congressional opponents of the Nuclear Iran Deal to block the measure is if Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) authorizes the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for failing to comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

That avenue is wide open, at the moment, thanks to a decision by a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. issued on Wednesday, Sept. 8.

The court in House of Representatives v. Burwell found that the House has standing, that is, the right, to bring a lawsuit against the executive branch of the U.S. government. The issue in the Burwell case is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The legal basis for the potential lawsuit would be the failure of the White House to comply with the requirements laid out in Corker-Cardin. Under that legislation passed earlier this year, the White House had to provide Congress with all documents relating to the Nuclear Iran Deal, whether codicils, side agreements, or any other agreements bearing on the issue, with or between the parties.

As was discovered this summer, there are two secret side agreements dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, the only parties to which are Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The administration has never provided Congress with any documents relating to those side agreements. As was revealed yesterday in the JewishPress.com, the administration claimed, with a straight face, that it has provided Congress with all the documentation it has. The administration was able to make that claim because not one member of the U.S. government has a single piece of paper or digital notation regarding those side deals – those were all left with the Iranian negotiators and the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Iranians physically threatened to harm IAEA members if information about the secret side deals were shared with Americans, the Washington Free Beacon noted, quoting the Iranian Fars news service.

Of course the administration knew that Corker-Cardin required it to produce documentation regarding the side deals. Perhaps for this reason, first the administration tried to hide the fact that those side deals existed.

But the existence of those side agreements was discovered anyway, by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), two U.S. legislators trying to represent the interests of America, who traveled to Vienna to meet with IAEA officials in July, and who were told about the side agreements then.

Once the existence of those side deals became known, the administration officials still hid critical information about them – even to themselves, if they can be believed – although those officials had to know they were violating Corker-Cardin all along by allowing every jot of documentation to remain beyond U.S. borders.

Think about the growing mound of lies and obstructions surrounding Messr.s Obama and Kerry’s Nuclear Iran Deal. What is in it that they are so convinced Americans would revolt if the truth about it were known?

Which brings Congress, finally, at this very late date, to the possibility of litigation.

This only works if the House of Representatives, as an institution, brings the case, and that requires Boehner’s approval. Although Boehner has been late to the party, he has now become alive to the need for a vigorous legal attack on the flawed legislation itself and on the administration’s abrogation of its obligations under Corker-Cardin.

Perhaps this newfound interest stems from very serious challenges to his leadership. Those challenges are coming from Republicans on his right who have been the strongest opponents to the treaty as a threat both to the United States, as well as to Israel and the rest of the civilized world.

If Boehner has finally awakened and is prepared to use all the tools at his disposal as leader of the Republican majority in the House – which has strongly and consistently opposed this capitulatory deal – something historic may happen.

No American Has Seen the Entirety of the Side Deals and Not One Note Exists in US

Thursday, September 10th, 2015

In an exclusive interview with the JewishPress.com, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) disclosed that not only has every member of Congress who voted for the Nuclear Iran Deal never seen any of the documents containing key elements of the deal, but also that not a single document from or about those side deals is anywhere in the possession of any Americans.

This means that neither the President of the United States, nor the Secretary of State, nor any member of the U.S. negotiating team has the capacity to read any of these documents and know what they say.

It means that the United States is relying on someone else’s account of what the agreements say in order to determine whether a sufficient degree of protection is afforded the United States and its allies by this agreement.

And if the description U.S. officials have been given is wrong, the United States will not know until Iranian bombs fall.

This government is entrusting – yes, entrusting because there can be no verification of an unknown – the most murderous and voracious regime on the globe with following rules governing its nuclear activity and not even the highest levels of this administration can say exactly what those rules say.

It is staggering.

Pompeo, a Harvard Law School graduate who graduated first in his class from West Point and served in the U.S. military, along with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) discovered the existence of those secret side deals when they traveled to Vienna and met with members of the International Atomic Energy Agency in July.

Since learning about those side deals, one of which deals with Iran’s Parchin military complex and inspections of such sites and the other deals with the possible military dimensions of Iran’s previous nuclear weapons program, Pompeo has been “obsessed” with finding out the details of those deals.

When asked whether he or other members of Congress planned to subpoena the administration for the documentation surrounding those side deals, Pompeo responded: “they don’t have anything.”

“No notes? No lists? No summaries?” Pompeo was asked.

“Nothing,” he answered.

Astounding.

Pompeo told this reporter that the briefings provided by the administration to members of Congress about the side deals were provided based on recollections of what American officials were told.

Given this bizarre turn of events, opponents of the Joint Nuclear Plan of Action (which includes those invisible side deals) plan to do three things, Pompeo said.

First, they intend to vote to block the deal from going forward, as the administration is already in violation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin), the first Article of which explicitly required the administration to provide all documentation of every part of the deal. Because the administration has failed to fulfill its obligation, the 60 day clock on the Congressional review period has not yet begun.

Second, the Congressional opponents of the JCPOA will introduce a new motion, one of approval for the JCPOA. This will require members of Congress to affirmatively vote in favor of the deal, if that is their position, despite their ignorance of key aspects of the deal.

And third, opponents of the JCPOA in Congress will move to ensure that the current sanctions on Iran are not lifted.

The revelation provided by Pompeo also brings into focus another profound problem with the Iran agreement: by its terms – that is, according to the terms we have – the agreement is inconsistent with, and purports to overrule, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. The NNPA is a treaty, and as such, part of the Supreme Law of the Land ordained by the Constitution.

Therefore, the NNPA cannot be overruled by a mere executive agreement, which the administration has insisted is the status of the Iran deal. But if we do not actually know all of the relevant terms to which the United States has acceded, and which will govern the parts of the agreement we can see, it is even more clearly impossible for anyone to determine the extent to which this set of agreements contravenes the NNPA.

Full Text of Speech on Nuclear Iran Deal Given by Sen. Menendez

Tuesday, August 18th, 2015

Remarks Prepared for Delivery:

“For twenty three years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, I have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national security issues. Many of those have been of a momentous nature. This is one of those moments.

“I come to the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran, as someone who has followed Iran’s nuclear ambition for the better part of two decades. I decide on whether to support or oppose an issue on the basis of whether, it is in my judgment, in the national interest and security of our country to do so.

“In this case a secondary, but important, question is what it means for our great ally — the State of Israel — and our other partners in the Gulf.

“Unlike President Obama’s characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who both supported it. My vote against the Iraq war was unpopular at the time, but it was one of the best decisions I have ever made.

“I also don’t come to this question as someone, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, who reflexively oppose everything the President proposes. In fact, I have supported President Obama, according to Congressional Quarterly, 98 percent of the time in 2013 and 2014. On key policies ranging from voting in the Finance Committee and on the Senate Floor for the Affordable Care Act, to Wall Street Reform, to supporting the President’s Supreme Court Nominees and defending the Administration’s actions on the Benghazi tragedy, his Pivot to Asia, shepherding the authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to stop President Assad’s use of chemical weapons, during the time I was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to so much more, I have been a reliable supporter of President Obama.

“But my support is not – and has not been driven by party loyalty, but rather by principled agreement, not political expediency. When I have disagreed it is also based on principled disagreement.

“The issue before the Congress in September is whether to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement struck by the President and our P5+1 partners with Iran. This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms control issues of our time. It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the President. This issue is much greater and graver than that.

“For me, I have come to my decision after countless hours in hearings, classified briefings, and hours-and-hours of serious discussion and thorough analysis. I start my analysis with the question: Why does Iran — which has the world’s fourth largest proven oil reserves, with 157 billion barrels of crude oil and the world’s second largest proven natural gas reserves with 1,193 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — need nuclear power for domestic energy?

“We know that despite the fact that Iran claims their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, they have violated the international will, as expressed by various U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and by deceit, deception and delay advanced their program to the point of being a threshold nuclear state. It is because of these facts, and the fact that the world believes that Iran was weaponizing its nuclear program at the Parchin Military Base — as well as developing a covert uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, built deep inside of a mountain, raising serious doubts about the peaceful nature of their civilian program, and their sponsorship of state terrorism — that the world united against Iran’s nuclear program.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/full-text-of-speech-on-nuclear-iran-deal-given-by-sen-menendez/2015/08/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: