"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Agreement western - Iranian, mutual break and liver in Israel!

D. Adel Mohammed Ayesh al-Astal

Despite Israeli efforts waged by the Israeli Prime Minister, "Benjamin Netanyahu" around the world, and through all available means, to try to understand all, Israeli concerns better, and that there is a need to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to achieve a breakthrough strategic security, and to persuade that the Iranian regime is ideologically and religiously committed to the destruction of Israel and scanned from the world map. And in order to prevent the occurrence of any agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, but all of them, without exception, failed, and had feared "Netanyahu" has occurred, and became a visible reality. And is now also refers to reports, in the case of rare Igmaúah, did not reach the degree of severity, where even in the darkest political and security crises earlier. The only consolation in front of him, that the agreement is an agreement (Progress) for only six months, and that there is plenty of time to turn things down as it deems appropriate, at a minimum try again to collect the world against Iran through incitement and phishing attitudes in this regard, and in a maximum of asylum eventually to implement in the head by embarking on the implementation of a military scenarios that have long embarked upon his foundation of military exercises since the term, in order to implicate the total and indefinite. Especially since it warned from the outset that Israel offers to military action on its own, and is about to issue an order that, since the belief that pressure from Washington to Tehran has dropped to alarming levels, and European steps against Iran began to recede.

Agreement that has been reached, is an action plan, as announced European relations commissioner, "Catherine Ashton," and, as described by the U.S. President "Barack Obama" that represents an important first step, and at the same time to the continued existence of enormous difficulties will appear later. Which are contributed to the increase nervousness and tension with "Netanyahu" because it is through a similar experience, when it announced a freeze on settlement activity in the Palestinian territories ten months in late 2009, while he in fact did not stop for a moment.

In view of the agreement and it certainly stands on two readings do yield different - at least - adequate space for the various demons in order to play its role assigned to it anyway.

While the reported American milieus that the agreement - progress - provides for the freezing of stocks Iranian (nuclear fuel) enriched by 20% "and carry out inspections rigorous Iran's nuclear facilities, that will stop the progress of its nuclear program, and does not recognize at the same time Iran's right to enrichment process . terms of confirmed U.S. Secretary of State, "John Kerry," that this step does not provide for Iran's right to enrichment, whatever the explanations that have been given. and that Iran is committed to stop expanding its Altakosaibi and not pursuing the development of a reactor (Arak) or plutonium program related to this, On the other hand - as he says - the agreement will make the world safer, and the rest of our partners in the region., but Iran announced its part about it is that has made significant gains, especially on the adoption of the West, particularly the United States right to full enrichment on its territory. while The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran "Mohammad Javad Zarif," that the agreement includes a clear signal that the enrichment will continue. not to mention the other benefits that may outweigh the Western package of incentives offered to Iran since 2007, in the case of reaching an agreement on its nuclear program.

All the talk coming from the United States on calming Israel, both leading up to the agreement or that followed, were not present any significant achievements of the self-Israeli in general, despite the contacts a U.S. official and presidential intensively with Israel, and in particular with "Netanyahu" on studying the details of the agreement The emphasis on the protection of the U.S. position hard Israel, and the pledge by "Obama" on himself to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But there were Israeli reactions less described as crazy and hasty, made clear in a lot of the positions of the Israeli leaders and officials of political and military alike, most notably of the head of state, "Shimon Peres," who would have preferred a diplomatic solution to any other solutions, where announced that this agreement is not successful, and that the alternatives would be far worse, which means the possibility of an Israeli military attack. As issued by the Office "Netanyahu" has been described agreement victory historic Iranian diplomacy, being achieved through all its conditions, as granted to continue enriching uranium, which will allow her to continue with its nuclear program and access to a nuclear weapon, especially that this agreement does not include the dismantling of nuclear reactors to Iran. He announced, "Netanyahu that" Israel is not bound by this agreement, and will not allow Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities. He promised that Israel would defend itself. In turn, hastened Israeli Finance Minister "Yair Lapid" to attack the agreement, saying it serves the interests of Iran, describing the agreement as bad. For his part, rejected the defense minister, "Moshe Yaalon," the deal and considered it an important achievement for Iran, which is struggling to gain time to reach a nuclear power, and then the threat of and access to the gains. As well as the Minister of Housing, "Uri Ariel," attacked the Convention, and considered that Iran today has become a nuclear state with the approval of an international, and that Israel has to defend its existence and its interests alone and do not wait for anyone to defend it. Also the former head of the Mossad, "Meir Dagan," expressed regret, and declared that Israel did not get what they want.

Although this agreement is still in the test it and it seems both over the evolution of nuclear activities of Iran in the past few years and the extent of adherence to it, or on the urgency of the Western countries to achieve or over Israeli responses that reject him, it is unlikely to achieve Ohdva and the centrality of value, where a failed similar agreement failed in 2009, and private sectors on reducing Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium to below the amount needed to build a bomb if enriched to a higher degree.

But, in spite of all that, it has the right of each of the parties involved in it, claiming victory and the achievement of its objectives, as the United States considers as a diplomatic victory - historically - to manage it, towards a chance to finish the most complex files that have faced in decades missed, without resorting to military solutions , has raced the parties involved (5 +1) to describe the agreement as good. For its part, considered Iran's agreement accomplishment is important, which does not meet the demands of the Iranian nuclear issue, but also it is - most importantly - that the agreement will allow it to enter strongly in the family of the international community, as a present to deliver an undiminished, and at the expense of various Western powers including the United States.

Younis / Palestine
11/24/2013

Iran deal faces US Congress pincer: Analyst

Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:21AM GMT

A US political commentator says the nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers faces a real test in the US Congress, which is under the thumb of the Israeli lobby.

Professor James Petras, who has written several books on the Latin America and Middle East, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.

Petras called the November 24 agreement a historical step forward, but added that “the big fight is still to come, and that is the fight with the Israel lobby that has such a stranglehold on the US Congress.”

“It is time if this is going to advance -- the peace process, the negotiations, the reconciliation -- Obama has to pull his pants up and take on the Israeli lobby in Congress because if the Israeli lobby gets their way, what they are demanding is the surrender of Iranian sovereignty to dismantle its entire program.

“That is [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s agenda. That is what the Israeli lobby is pushing and that is what the influence in American Congress. That should not pass and I think the only way is for the White House to stand up to that and continue on a progressive path beginning with the initial settlement that has taken place,” he added.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China -- plus Germany, sealed an interim deal in Geneva on November 24 to pave the way for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over the country’s nuclear energy program.

As part of the deal, Iran has agreed to limit certain aspects of its nuclear activities, and the US and its allies have agreed to lift some of the economic sanctions and offer access to a portion of the revenue that Tehran has been denied through these sanctions. No additional sanctions will be imposed.

The White House has promised not just to prevent the imposition of new sanctions, but also to ease significantly the sanctions already in place. And that depends on the cooperation of Congress.

Some members of Congress have been discussing imposing more sanctions on Iran for months, but they held off after the Barack Obama administration asked for time to let diplomats reach a deal.

Shortly after the agreement was announced, Netanyahu, who had dispatched senior officials from his cabinet to the US to lobby against an agreement with Iran, blasted the interim deal as a “historic mistake” and vowed that Israel would do everything to derail it.

Reid and Obama’s dangerous nuclear option

The Democrats’ recent action in the Senate hurts bipartisanship and politicizes the courts.

Photo: Harry Reid / Associated Press

Monday, November 25, 2013 - Consider Again by Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga

Ask me a question.

Google Plus

Related Columns

WASHINGTON, November 25, 2013 — On election night, 2008, newly-elected President Barack Obama remarked, “Tonight, you voted for action, not politics as usual.”
Six years later, this is one more broken promise on a growing list.

The Senate Democrats last week engaged in the worst kind of politics, the type that says if you don’t agree with us, we don’t care about you. In an unprecedented move, they used the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.
Presidential nominees for most federal judicial positions will no longer require 60 votes to proceed. Instead, a simple majority is all that is needed to move to a confirmation vote. Specifically, these actions came as the president was trying to appoint three new judges to the court that reviews most of the government’s regulations, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This means the majority party will have the power to ram through any appointments they wish, without considering the other side’s objections. This almost entirely eliminates the incentive for choosing nominees who are acceptable to both parties, allowing the courts to become more politicized.
The Democrats’ real motivations were hidden behind a facade of pragmatism. Claiming the courts are overburdened, the Democrats argued that more judges were needed to increase efficiency in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Wall Street Journal effectively exposes this flimsy rhetoric, reporting, “For the 12-months ending in September, the D.C. Circuit had 149 appeals filed per active judge. By comparison, the 11th Circuit had 778 appeals filed per active judge for the same period.” The Journal argues that Democrats are simply engaging in a “political power play” by packing “the most underworked appellate circuit in the country.”
Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid and supported by President Obama, claim that Republicans’ obstructionism is adequate cause for suppression of minority rights. But the Republicans are right to obstruct unnecessary judge appointments if the D.C. Circuit does not really need them.
Furthermore, the nuclear option is a haughty assertion of raw power, telling those who disagree that their opinions are not valuable. It’s a continuation of the mentality of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. When the first stimulus bill was passed with no Republican votes in 2009, Republicans offered to make the bill a bipartisan effort by providing their input as well.
Emanuel’s response was to completely ostracize Republicans, claiming their involvement was worthless. “We have the votes,” he said, following that comment with an expletive directed toward Republicans.

This total marginalization of dissenting views has continued throughout the entire Obama presidency: during the healthcare debates, fiscal cliff negotiations, and now presidential appointments.
Eight years ago, on the Senate floor in 2005, Senator Barack Obama remarked, “What (the American people) don’t expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”
President Obama should listen to Senator Obama. The Senate Democrats’ move last week was a dangerous blow to bipartisanship and the rights of the minority.

Senators ready Iran sanctions, to the dismay of Obama

November 26, 2013 1:00PM ET

Despite what many called a landmark agreement, several lawmakers in Congress are skeptical of Geneva deal

Topics:: Iran; US-Iran Diplomacy; Congress

Menendez-Obama-Kirk — Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., left, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., right, hope to have their bill ready for lawmakers to consider when the Senate reconvenes Dec. 9. President Obama has asked lawmakers to give him more time and room for diplomatic efforts.

Leading Democratic and Republican senators are putting together legislation that would reinstate sanctions and impose new ones if Iran doesn't make good on its pledge to roll back its nuclear program as agreed to by world powers and Iran on Saturday in Geneva, brushing aside the Obama administration's fears about upending its diplomatic momentum.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., hope to have the bill ready for other lawmakers to consider when the Senate returns Dec. 9 from its two-week recess, according to legislative aides.
Despite what many called a landmark agreement, several lawmakers in Congress are skeptical, if not outright hostile, of the deal reached by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. with Iran over the weekend in Geneva.
The interim agreement allows Iran to keep central elements of its nuclear program, which it says is for peaceful purposes only, while capping its uranium enrichment to levels well below the concentration of fissionable material needed for nuclear weapons. Iran also must grant U.N. inspectors greater access to nuclear sites, neutralize higher-enriched uranium stockpiles and halt work on a planned heavy water reactor near Arak.
In exchange, Iran will receive about $7 billion in relief over the next six months from international sanctions that have crippled its economy. More than half of that amount comes from money now in frozen accounts to which the Iranians will be given access. Iran also will be allowed to restart limited sales of petrochemicals and other products.

Explainer: What Iran and world powers agreed in Geneva

A net plus for nonproliferation, interim deal sets terms for nuclear constraints, monitoring rules and sanctions relief

'Counterproductive' move

The Kirk-Menendez measure would require the administration to certify every 30 days that Iran is adhering to the terms of the six-month interim agreement and that it hasn't been involved in any act of terrorism against the United States.
Without that certification, sanctions worth more than $1 billion a month would be re-imposed and new sanctions would be added. The new measures would include bans on investing in Iran's engineering, mining and construction industries and a global boycott of Iranian oil by 2015. Foreign companies and banks violating the sanctions would be barred from doing business in the United States.
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Al Jazeera that the strategy of the senators looking to pass a new sanctions bill is "illogical and counterproductive."
"The existing, core sanctions regime provides more than sufficient leverage on Iran to take further concrete measures to restrain its nuclear potential and improve transparency measures necessary to guard against a secret nuclear weapons effort in the future," he said.
Nevertheless, the senators hope to send the bill to the White House before the end of the year, said the aides, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak by name on the matter.
"I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, nor abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions," Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after Sunday's interim agreement was announced.
The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) echoed the call.
New sanctions are needed "so that Iran will face immediate consequences should it renege on its commitments or refuse to negotiate an acceptable final agreement," the group said.
However, Kimball said that safeguards to do just that are already in place.
"If Iran violates the terms of the first phase deal or if a final phase agreement is not concluded in six months, the president can reverse the limited sanctions relief of the first phase agreement and Congress could consider additional sanctions, if necessary," he said.
Imposing stiffer economic penalties against Iran enjoys wide support in Congress. President Barack Obama has pleaded personally with lawmakers to give him more time and room for diplomatic efforts. The interim agreement promises no new penalties against Iran while it is in effect.

'Give diplomacy a chance'

US-Iran — Click here for more on U.S.-Iran diplomacy.

Obama, without naming names, swiped at those who have questioned the wisdom of engaging with Iran.
"Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing to do for our security," he said during an event in San Francisco on Monday.
Administration officials say new pressure from Congress now could prompt the Iranians to walk away from the deal and cause unrest between the U.S. and its negotiating partners in the so-called P5+1.
"We need to give diplomacy a chance to work," Tony Blinken, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said Monday on MSNBC. "New sanctions now, on top of the ones that are already in existence and will continue to be implemented, we fear would be taken as a sign of bad faith, not just by the Iranians but, indeed, by our partners in the P5+1 and other countries around the world whose cooperation we require to implement the sanctions and make them effective."
The administration wants no new sanctions laws enacted while the world tests Iran's seriousness to curb its nuclear program. That applies even if the fresh sanctions come with wide waiver authority, according to congressional aides who have spoken with administration officials.
Blinken said sanctions can be turned up "on a dime" six months from now if no comprehensive agreement is reached in the interim.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to determine how he'll react to the agreement, Democratic aides said.
Reid said last week that the Senate would move forward with new sanctions when lawmakers return from their Thanksgiving break. But he took a more cautious approach Monday, telling NPR that Menendez and Sen. Tim Johnson, Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, will study the interim agreement with Iran and "hold hearings if necessary."
"If we need work on this, if we need stronger sanctions, I am sure we will do that," Reid said.
Having voted new sanctions against Iran four months ago, the House is waiting for the Senate to act. The House would likely give overwhelming support to any new legislation against Iran, given that it voted 400-20 in favor of new penalties in July.
Al Jazeera and The Associated Press

now this is sick

OMBama Yoga - "Invoke the Spirit of Obama's Own Phrase"

Denver hasn't hosted a Democratic National Convention for 100 years, and it's a safe bet that the last time the Dems stampeded into town there were no yoga studios selling tee-shirts with the Boy Orator and presumptive presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan on them.

Did somebody say Boy Orator? The silver-tongued Barack Obama's words are on tee shirts selling at Om Time, an oasis of tranquility sandwiched between the Colorado Democratic headquarters on one corner, and the center for the Obama campaign on the other, along with a slice of tattoo shop and art gallery garnish. "The Union may never be perfect but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected," proclaims the tee-shirt in the Om Time window.

It hangs just south of the shri shrine, and the peace and love tee shirts you'd expect. Walk by quickly and you'd think the silk-screened image of Obama's close-shaved head was Ghandi's.

It was to hear more of those sentiments from the man himself--Obama, not Ghandi--that people started lining up at the Obama campaign office at least an hour before it was scheduled to open.

Source: Ohm-bama time in Denver. Quest for seats to hear Obama's acceptance speech Chicago Sun-Times August 9, 2008.

OmBama - Yes We Can!

OMbama Yoga classes! Enjoy these radically inspiring all level yoga classes of incredible, heartfelt practices for change! Join us for an eclectic and joyful practice as we celebrate the upcoming election and the opportunity of participating in the political process with one another and invoking the spirit of Obama's own phrase, YES WE CAN!

öm time yoga class, Boulder, CO.

"The presence of the Divine"

Rabbi David Saperstein, reading from Psalms in English and Hebrew, noticed from the altar that the good men and women of the congregation that day, including the Bidens and other dignitaries, had not yet stood. Finally Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the African Methodist Church asked that everyone rise. At that moment Saperstein saw something from his angle of vision: "If I had seen it in a movie I would have groaned and said, 'Give me a break. That's so trite.'" A beam of morning light shown [sic] through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine.

The Promise: President Obama, Year One, by Jonathan Alter.
(Simon & Schuster, May 2010 - p. 102)

Pass This Bill" = "Feed My Lambs" (John 21:15)

At a rally on the campus of North Carolina State in Raleigh, N.C. Wednesday where President Obama went to drum up support for his jobs bill, this happened.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Barack!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) But first — but if you love me — if you love me, you got to help me pass this bill. (Applause.) If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill.
Here's John 21:15, the New International Version, describing a scene between Jesus and his disciples:
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter,"Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

Frank James NPR. September 14, 2001.

The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama

The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama According to Mark is designed to initiate the reader into a meditation on what it means to be human, what it means to be a manifestation of God, and how Barack Obama is a unique and important manifestation of God’s desire for human flourishing. In a blend of words from his public speeches, imagined conversation, and fictional situations, the book highlights Obama’s real stance on social justice and, in particular, economic and political empowerment. It juxtaposes ancient Biblical form and contemporary reality, challenging the reader to see and seek God in all persons. “Our life-defining texts must be porous and we must be imaginative in our engagement with them. Let this book be a reminder not to so credit sacred texts or cultural icons that they lead us to hatred and violence in the name of God. When we see the Divine in another, we must name it. We must respect it. The practice demands nothing less than Love.” Mark F. Bozzuti-Jones, Author

* * *

And from the heart of the Power of Life, when the time was expedient and the time was right, about 2000 years after the birth of Jesus, praises be upon him, over seventy years after His Imperial Majesty, Haile Selassie I, the Lion of Judah, praises be upon him, there came the fulfillment of the hopes and dreams of centuries: Barack Hussein Obama, born of a virgin, young in age. The virgin’s name was Ann. And the man she was betrothed to was from the east of Africa. And the child they had was given the name That One, the Blessing, the One who Confronts and wins the victory: Barack Hussein Obama, a Blessing for all peoples.[Excerpt]

U.K. Whistleblower Group Releases Eye-Popping Report

by Dylan Blaylock on November 27, 2013 ( The Whistleblogger / 2013 )

Earlier this year, GAP's international coalition partner across the pond – Public Concern at Work (PCaW), based in London – launched an ambitious effort. The good government group put together a Whistleblowing Commission – a group of experts (including noted Olympus whistleblower Michael Woodford) brought together to examine the current arrangements and protections for British whistleblowers, and make recommendations for improvement, nationwide.
This 11-month effort culminated in the Commission's report released earlier today. The in-depth analysis has been anticipated by several U.K. government agencies, and finds that "current legislation is 'not working' and immediate change is needed to ensure whistleblowers are given the confidence to speak out without fear of adverse repercussions." Further, the Commission makes 25 base recommendations for improving the state of whistleblower protections throughout British industries and the federal government (for more, see PCaW's press release).
As detailed by PCaW, significant recommendations include:

The U.K. Secretary of State should adopt a 'Code of Practice' which would set out the principles and processes by which British employees would know their rights when speaking out wrongdoing, sans fear of retaliation (similar to many whistleblower protection laws that Americans enjoy).
Further, that such a code be "taken into account" by the U.K. court system when lawsuits arise, and that U.K. regulators "require or encourage" the Code be instituted by those entities they regulate.
British regulators themselves should "be more transparent about their own whistleblowing arrangements"
That "specific provisions against the blacklisting of whistleblowers" be instituted, a terrible consequence to occupational free speech that GAP sees all-too-frequently.
The "strengthening [of] anti-gagging provisions in the law."
The "strengthening and clarifying [of] legal protection for whistleblowers."

These are all excellent recommendations, and British regulators would be wise to heed these points from people who know what they're talking about. The chief recommendation is the establishment of the 'Code of Conduct,' of which PCaW CEO, the intelligent Cathy James, stated:

“The Code of Practice provides a set of standards against which organisations can be measured. The Code provides organisations a clear road map for better whistleblowing arrangements. Regulators need to enforce this Code and, if necessary, be given the power to do so.

"The important new focus in this report is on the responsibility of organisations to have specific whistleblowing arrangements that encourage people to speak out with confidence, knowing that they will be treated fairly and listened to and that action will be taken. This is underpinned by a recommended Code of Practice, that all responsible organisations should be implementing now, and not waiting for legislation.”

Hear, hear! GAP wishes nothing but the best for PCaW to make the code a reality in the U.K., and urges British authorities to do so without delay.
Media coverage of the Whistleblowing Commission's report can be found in CIPD, The Guardian, The Lawyer, and ITV/Daybreak.

Dylan Blaylock is Communications Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

Next »

UPDATED: Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

By JOEL GEHRKE | SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 AT 4:28 PM

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.
The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."
Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): "The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.
"For purposes of this subsection, such acts shall include all activities that the Secretary determines willfully aid or abet the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aid or abet an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded special nuclear material," the law continues.
The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., endorsed providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.
"Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support," Corker said. "And there's going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition."
UPDATE: White House releases statement on waiver
National Security Council spokesman Caitlin Hayden issued the following statement concerning the president's actions with regard to waiving certain controls on military aid in the Syrian crisis:
"This action will allow the U.S. Government to provide or license, where appropriate, certain non-lethal assistance inside or related to Syria. This includes: 1) chemical weapons-related personal protective equipment to international organizations, including the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, for the conduct of their operations; 2) chemical weapons-related life-saving assistance for organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs to strengthen local Syrian health care providers’ ability to prepare for and respond to any use of chemical weapons; and 3) defensive chemical weapons-related training and personal protective equipment to select vetted members of the Syrian opposition, including the Supreme Military Council, to protect against the use of chemical weapons. This action is part of longstanding and ongoing efforts to provide life-saving chemical weapons-related assistance to people in need in Syria."

Impeachable: President Obama waives law that forbids U.S. from providing ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM EDT
Glenn opened the radio program this morning with some very troubling (and bizarre) news that lead him to call for President Obama’s impeachment. Yesterday, the President waived a federal provision specifically designed to prevent the U.S. from supplying arms to terrorist groups in order to begin providing military assistance to the Syrian rebels.
“Today I come to you with the news that our President actually waived the restriction on countries supplying arms to international terrorists, specifically Al‑Qaeda. And the reason why he waived that is because we’re providing arms to international terrorists, specifically Al‑Qaeda,” Glenn said. “Now, if that isn’t an act of treason, I don’t know what is. If that is not an act of insanity, I don’t know what is.”
“This isn’t, ‘Well, we don’t know who the terrorists are. We don’t know who the rebels are.’ No, no. Mr. President, you apparently do know exactly who they are because you felt compelled to waive the restriction on arming them,” he continued. “Now, why would you do that? So you can no longer make the case ‘We don’t know who these guys are’ because the President felt compelled to tell us who they are by waiving the restrictions. They’re international terrorists. If that’s not an act of suicide, if that’s not an act finally of the President admitting we’re on the wrong side – when you have to waive the law so you can arm terrorists, you’re on the wrong side.”
While we know that not all of the rebels are terrorists, arming any faction that includes known terrorists is in direct violation of our federal laws, which is why President Obama was forced to waive the restrictions that prevented such action.
As Pat and Stu both explained, you wouldn’t eat something that was known to contain 15% of poison. So why would you arm a group of people with some percentage of a ‘poisonous’ underbelly?
“Because the president could go to jail if he didn’t waive the law… You know, I know I just did a thing in the New York Times just, like, two weeks ago where I said I haven’t called for impeachment of the President. I haven’t called for it,” Glenn said. “I’m calling for the impeachment of the President of the United States. The President of the United States needs to be impeached.”

Your browser does not support iframes.

It has taken nearly five years and countless scandals for Glenn to utter the word “impeachment” in relation to President Obama, but it seems that his latest action – potentially aiding and abetting the enemy’ – might just be among the most egregious things this President has done.
“It’s not politics. It’s not politics. What do you stand for, America? If that one doesn’t do it, nothing will,” Glenn said. “You are arming people…You are empowering them. This is not, ‘Hey, I disagree that we have knocked out Al Qaeda,’ which, we did, and obviously that’s true. Everything the President told you on the run up that we got ‘Al Qaeda on the run,’ that’s clearly not true now, is it? Because Al Qaeda is growing in Libya. Al Qaeda is growing in Egypt. Al Qaeda is growing, and we’re arming them in Syria. So if those things you know, you could disagree with. This one, you’re arming and aiding the enemies of the United States of America.”

“To add on,” Stu interjected, “for something [the President himself admits] is not a direct threat to the United States of America… But just to say you could come up with some crazy scenario in which you would help these groups that are not good, to help you against an enemy you deem a greater threat. There’s no one who makes the case that Syria’s a greater threat to us than Al Qaeda.”
“We did not get into bed with Hitler to defeat Japan. We did not do it,” Glenn said of the U.S. situation during World War II. “No one could say, ‘Let’s give Hitler a whole bunch of arms so he can help us defeat Japan.’ Because even if they do defeat Japan, they will come and use those very arms against us. It’s the height of insanity. But I also believe it is impeachable. I believe it is treason. And the President knows it’s against the law. That’s why he had to waive that law yesterday.”
Front page image courtesy of the AP

Press Release of Senator Cruz Cruz: Supreme Court should strike down the Obamacare requirements that force people to violate their faith

Contact: press@cruz.senate.gov / (202) 228-7561
Tuesday, November 26, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today released the following statement regarding the announcement that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., cases that challenge the Obamacare contraception mandate:

"At this time of Thanksgiving, we remember our forefathers who fled religious persecution to pursue freedom of conscience in the New World. How sad that today Obamacare forces religious institutions and business owners of faith to violate their religious beliefs or face crippling fines. The First Amendment protects Americans' right to freely exercise their religion and no Congress or President has the authority to undermine this fundamental right. The Supreme Court should strike down the Obamacare requirements that force people to violate their faith in order to stay in business."

###

Iran president: We won, enrichment will never stop

Posted on November 27, 2013

Iran has played Obama for the fool he is.
Check it out:
Iran boasted on Tuesday that it has created a major crack in the international sanctions against its nuclear program, claiming it has achieved its goal of acceptance of its nuclear development.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment process “will never witness the stop of enrichment in Iran and that enrichment is our red line.”
Early Sunday, Iran and the 5+1 world powers, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, reached an agreement in Geneva over its illicit nuclear program. Under the agreement, Iran, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, is limited to enriching uranium at the five percent level for six months, will convert its highly enriched uranium of 20 percent to harmless oxide and will allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be limited to only agreed-on facilities.

British Minister of European Parliament: Barack Obama is not the leader of the free world

November 27, 2013 by Admin Leave a Comment

By Benjamin Weingarten

British Minister of European Parliament: Barack Obama is not the leader of the free world

British Member of European Parliament Daniel Hannan isn’t afraid to say it: Barack Obama is not the leader of the free world.
The conservative lawmaker made the surprising statement in an interview with Blaze Books about his newly released work, “Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World“. In the book, Hannan makes the case that Anglosphere values and institutions such as individual liberty, religious freedom, representative government and property rights are exceptional and taken together represent a system superior to those of all other cultures.
“I’d have to say that we’re [the U.K.] in worse shape – although we are now pulling back, while you, dear cousins, hurry to overtake us,” he said in response to a question on the state of the U.S. “Frankly, though, neither the U.S. nor the U.K. is an especially good advertisement for Anglosphere values these days. Canadians are doing better than either of us, Australians better yet. Their prime ministers, Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott, are the true leaders of the free world.” [emphasis added]

Daniel Hannan addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2012. (Image Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Hannan’s remarks come in the wake of the recent round of Iranian nuclear negotiations, in which the French rose up and initially thwarted American-led efforts to ease sanctions on Iran, only for the U.S. to ultimately capitulate to Iranian demands in separate talks. In recent years America has also fallen precipitously in the Index of Economic Freedom Rankings to 10th, behind states including Mauritius and Denmark, while borrowing in such excessive quantities that it is now the largest debtor in world history, prompting unprecedented credit rating downgrades.
That wasn’t all Hannan addressed, however. He also discussed topics ranging from President Obama’s comments …read more

U.K. Whistleblower Group Releases Eye-Popping Report

by Dylan Blaylock on November 27, 2013 ( The Whistleblogger / 2013 )

The U.K. Secretary of State should adopt a 'Code of Practice' which would set out the principles and processes by which British employees would know their rights when speaking out wrongdoing, sans fear of retaliation (similar to many whistleblower protection laws that Americans enjoy).
Further, that such a code be "taken into account" by the U.K. court system when lawsuits arise, and that U.K. regulators "require or encourage" the Code be instituted by those entities they regulate.
British regulators themselves should "be more transparent about their own whistleblowing arrangements"
That "specific provisions against the blacklisting of whistleblowers" be instituted, a terrible consequence to occupational free speech that GAP sees all-too-frequently.
The "strengthening [of] anti-gagging provisions in the law."
The "strengthening and clarifying [of] legal protection for whistleblowers."

Next »

Obamacare Going Back To Supreme Court

Nov 27th, 2013 @ 11:09 am › B. Christopher Agee
↓ Leave a comment

Photo Credit: Laura Padgett Creative Commons

As countless peripheral debates continue regarding ObamaCare, one of the law’s very first criticisms will be the topic of an upcoming Supreme Court decision. The nation’s highest court announced Tuesday it will hear evidence from two cases regarding the healthcare mandate requiring religious business owners to provide birth control to employees.

An effort by retail chain Hobby Lobby to reverse the mandate was successful at a lower level court; and Supreme Court justices will have the final say in that case. Another company, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., initiated a similar case that was rejected by a lower court.
The high court will consider both of these cases simultaneously early next year. A decision is expected by next summer.
Both of the companies are owned by religious families who say that ObamaCare violates their First Amendment rights. In light of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that corporations can express political opinions with the same liberty as individuals, the arguments against the contraception mandate appear to be well-grounded.
In the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, the court also found that a 1993 law broadly defining freedom of religion has bearing in this ongoing debate. In the case of Conestoga, however, the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the same law did not offer protection to the company.
The Supreme Court, which earned the scorn of many conservatives upon upholding the healthcare law last year, will now decide how intrusive it may be. Instead of seeking refuge in our unambiguous constitutional rights, we now live in a society that can force individuals to violate their sacred beliefs in the name of big government.

More than half a century ago, Ronald Reagan decried government-mandated healthcare, calling it one of “the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people….”
Even he likely never imagined how prophetic his words would prove within the U.S.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Obama adviser urges Israel not to strike at Iran

Obama is the most anti-Israel President in American history. Jeremiah Wright, Luis Farrakhan and the rest of Obama's Jew-hating cabal are rubbing their hooves in glee. Mission accomplished.
This is exactly as I warned in my book The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, an indispensable ally is reeling from being stabbed in the back. One of many allies betrayed by Obama (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, India, Taiwan, et al).
Obama adviser urges Israel not to strike at Iran Times of Israel November 26, 2013

Ben Rhodes (photo credit: White House video screenshot)

The US on Tuesday urged Israel not to strike at Iran so long as the international community’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over Tehran’s rogue nuclear program continue.
Speaking two days after world powers signed an interim deal with Iran in Geneva, and in the wake of blistering criticism of the deal from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Barack Obama’s close aide and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes encouraged Israel to give the negotiations a chance, and warned that military action could be counterproductive.
Asked in an interview with Israel’s Channel 10 news whether the US was asking Israel to refrain from launching military action to thwart Iran’s march to the bomb, Rhodes said first that “Israel’s a sovereign nation and will make its own decisions about its self-defense.”
He went on, though, to set out the US argument to Israel for refraining from military action: “Our case to Israel will be: Let’s give the negotiations a chance to succeed. A military strike has no guarantee of eliminating the nuclear infrastructure or what they [the Iranians] already know how to do, and could incentivize them to break out” to the bomb.
Rhodes said the US was keeping its own military option on the table, “but we want to see if we can get this done diplomatically.” It was clearly preferable, he said, to thwart Iran without a resort to force, “at the negotiating table.”
Still, he added again, “the prime minister of Israel has to make his own decisions.”
Rhodes acknowledged that the relationship between the US and Israeli leaderships over the handling of the Iran crisis was in one of its more strained periods, but said there had been “ups and downs” in the past and he was confident that the two sides would “weather” the storm.
He also said the administration did not consider that “the time was right” for Congress to impose new sanctions on Iran. Among other factors, such a move could divide the P5+1 countries, Rhodes claimed. Still, he noted, “Israel can express its view, of course, as a sovereign nation.”
Rhodes said he thought it unlikely that Iran would be stripped of all elements of its nuclear activity in the way that Libya had been. In separate comments to Channel 2 news, he also said that, in a permanent accord, provided Iran met all of the international community’s concerns over its program, it might be allowed to retain “a limited enrichment capacity.”