08/27/15
ISIS

Officials Distorting Islamic State Analysis?

Hat Tip: BB

08/26/15
Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: WE’RE BEING INVADED! This Is Not Immigration… These Are Refugees

08/26/15
Allen West

Allen West Blasts The Terms Of The Iran Nuclear Agreement

08/26/15
Iran Nuclear Side Deals

Iran Nuclear Side Deals Expose Additional Flaws

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

More Democrats are falling in line to support the Iranian nuclear deal, despite recent revelations further exposing the farcical nature of the inspections regime on which it depends. And according to The New York Times, nearly everyone they talk about in this article who either is or might be opposing the deal is doing so because of their loyalty to Israel, or because they come from a state where “anti-Obama sentiments” are “feverish.” It’s never based on the merits. That’s only the people who support the deal, the article implies, and those who are voting with Obama. They are supposedly the principled ones, voting out of “optimism” or based on the merits of the deal. This line of attack is right out of the Obama playbook, blaming Israel and the Jews for opposition to Obama’s foreign policy legacy, which is truly a disaster in the making.

We pointed out many of the inherent problems in this deal last month, and listed many of the reasons it should be defeated in Congress. Even though, according tothis AP article, “A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.”

This new push for Democratic endorsements for the deal comes at a time when the details of one of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) secret deals with Iran have gone public, and it becomes all the more apparent that Iran is not going to be held accountable for its past nuclear activities. It makes it all the more unlikely that Iran will face tough scrutiny from the international community, or the IAEA, under the framework’s proposed inspections regime.

The Associated Press and Fox News have reported that with the IAEA’s second of two secret side deals, Iran will, essentially, be allowed to inspect itself at Parchin. But these news outlets and others aren’t covering an equally important development.

IAEA director general Yukiya “Amano was in Washington recently to brief members of Congress and others about the recently inked nuclear accord,”reported Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon on August 18. “However, he did not discuss the nature of side deals with Iran that the United States is not permitted to know about.”

“Iran apparently threatened Amano in a letter meant to ensure he did not reveal specific information about the nature of nuclear inspections going forward, according to Iranian AEOI [Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization] spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi,” reports Kredo.

Notably, many media outlets—including The New York Times and Washington Post—have not covered this threat against Amano. The Fox News and Associated Press articles covering the Parchin side deal do not mention Iran’s threatening letter.

Instead, the AP’s George Jahn gives the false impression that he broke news regarding the Parchin side deal with his August 19 article. Jahn labeled this a “revelation” that has “newly riled Republican lawmakers.” What was new was that the AP had actually seen the draft agreement, and reported based on that.

In reality, however,  Senators James Risch (R-ID) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) both had confronted administration officials about the IAEA’s secret deals with Iran in July during a Senate hearing.

“Parchin was designed and operated as an explosive testing place where they designed a detonation trigger for a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Risch during that July 23 hearing. “What you guys agreed to was, we can’t even take samples there. IAEA can’t take samples there. They’re going to be able to test by themselves. … How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing?”

Senator Menendez later asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether this was true, and was told by the Secretary that he could neither confirm nor deny that assertion. It would be better to be fully briefed in a classified setting, Kerry said. But, “The IAEA has said that they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and that adequately gets the answers that they need,” Kerry asserted.

The Times dismissed this issue in its August 20 article, focusing instead on President Obama’s pro-deal letter to Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Nadler endorsed the deal the next day.

Republicans have “pounced” on this news of inadequate enforcement, but “that issue involved a longstanding effort by the IAEA to complete a report on past Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, an important part of the international effort to pressure Iran,” argues Jonathan Weisman near the end of his article in the Times.

“It has little to do with verification of the nuclear accord between Iran and the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China,” he writes. “That verification regime is laid out in the actual nuclear accord and does not rely on Iran’s self-monitoring.”

If this side deal has little to do with the accord, then why list it within the framework in the first place? The deal requires Iran to work with the IAEA on “outstanding issues” as part of listed “transparency and confidence building measures.”

Iran, therefore, is under considerable pressure to appear to now be cooperating with the IAEA.

The Washington Examiner argues in an editorial that “Such an arrangement would give the Iranian regime effective control of the process, making inspections of this site a farce. If this is so, then the Obama administration has agreed to give Iran massive sanctions relief, amounting to $140 billion, in exchange for little more than promises that cannot be verified independently.”

Instead of increasing transparency, Iran has resorted to attempting to coerce its own inspectors. Rather than ignoring or downplaying this nation’s continued stonewalling, the mainstream media might want to reconsider their blind support for this flawed, unworkable deal.

08/26/15
Clinton Biden

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Shootout In Donkey City Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

This week, The Pirate’s Cove, Maggie’s Notebook, Simply Jews and Seraphic Secret earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an email address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions:

Honorable Mentions:

Non-Council Submissions:

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

08/25/15
irannukes1

Military experts: Iran already has nuclear weapons

By: JEROME R. CORSI
WND

iran_nukes

NEW YORK – Amid debate over President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, two retired military officers contend their accumulation of evidence from open and intelligence sources shows Tehran already has a nuclear-weapons capability.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney assert that since 1979, a cabal of nations has aided and abetted Iran in its efforts to develop a robust nuclear program under the guise of generating a nuclear-energy system.

And they believe the White House is fully aware.

In an interview, Vallely told WND that President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and chief White House adviser Valerie Jarrett “are treading on treason under the U.S. Constitution for aiding and abetting Iran, a known enemy of the United States, while throwing Israel, a longtime U.S. ally, to the wolves.”

They charge the cabal is mainly comprised of Russia, China and North Korea, which have worked behind the scenes in collaboration with Iran to put all the parts in place.

The assistance includes providing the material needed to make a bomb. Vallely and Haney believe Iran can make a bomb now, and a “breakout” nuclear test detonation is imminent.

‘Treading on treason’

Vallely told WND that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “knows that Israel has little option but to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran, and I suspect Saudi Arabia will assist Israel militarily when the attack occurs.”

“Signing a nuclear agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear weapons future, while removing sanctions that gives Iran access to billions of dollars that can be diverted to advancing Iran’s terrorist goals against the United States and Israel,” Vallely said.

Haney agreed.

“President Obama has given the green light to the potential destruction of Israel by signing this agreement while Iran swears ‘death to Israel,’” Haney told WND.

“President Obama knows Iran has the bomb, and he knows Iran plans a nuclear attack on Israel. Obama has never liked Israel; he does not see Israel in the future of the Middle East that he sees dominated by radical Islam.”

Haney said Obama “is simply covering his tracks with this nuclear agreement with Iran.”

“The point is that Obama already knows Iran has the bomb and the entire negotiation has been nothing more than a charade, a smoke screen to cover up that Iran already has the bomb,” he said.

“The White House and Secretary of State Kerry know that Iran already has nuclear weapons capability and, to protect Obama’s legacy, the White House does not want it known Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons on Obama’s watch,” he explained.

“This way, a pathway for Iran to get the bomb has been created and put in place, so when Iran finally announces it has a nuclear weapon, Obama can argue that Iran simply got the bomb quicker than anybody anticipated, but not in violation of the agreement.”

He declared: “Iran is a nuclear weapons power now!”

In a joint statement, Vallely and Haney say an accumulation of available evidence shows a coalition of Russia, China and North Korea have assisted Iran since 1979 in achieving a nuclear weapon, despite sanctions, under the guise of a domestic nuclear energy program.

Vallely explained to WND that he and Haney have taken a systematic approach to evaluating each component needed to deliver a nuclear weapon, from the development and testing of a ballistic missile system, to the design of a nuclear weapons warhead, to the development of the weapons-grade uranium needed to produce a bomb.

“To come to our conclusion that Iran is a nuclear weapons power right now, we supplemented publicly available research, plus information from intelligence sources, including Iranian resistance groups such as the National Council of Resistance of IRAN, NCRI,” Vallely explained. “With the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea, Iran has developed and tested every component needed to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon against Israel.”

WND reported in February that the NCRI, in a Washington, D.C., press conference, added to a series of disclosures it made regarding Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program more than a decade ago. NCRI has claimed Tehran is operating a secret uranium-enrichment site northeast of the capital city that was not disclosed during the recent negotiations to the United States or to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

Vallely and Haney made clear in their statement their conclusion that Iran will soon detonate its first nuclear device.

“Iranian government observers, research scientists and senior military officials have been on-site in North Korea for all their tests of nuclear component systems,” they said. “In essence, Iran has had the benefit of North Korea doing their development and testing for them.”

They said Russia, China and North Korea “always had the latitude and time to develop and test warhead design, fissionable material and detonation testing.”

“Iran participated in most all of the scheduled testing onsite.”

Vallely and Haney said the “release of up to $150 billion in Iranian assets, as a part of the sanctions against Iran, guarantees Iran further funding their nuclear weapons program and their terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas and others to include Assad of Syria.”

‘Ties to Iran’

Vallely and Haney combine their analysis of Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities with an argument that Obama, Kerry and Jarrett have close ties to Iran that influence their political judgment.

All three allowed the United States to sign a nuclear weapons agreement with Iran knowing Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon today and realizing that an atomic Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, the retired officers said.

“Barack Hussein Obama, raised and schooled in Islam, mentored by American Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, with his primary adviser being Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, has crafted a plan that guarantees Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” they said.

“The copy of the agreement handed out in English for the American delegation did not replicate the copy handed out in Farsi for the Iranians. The American delegation did not bring this up,” Vallely and Haney said.

“The Iranian delegation read both the English and Farsi-worded agreements, and declared that while they agreed with the one in Farsi, the one in English was not the same and was in no way acceptable to them.

“Prime negotiator John Forbes Kerry, himself a communist sympathizer during the Vietnam War, came out this past May with the admission that he has a daughter who married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran,” they noted.

In 2009, Kerry’s daughter, Vanessa Bradford Kerry, married a Los Angeles-based Iranian-American physician, Dr. Brian (Behrooz) ValaNahad, who was born in New York, educated at UCLA, attended medical school at Yale and completed his internship and neurosurgery residence at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

The Nemazee connection

WND has reported the ties between American–Iranian Hassan Nemazee and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Nemazee, prominent in Democratic Party fundraising since Bill Clinton’s second term in the White House, is an American-Iranian now serving time in federal prison for criminal bank fraud. Nemazee’s family fortune in Iran traces back to the Iranian opium shipping trade with China that began in the mid-1800s.

Nemazee’s credentials in raising money for Democratic Party presidential hopefuls is impressive. In 2004, he served as Kerry’s presidential campaign fundraising chairman in New York, and in 2008, he served prominently as one of Hillary Clinton’s most successful national presidential campaign fundraising chairmen.

Coincidentally, Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran, in Nemazee Hospital, named after Hassan Nemazee’s father, who had the distinction of transitioning the Nemazee family opium trade with the Far East into the 20th century.

‘Let’s provide Iran nuclear fuel’

WND reported that during his first presidential debate with President George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry, then the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, argued that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran. Kerry said the U.S. should trust Tehran, as had President Clinton with North Korea, that the Iranians would not use the fuel to make a bomb.

In the early 1970s, Pyongyang had begun to acquire nuclear fuel and plutonium processing technology from the Soviet Union to expand North Korea’s IRT-2000 research reactor that was gradually diverted to nuclear weapons development.

Then, in October 1994, former President Jimmy Carter announced from Pyongyang that Kim Il-sung had accepted the broad deal later formalized as the “Agreed Framework.” Within less than a decade, North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty and prohibited IAEA inspectors to actively monitor Pyongyang for nuclear weapons activities.

Vallely and Haney, both members of the independent Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, made clear they are speaking for themselves regarding Iran and not on behalf of the commission.

08/25/15
Sgt Martland

Green Beret Discharged for Trying to Protect Muslim Boy From Child Rapist

By: Dave Gibson
UFP News

Sgt Martland

The Obama administration is discharging Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Army’s Green Berets. The highly-decorated soldier who spent two tours of duty in Afghanistan, will be “involuntary discharged” from the Army by Nov. 1, 2015.

So, just how did Sgt. Martland, a Bronze Star recipient, get on the bad side of Obama’s Defense Department?

Fox News reported:

One day in early September 2011 at their remote outpost, a young Afghan boy and his Afghan-Uzbek mother showed up at camp. The 12-year-old showed the Green Berets where his hands had been tied. A medic took him to a back room for an examination with an interpreter, who told them the boy had been raped by another commander by the name of Abdul Rahman.

After learning of the meeting, Rahman allegedly beat the boy’s mother for reporting the crime. It was at this point, the Green Berets had had enough. [Lt. Daniel] Quinn and Martland went to confront Rahman.

He confessed to the crime and laughed about it, and said it wasn’t a big deal. Even when we patiently explained how serious the charge was, he kept laughing,” Quinn said.

The outraged soldiers reportedly physically attacked the Afghani child molester, and the commander walked away with only a few bruises after the incident.

Martland and Quinn were actually taken off of their original mission at this point and sent to another region of Afghanistan. Both men were eventually sent home before their deployment was scheduled to end.

Quinn has since left the Army.

In February 2015, the Army conducted a “Qualitative Management Program” review board, and ordered that Martland be “involuntary discharged” from the Army by Nov. 1, 2015.

Of course, child rape is as much a part of Muslim culture, as is baseball to Americans.

We had been hearing for months about raping in our province, not just in Afghanistan,” Lt. Quinn told Fox News.

In fact, in 2012, Pentagon lawyers, at the request of the Obama administration drafted an Army manual which forbade any criticism of child molestation by troops serving in Muslim countries.

The 75-page handbook stated troops should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating women’s rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam,” Judicial Watch reported.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Ashston Carter, U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter said:

SFC Martland acknowledged he was wrong to strike the ALP (Afhgan Local Police) commander, but according to SFC Martland, he and others felt they could no longer stand by and allow the ALP to commit atrocities. To intervene was a moral decision, and SFC Martland and his Special Forces team felt they had no choice but to respond.

Thus far, the Obama administration has yet to respond to Rep. Hunter’s request that Sgt. Martland be allowed to stay in the Army, and the Green Beret is facing a discharge which could come at any time now.

Meanwhile, our tax dollars are paying the salaries of child rapists in Afghanistan.

As Obama stated in his book, “Dreams From My Father,” he “will stand with Muslims!”

08/23/15
Taxes

The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax

By Publius Huldah

A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People.  It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1

Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366. 3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.

Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:

It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending

Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That’s a good idea?

Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.  States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?

Section 4 is a joke:  Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?  Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.

How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden

Section 5 says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]

What is a “general revenue tax”?   Section 6 defines it:

“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]

Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”

There it is:  All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us.  And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.

Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.

So!  Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:

  • Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or
  • A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.

Which option will Congress choose?

Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax

Article I, §8, clause 1 says:

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”

Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax.  Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:

“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comment 19].

We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”! 

We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used:  The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.  Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up.  See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:

“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”

Do you see?

National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes.  Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).

“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose.  Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants.  Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:

  • the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, 2, clause 3;
  • the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and
  • the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.

A sales tax is none of the above.  A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods.  A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.

We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country.  Why?  Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.

We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.

And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax:  first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.

There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list.  See the list HERE.

Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.

Endnotes:

1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers:  If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it.  That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.

All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget.  This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment.  It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.

2 Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.

3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.”  So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?

4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.

5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.

6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE.  Since then, Compact for America has claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes.  Are we too gullible to be free? PH

08/22/15
irannukes1

Mark Levin: Iran will be able to conduct self-inspections, according to one of nuclear side deals?

08/22/15
Mark Levin

Mark Levin interviews professor Edward Erler on birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment