The More We Know About Iran Deal, The Worse It Gets

The More We Know About Iran Deal, The Worse It Gets

The More We Know About Iran Deal, The Worse It Gets

Before the July 14 announcement that negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran were completed, President Obama and his supporters tried to silence critics by urging them to wait to see what was in the deal. The more we learn now about what is in it, however, the worse it looks. Two particularly egregious points that came to light last week are: one, that the planned agreement would obligate the US to provide training and workshops to help Iran to protect its nuclear program; and two, the side deal, intended to remain secret, that will allow Iran to collect its own samples to provide to the IAEA.

On Tuesday of last week, Congressman Mike Pompeo revealed that the IAEA had told him that:

Two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. One agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran?s nuclear program.

According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex ? one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran ? and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA?s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA.

These side agreements are so secret, in fact, that Secretary Kerry has claimed that he has not even read them. John Kerry has agreed, and is now asking Congress to agree, to a deal in which even he does not know all of the terms. So much for the administration?s claims that this deal is not built on trust.

Thanks to the diligence of Representative Pompeo and others in Congress, at least one part of these secret deals has come to light: ?the IAEA will rely on Iran to collect samples at its Parchin military base and other locations.?

Ernest Moniz

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz

Once again, it does not take a nuclear physicist to understand the problems with this plan (though it certainly begs the question of how Ernest Moniz could possibly find this acceptable). Fred Fleitz, who has analyzed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee, wrote in the National Review that

The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.

Such demands simply don?t come from a government that has nothing to hide.

As absurd as this deal point is, the provision for the US to teach Iran how to protect its nuclear facilities is far, far worse.

Provisions of the purported agreement say that the US is ?prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices,? including ?training and workshops to strengthen Iran?s ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats including sabotage.? As Senator Marco Rubio and others have pointed out, this language is ambiguous as to what would happen if Israel launched a military or cyber attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. But that?s not the only reason that this is extremely disturbing.

If the US trains Iran to understand the methods that we use to detect possible attacks, Iran will be better positioned to evade such tactics in the event that Iran attempts to sabotage US or Israeli nuclear facilities. This deal essentially aids Iran in launching a future attack on US nuclear facilities or Israeli nuclear facilities.

We already know that if Iran does not abide by the terms, the supposed imposition of snapback sanctions will terminate the deal entirely. In that case, not only will Iran be hundreds of billions of dollars richer, it will have American-trained experts who will know how to inflict the most possible damage on the US and its allies. There?s just no possible way to justify such a provision.

Full story »



Bill Clinton has stated that he has only sent one e-mail in his entire life. Is there any reason to believe that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the woman who couldn't figure out how to use a fax machine, was any more adept at sending an e-mail?

One thing almost exclusively omitted by the press is that Huma Abedin did in fact have her own e-mail account hosted on the Clinton server. []

The heading on the Hillary Clinton's email text may have read Hillary Clinton, but the fingers on the keyboard without doubt belonged to Huma Abedin.

Abedin made $135,000 a year as Clinton's deputy during a period in which she is reported to have raked in as much as $355,000 from consulting contracts.

Having a pipeline into the Clinton inner circle is an invaluable asset. And it is no secret that that pipeline ran directly through the office of Huma Abedin. And like the famous subway turn style - you have to put money in before you can get on board the Clinton gravy train.

There is known to have been at least 62,320 e-mails stored on the Clinton server. Of those 62,320 e-mails 30,490 were determined to be work-related and turned over to the State Dept. The remaining 31,830 e-mails were deemed "private and personal" and were deleted.
For a person as adverse to modern technology, as Mrs. Clinton claims to be, it seems somewhat absurd that she would amass more "personal e-mails" than State Department documents.

It is also well known that Huma Abedin has been the top aid and closest confidant of Hillary Clinton for more than two decades. Some have even suggested a sexual relationship existed between them. Should it surprise anyone that Hillary Clinton considered the e-mails between herself and Huma Abedin to be "private and personal" ?

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court has demanded that Clinton, her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin, provide assurances that they would not delete any federal records in their possession. (yeah, good luck with that judge)

Abedin and Mills have been asked by the State Department to submit all copies of records related to their government service in the wake of growing inquiries about her boss' unusual e-mail arrangement. They have disclosed plans to hand over additional batches of documents by the end of the month.
Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills

The most damning aspect of the whole Clinton scandal could very well ride on the revelation of what exactly has became of the bulk of Huma Abedin's e-mails. And even more damning to Hillary Clintons political career, and the entire Clinton Foundation, may be the disclosure of what is contained within the e-mail accounts of Hillary Clinton's shadow Huma Abedin.

With Hillary Clinton's poll numbers in a downward spiral, today may be an opportune time to get "Old Uncle Joe" Biden rolled off the political bench and pushed out as a replacement candidate. Whether he likes it or not.

Some Democrats have even suggested that Huma Abedin Weiner would be a far more knowledgeable and proficient candidate than either Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.

The Ghost of Hillary's E-mail Server Rises Again

The Ghost of Hillary's E-mail Server Rises Again


Hillary Clinton drew Republican fire Wednesday after falsely claiming she had never been subpoenaed for emails from her time as secretary of state.

It should be obvious that the only thing Hillary Clinton has gone "above and beyond" is her previous propensity for spewing outright lies.

Representative Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on Wednesday released a copy of a subpoena sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton, a day after she insisted in an interview that a subpoena was never issued. Mr. Gowdy emphasized:

"It couldn't be more plain. To state that you never received a subpoena, you did get one, in March. Your lawyer was on notice months before that, that this committee of Congress wanted your work-related emails."

Below is a screen shot of the subpoena issued by Rep. Gowdy.

Subpoena instructions include the following.

In accordance with the attached schedule instructions and definitions, you, Hillary R. Clinton, are required to produce all records in unredacted form described below:

1. For the time period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, any and all documents and communications in your possession, and/or sent from or received by the email addresses "," "," or any other email address or communications device used by you or another on your behalf, referring or relating to:

(a) Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli);

(b) weapons located or found in, imported or brought into, and/or exported or removed from Libya;

(c) the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11,2012 and September 12, 2012; or

(d) statements pertaining to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012.

It is obvious that Hillary Clinton's contention that she has never received a subpoena was a blatant outright lie.

It is also obvious that both Hillary Clinton and the State Department are doing everything in their power to stonewall against the release of any documentation concerning the Benghazi attack.

Appearing on CBS News? ?Face the Nation,? Rep. Gowdy told host John Dickerson that he met with Secretary of State John Kerry?s chief of staff privately ?without the drama? of a public grilling, but also without success. So their next meeting will be in a public forum, he said.

And it might not stop there.

?They haven?t given us emails for nine of the 10 senior aides that she [Clinton] had,?
?It?s been over a year, and we don?t have a single scrap of paper from nine of the 10.?
?If I don?t get satisfaction from that public interaction with his chief of staff, the next person to come explain to Congress why he has been so recalcitrant to turn over documents will be the secretary himself,?
?I want to get this investigation over with and he [Kerry] is the only thing standing between me and a completed investigation.?

The State Department's response was to complain that the multiple subpoena's scope was too broad and needed to be narrowed

Trey Gowdy said Friday that the Obama administration could speed up the Benghazi investigation if they turned over the requested relevant documents, but they haven't cooperated.

Gowdy told CNN's Brianna Keilar that his panel has been specific with the administration about the documents needed to be turned over for the investigation.

"They begged us to narrow it so we narrowed it," he said. "It's still like pulling teeth to get the information."

Gowdy told CNN that so far, the documents that have been turned over haven't been helpful toward their investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.

"You know what we got last week? We got 3,600 pages, half of which were press clippings, including articles about Richard Gere. So if that is their idea of complying with a congressional investigation, then we are going to be at this for a long time."

It is obvious that Mrs. Clinton has been avoiding the press and would dearly love to postpone any public appearance before the investigating committee until after the 2016 election.

But with Hillary's poll numbers in a downward spiral, it is also obvious that the

"Ugly Ghost of Hillary's E-mail Server"

threatens to derail her entire presidential campaign.


image - flag_debate.jpg


In response to the murder of nine black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina much ado and contention has been waged concerning the Confederate flag that has been displayed above the South Carolina Statehouse.

State officials put the Confederate battle flag atop the State House dome in 1962 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. image - sc_musieum.jpg
The flag stayed there for 38 years. In 2000, after years of protest, state lawmakers agreed to remove the flag from the dome and place it at the Confederate war memorial in front of the State House. The state then adopted two official holidays ? Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Confederate Memorial Day ? and erected an African-American history monument on the State House grounds.

image - flag_protester.jpgBut the compromise has not satisfied state and national civil rights leaders, who continue to press S.C. officials to remove the flag, which supporters say represents the state?s heritage.

Lawmakers from both parties have supported that call to take down the flag, as have many protesters in the state, some of whom gathered daily outside the Statehouse chanting, "Take it down. Take it down."
But the flag has supporters, too.
Perhaps a little more history is in order.

Historians have noted that the rush to war was the national "fad of the day" in 1861. Although Abraham Lincoln used the abolition of slavery to trigger the beginning of the war It is highly doubtful that many northern men of that day cared enough about the plight of the southern slaves to leave their own families, risk their own lives, and rush off to abolish slavery in the South.

image - north_soldiers.jpg Northerners saw the secession of southern states as treason against the Union. They argued that rich slave owners were using political power to take control of the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court, thus threatening the rights of the citizens of the North. They rushed off to war to punish the southern states for what they saw as treason.

Prior to 1860 the Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate (Abraham Lincoln) won the 1860 election. After Lincoln had won without carrying a single Southern state, many Southern land owners felt that disunion had become their only option. They felt as if they were losing representation. They believed northern (republican) policies restricted the export of cotton and tobacco and threatened the southern way of life.

image - south_soldier.jpgAlthough most of the southern generals and officers themselves were slave owners, or came from families that owned slaves, the vast majority of enlisted southern soldiers did not even own land let alone own slaves. The southern soldiers rushed off to war not to protect slavery, but to fight back against what they saw as oppression, by the newly elected northern government, that threatened the southern economy and southern way of life.

Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that no matter what a soldier thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes altered his reasons for continuing the fight."

One view among historians is that the Confederacy lost because, image - confederate-soldiers.jpgas E. Merton Coulter put it, "people did not will hard enough and long enough to win." Historian Armstead Robinson agrees, pointing to a class conflict in the Confederates army between the slave owners and the larger number of non-owners. He argues that the non-owner soldiers grew embittered about fighting to preserve slavery, and fought less enthusiastically as war took it's toll. He attributes the major Confederate defeats in 1863 at Vicksburg and Missionary Ridge to the class conflict that developed between the elite slave owners and non slave owning soldiers.

Prior to the war, South Carolina did more than any other Southern state to advance the notion that a state had the right to nullify federal laws and, even, secede from the United States. South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860.

On November 10, 1860 the General Assembly called for a Convention of the People of South Carolina to consider secession. The secession convention convened in Columbia on December 17 and voted unanimously, 169-0, to secede from the United States. When the ordinance was adopted on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first southern U.S. state to declare its secession from the Union. United States President James Buchanan declared the ordinance illegal but did not act to stop it.

image - battle_flag.jpgIn the debate about whether the confederate flag should be flown above the South Carolina State House it should be remembered that the confederate flag is a battle flag.
It is not a state flag.
To the people of the South in 1861, as well as today, the confederate flag was and remains today a symbol of freedom from those who seek to repress them.

More importantly it should be remembered that it was the elite Democrat Party members of the South Carolina State Legislature that so loved and embraced slavery that they voted to secede from the Union. If a flag deserves to be removed, it is the State flag that represents the state legislature, not the Confederate flag of the common people that deserves to be taken down.

If the South Carolina State Legislature votes to take down the Confederate flag so be it. Once again it is a vote of the legislature not the will the people.

But rather than whine your disapproval... wrap your selves in this beautiful symbol of freedom from repression. Display your flag NOT as a symbol of government, but as symbol of personal freedom. Embrace the removal of the flag from government institutions not as a loss, but as a triumph. Rejoice in the triumph that the spirit of freedom is no longer shackled to the staff of the government. The South need not rise again. It already has. The spirit of freedom cannot be legislated. It is born and lives only in the heart of freedom loving people. You may take the flag away from the government. But you will never succeed in taking the flag, nor the spirit of freedom it represents, away from the love of the common people.

image - wrap_flag.jpg


Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who announced his candidacy for president redently, put his political showmanship on display, as he became the first official candidate for the presidency in 2016.

Speaking without notes or a teleprompter and blending his family story seamlessly with an agenda for conservative change under his leadership, Cruz displayed, to brilliant effect, the skills that led his Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz to say he was the smartest student Dershowitz had ever taught.

Right on cue the MSM devolved into feeding frenzy mode in an attempt to define and besmirch the controversial senato'rs reputation and to scuttle his candidacy. Even before he barely managed to get his campaign off the ground.

Mr. Cruz, who has argued and won cases before the Supreme Court, (more times than any current member of Congress) seems to be taking it well in stride while enjoying all the media attention (and national name recognition).
MSNBC rolled out their goon squad, even before his announcement, to beat up on the first term senator. Mr. Cruz basically whistled unscathed all the way through the interview and in the end left his detractors deflated and belatedly in awe of his oratorical prowess.

If Hillary Clinton is more afraid of a debate with Ted Cruz than she is apprehensive of a congressional confrontation with Trey Gowdy... well I think her perception and dread is for good reason.

What difference at this point does it make ? Well I think Hillary Clinton -- at this point--- is toast. And the longer she stays in the race the more assuredly she will bear a white bread likeness to badly burnt toast.

I don't entirely agree with Ted Cruz on many issues and acknowledge he will face a strong stable of GOP rivals. Many of whom will arrive bearing lists of solid accomplishments which they will no doubt trumpet throughout the campaign.

But I have just about had it up to here, and here, and here, with Republicans trying to win the race saddled up on a bleating and self defeatingly lame RINO candidate.

Cruz will be an exciting and flamboyant presence in the contest for at least the next year. He?s too smart, too quick, and too independent not to leave his mark on the entire process.

So unless or until someone more adequate or palatable throws their hat into this electorial circus ring, I resign myself to assign my support, and designate my vote to this proud and rambunctious senator from the Great State of Texas.