Tag Archive for: Israel

Lebanese Christian Politician Attacks Israel

Noted Israeli-Canadian scholar Dr. Mordechai Nisan’s, latest book, War and Politics in Lebanon, reveals that very few Lebanese Christian politicians and commanders had a high level of ethics.  See “Engimatic Lebanon”, in the September 2015, New English Review. Those who didn’t lust after power were few. Some were powerless like Charles Malek and Fuad Bustany. Others are dying like Antoine Lahd. Or are in exile such as Etienne Sacr.  Nisan cites  the  example of Christian leaders, like Michel Aoun who have opted to form alliances with Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.  Another Nisan also drew attention to is Samir Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces political party. Nisan wrote, “Aoun and Geagea .. both tore Maronite unity into shreds and bloodshed.”

Geagea led the Lebanese Forces Christian militia from 1985 to 1990 in full alliance with Israel. That was before he was jailed by the Syrian-backed regime in 1994 for eleven years for “assassinations of Lebanese citizens”.

Now Samir Geagea has apparently made  a major ideological and strategic change of direction. In a surprising statement issued yesterday, Geagea attacked “the aggressive Israelis for their violence against Palestinians, and Israel’s suppression of Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem.”   Contrast this with his earlier condemnation of Hezbollah in the  January 2015 attacks by Hezbollah the killed two IDF soldiers near Mount Dov near the Lebanese border. The Algemeiner reported Geagea saying at the time: “Hezbollah has no right to implicate the Lebanese people in a battle with Israel. There is a government and a parliament which can decide on that.”?

This statement didn’t appear out of the blue.  Geagea and his wife MP Setrida Geagea had just returned from a visit to Qatar; a major supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The visit took place after sources revealed that Geagea’s political party went in quest of funding.  He had received Saudi petrodollars in the past, according to wikileaks.

However, the pro-Muslim Brotherhood  and pro-Hamas attitude of Geagea isn’t of recent origin. He  dispatched a member of his party’s political bureau, MP Antoine Zahra, to Gaza in support of Hamas. Geagea supporters argue that he needs to play the Sunni card to create a balance with Hezbollah and Iran.  Lebanese Christian sources dismiss the Sunni Shia reason. They say, “Geagea could have kept his connections to moderate Sunnis like Sa’ad Hariri.  However, he openly allied himself with Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas which is a huge mistake. It is about Petrodollars of course.”

Waging an attack on Israel to buy credit among Islamist fundamentalists is not a Geagea invention. Before him, another Lebanese Christian leader General Michel Aoun who fought Assad in 1989 and went into exile for 15 years, reversed his position  upon his return to Lebanon in 2005.  He openly sealed an alliance with Hezbollah.  Aoun engaged in a decade long alliance with Assad, Hezbollah and Iran. Thus the two most powerful Christian politicians, who have fought the radical Islamists and Iran in the past, have become allies to the Jihadists, both Sunnis and Shia.  All to the surprise of  veterans of both the Lebanese Forces militia and the Lebanese Army.

In the 1980s, another former commander of the Christian militia, a close ally of Israel, Elie Hobeika, also  reversed course and shifted from being anti Assad to becoming an ally of the Syrian regime in 1985. He was attacked by both Geagea and Aoun in 1986 and removed from East Beirut. Ironically Geagea and Aoun, years later also abandoned their Lebanese Christian legacy to become allies with either Hamas or Hezbollah.

A Lebanese Christian scholar living in Beirut, who knew both Aoun and Geagea, said “this is a sickness of power. We haven’t seen anything like that when Bashir Gemayel was alive.  Geagea and Aoun are  power hungry. They abandoned their people and are aligning with radicals just  hoping one day they will snatch the supreme office of President of the Lebanese Republic. This is disgusting. We blame Geagea more, because he once led a force that was the heart of the Lebanese Christian resistance. He knew better, his betrayal is bigger.”

Geagea, we note,  fell short of  the  65 Parliamentary votes needed in the April 2014 election to succeed Michel Sleiman’s term as the Maronite President in the confessional political system. He only got 48 votes.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Samir Geagea  Christian Lebanese Forces political leader.

NYU Professor Ali Adeeb Alnaemi: Muslims hate the U.S. because of Israel

Alnaemi’s answers here are slick and often quite dishonest by omission, but still at times revealing. He says jihad is “mostly for defense,” thereby leaving the door open to offensive jihad. In the main, with his finger-pointing he provides yet another example of how colleges are today dreary centers of anti-American indoctrination, not centers of genuine intellectual exploration. Much more below.

“Deciphering Jihad: A chat with NYU Prof. Ali Adeeb Alnaemi,” by Gary Levine, Naples Herald, September 10, 2015:

…For purposes of clarification, I visited the Islamic Supreme Council web site to find a definitive explanation of “Jihad.”

According to the site, “The Arabic word “jihad” is often translated as “holy war,” but in a purely linguistic sense, the word “jihad” means struggling or striving.”

“In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), “jihad” has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam. If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents – such as women, children, or invalids – must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.”

The Council additionally indicates that “Jihad is not a violent concept. Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Quran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’ who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.”

Whoa! Clearly, the acts and behaviours demonstrated by Islamic extremists do not adhere to these teachings.

“It is worth noting that the Quran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’ who should be protected and respected,” says the Islamic Supreme Council. But this is what the Qur’an also says: ““Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)

I sought to learn more and perhaps obtain an understanding of that which is unfolding in Syria, Iraq and other Middle-Eastern regions. To do so, I reached out to NYU Professor Ali Adeeb Alnaemi, a wealth of knowledge in the areas of Middle Eastern politics. Having worked as the News Editor for the New York Times Baghdad Bureau, as an Arabic language instructor and writer for a number of publications, I was confident that he could offer clarity to a poorly understood crisis.

Gary Levine: Professor Alnaemi…most Westerners have a finite understanding…perhaps a misunderstanding…of the Quran. We try to contemplate the violence performed in the name of the Quran…and wonder how messages from God could be so skewed by violent Islamic jihadists. The Quran states “do not cause corruption on the earth.” Can you shed any light on the mentality behind all of this aggression?

Professor Ali Adeeb Alnaemi: “Skewing the meaning of the verses of the Quran is a result of a preconceived intention to manipulate religion for political purposes. For example, there are verses in the Quran that talk about war against infidels and encourages the Prophet and the Muslims to fight them to spread the word of God. But these verses talking about “Jehad” were restricted by the circumstances and the time period. The interpreters of the Quran and most of the scholars say that these verses of Jehad have to be under the control of government nowadays. It is similar to saying that we have to fight terrorism, but should the defense department do it or should Americans simply carry weapons and kill whoever they think is a terrorist without any rules or restrictions?

“The interpreters of the Quran and most of the scholars say that these verses of Jehad have to be under the control of government nowadays.” That actually refers only to offensive jihad, which according to Islamic law is up to the caliph to call. But in the absence of a caliph, defensive jihad must be waged by every Muslim if a Muslim land is attacked.

Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik (“The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,”) says this: “Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.”

The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools of Sunni jurisprudence further declare that jihad, once it is fard ‘ayn, is no different from prayer and fasting — in other words, to engage in warfare with non-Muslims in that case is a religious devotion that cannot lawfully be evaded. Hashiyah Ibn `Abidin, an authoritative text of the Hanafi school, says that jihad is “fard ‘ayn if the enemy has attacked part of the Islamic homeland. It thus becomes an obligation like salah [prayer] and fasting which cannot be abandoned.”

In sum, then, Islamic law does indeed provide justification for individual Muslims committing acts of jihad, without permission from a government.

The way ISIS has interpreted the Quran ignores the rules that Islamic scholars have put in place for the past 14 centuries of their work. Jehad should be mostly for defense not as an aggression. People of the book, which is a description of the Jews and Christians, should be treated with respect and can keep their faith without exerting any pressure on them. Waging any war has to be the responsibility of the ruler and not just a random call by anyone. Of course they consider Baghdadi as their ruler but this is an issue for debate. The scholars who provide the ideological basis for ISIS have ignored these rules and took only the literal interpretation of the verses and made it even legitimate to kill Muslims who disagree with them, let alone people of other religions.”

“Jehad should be mostly for defense not as an aggression.” Note how carefully the professor is speaking: if jihad is “mostly” for defense,” then apparently there are circumstances under which aggression is permitted. But he doesn’t explain that. And he doesn’t mention that the “respect” supposedly owed to the People of the Book does not preclude their paying the jizya and accepting second-class dhimmi status, as per Qur’an 9:29.

Gary Levine: ISIS/ISIL has chosen to destroy artifacts in the Mosul Museum…the Temple of Bel…wall carvings…to name a few. Can you help us understand the reasoning behind the destruction of these treasures…some of which are UNESCO Heritage Sites?

Professor Ali Adeeb Alnaemi: “The destruction of these artifacts is part of the Wahhabi sect which follows a very strict interpretation of polytheism. The founder of this sect, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (1703-1791) destroyed all the shrines in the Arab peninsula in the eighteenth century that were built on the graves of the companions of the prophet claiming that people were worshipping them instead of God. Therefore, all other statues of old Roman Gods, Buddha statues and any other artifacts belonging to older religions are consider symbols of polytheism.

We only can wonder why early Muslims who accompanied the prophet and took the teaching directly from him allowed these artifacts to remain intact in the countries thy conquered in the early years of the Islamic state. ISIS militants are definitely not more religious than early Muslims. This is simply an evidence of how skewed their understanding of Islam is.”

“We only can wonder why early Muslims who accompanied the prophet and took the teaching directly from him allowed these artifacts to remain intact in the countries thy conquered in the early years of the Islamic state.” Maybe they lacked the means to do otherwise. But the destroyers have justification within Islamic texts. A hadith has Muhammad saying: “Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it” (Sahih Muslim 969).

Gary Levine: There are quite a few Islamic terrorist groups functioning around the world…ISIS/ISIL, the Haqqani Network, Kataib Hezbollah, to name a few. They possess a discernible hatred for the United States and the West. Can you clarify the basis for this hatred?

Professor Ali Adeeb Alnaemi: “The hatred started earlier in the Arab world because of the unconditional American support to Israel. The war on Afghanistan and Iraq and its poor planning and catastrophic results made things worse and showed that the US is targeting Muslims around the world. Moreover, the US is accused of supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East that oppress people and deprive them of their basic political and human rights. Therefore, the only way to fight all of that is to rebel against the US and its agents in the region using extreme religious interpretations hoping to go back in time and build a superpower for Muslims like the Ummayad or the Abbasid states.”…

You see, it’s all the fault of U.S. foreign policy, not the jihad imperative. The subtext is that if the U.S. would change its policies to suit Muslims, the jihad would disappear. But it wouldn’t, because even as Alnaemi has acknowledged, it is “mostly” (which is in itself debatable) but not entirely defensive. And what about all the jihad warfare that conquered lands all over the world long before there was a State of Israel, or a United States of America? What about the jihadis who are fighting against unbelievers thousands of miles from Israel?

safe_imageRELATED ARTICLES:

Migrants fake being Syrian to claim European asylum

Australia: Cops have kept 116 jihadis from going abroad since July

EDITORS NOTE: New York University has a branch in Abu Dhabi.

Stop Iran Rally in Washington, D.C.: Remarks by Hispanic Pastor Mario Bramnick

End the Iran Deal rally on September 8th, 2015 in Washington, D.C. at the Capitol West Lawn. Remarks by Pastor Mario Bramnick, President of the Hispanic Israel Leadership Coalition.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Iran deal bait-and-switch – The Boston Globe

Will Republicans Protest and Litigate to Stop Iran Nuclear Pact?

stop iran rally september 9thWhere there were five undeclared Democrat Senators on the cusp of reconvening Congress, today there is only one, Ms. Cantwell from Washington State. Three Democrat Senators: Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Gary Price of Michigan declared for the President’s position. Two of the three Democrat Senators who declared for the President position, Blumenthal and Wyden are up for re-election in 2016, while Price is not. The lone Democrat who joined with the Republican majority to oppose the Iran Pact is West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin.

In a statement released by his office, Manchin said, “I believe that to be a super power, you must possess super diplomatic skills, and I believe that we can use these skills to negotiate a better deal.”

That leaves possibly 58 Senators, 54 Republicans and four Democrats opposing the Iran nuclear pact. That is two shy of the required 60 votes for cloture under the current Senate Rule 22 to cut off a filibuster. A vote on the majority resolutions rejecting the Iran pact could be scheduled as early as Thursday. That is, if the promised filibuster led by Senator Minority Democrat Leader Reid doesn’t stop the vote first.

Reid unleashed the filibuster option on Saturday, September 5th. White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest said Tuesday, September 8th:

It would be a little ironic for now Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to express concerns about a tactic that he, himself, employed on countless occasions. The other thing that I’ll point out is that the 60 vote threshold is actually one that was approved by the 98 senators who voted for the Corker-Cardin legislation back in the spring.

Opponents of the Iran nuclear pact circulated a letter on Capitol Hill today signed by 15 governors including  four  Republican hopefuls; Jindal of Louisiana, Christie of New Jersey, Kasich of Ohio and Walker of Wisconsin.  Republican majority and other opponents of the filibuster floor maneuver by minority Democrats criticize it for denying an up or down vote on the measure that Americans in leading polls taken by a 2 to 1 margin have urged Congress to reject the Iran deal.  Harvard law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, author of The Case Against the Iran Deal said in a Steve Malzberg Show interview on NewsMax TV, September 3, 2015:

As an opponent of the deal, a filibuster would be a good result because it would deny legitimacy to the deal. The American public is not going to accept a deal that was filibustered. Let’s remember what a filibuster is. It was a southern strategy designed to undo democracy and to offend equality.

Dershowitz drew attention to the quandary that Israel and PM Netanyahu would face if the Iran pact was approved:

I know Benjamin Netanyahu. I’ve known him since 1973. He is not going to sit back and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

This deal makes it much harder for Israel to defend its people.

In a Washington Post opinion article by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), member of the House Permanent Intelligence Committee, and Constitutional lawyer, David B. Rivkin, Jr.  Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies argued that the failure to deliver a side deal might void the Iran pact. Further they raised the prospect of   possible litigation against the President on the grounds that the he didn’t deliver the requisite information. They were especially concerned about the IAEA side agreements with Iran to prepare a Road Map on prior military developments. Aversion of which was leaked with provisions for self inspection at the military site of Parchin, Iran.  That Road Map is a condition for release of $100 billion in sequestered funds held by US and foreign financial institutions.    Switzerland has already released their sanctions and Russia and China are poised to release their holdings. The EU3 component of the P5+1 are already in discussions with Tehran over billions of trade deals preventing a possible snap back of sanctions should Iran be found cheating on a sneak out to a nuclear weapon.  A weapon that some believe it may already have and be able to possibly via a satellite launch.

The Pompeo- Rivkin Washington Post opinion was earlier supported by Jerome Marcus, Esq. in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, An Informed Vote on the Iran Deal.”  Marcus suggested  based on his experience as a young lawyer assisting former State Department counsel, Abraham Sofaer in the Reagan era,   executive agreements like JCPOA with far reaching implications should be treated as if it was a treaty.  Marcus concluded:

The lesson for today is clear: When a legislative body is deciding whether to approve an international agreement, especially one as important as the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, its members have the right to access the agreement’s negotiating record. Members of Congress should demand that record now, and they should examine it, before they cast their votes.

To bring such a suit Dr. Robert B. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, Esq. suggested in a FrontpageMagazine article that the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell should undertake the following steps:

Emergency Prescription for Senate:  [1]—Pass rule that abolishes the filibuster; [2]—Pass resolution declaring the Iran nuke deal to be a “treaty”; [3]—Defeat the deal; and [4]—Sue President Obama to enjoin him from implementing the deal.

The procedures for initiating the first critical step, achieving cloture cutting off the threatened filibuster, are contained in two relevant Congressional Research Service reports; Considerations for Changes in Senate Rules by Richard S. Beth, January 2013 and Filibusters and Cloture by Beth and Valerie Heitschusen, December 2014.

Sklaroff heard Dershowitz at a presentation in Cherry Hill, New Jersey on September 2nd.  He reported on Dershowitz’s remarks and response:

On September 2, Dershowitz, at the Jewish Community Center in Cherry Hill, N.J., amplified on this viewpoint, quoting Federalist 64:  “The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good.”

When I [discussed] with him the necessity to sue Obama, he initially raised concern that this would be discarded as a “political question.” “Who would sue?” he asked rhetorically. “Senator McConnell!” said I. “Well, it’s a possibility, because he would have standing, representing the Senate.”

Has such a suit been brought by the Senate against President Obama and the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of executive overreach of lawful authorities?   There is the example of the Supreme Court   June 2014 unanimous ruling against the President for his three day recess appointment of National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Protection officials in 2012 that required approval by  the Senate.  The original matter was brought by a Washington State bottler and a decision rendered in the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals by Judge David B. Sentelle. Note the comments of the Republican Counsel for the Senate and then Senate Majority Leader Reid from a Washington Post article:

Miguel Estrada, who represented Senate Republicans in the case, called the ruling a victory for the Senate. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Senate’s power to prescribe its own rules, including the right to determine for itself when it is in session, and rejected the President’s completely unprecedented assertion of unilateral appointment power,” he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blamed Senate Republicans for denying nominees a chance to be confirmed through a vote of the full chamber. “President Obama did the right thing when he made these appointments on behalf of American workers.”

Tomorrow, September 9, 2015, Democrat Presidential front runner Hillary Clinton former Secretary of State, embroiled in a private email server controversy, will make the case for support of the President’s position.  She has previously gone on record saying:

The Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, they’re gonna say we agreed with the Americans, I guess their president can’t make foreign policy. That’s a very bad signal to send.

Clinton will be a minor distraction from the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) Stop Iran Now Rally chaired by Jenny Beth Martin on the West Lawn of the US Capitol Building with a cast of media luminaries in the opposition camp.  The event is co-sponsored by TPP, Zionist Organization of America and the Center for Security Policy. The roster of those speaking includes TPP head Martin, Republican Presidential front runner Donald Trump, fellow Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (R-TX), Conservative talk show Hosts Glen Beck and Mark Levin, David Bossie of Citizens United, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Chairman of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, former CIA-director, Ambassador R. James Woolsey, Chairman of the FDD, Frank Gaffney of the CSP, Sarah Stern of EMET and Mort Klein of the ZoA. This will be a media spectacle.

Late this afternoon, my colleague at 1330amWEBY Mike Bates, host of “Your Turn”, and I reviewed these developments.  Listen to the WEBY audio segment here.  Bates observed that the motivation behind these political maneuverings was President Obama’s objective all along to bolster Iran’s position in the Middle East as a recognized nuclear threshold state threatening traditional support for Allies in the region, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt. Bates thought the Reid filibuster play was simply a travesty of politics as usual in Washington.   In turn we both discussed the strange case of Florida US. Representative and Democratic National Committee head, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who has infuriated segments of her large but divided Jewish constituency.  In her public statement she said tearfully that from her “Jewish heart” the Iran pact, as defective as it is, was the correct thing to do.  We concurred that the filibuster if not upended by a Republican cloture to force an up or down vote would enable her and other Democrat colleagues up for re-election in 2016 to claim that there was never a vote. Political cover that comes at a high price of Iran receiving tens of billions now with promises of trillions in economic trade benefits. All while harboring secret development of nuclear weapons threatening the U.S. and Israel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Many U.S. Troops Were Killed By Iranian IEDs in Iraq?

Iran Could Outsource Its Nuclear Program to North Korea

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Video Message to the U.S. Congress: Tear Up the Iran Deal — Pass a Resolution Killing It!

This video presents a straightforward analysis as to why the United States Congress should rip up the Iran deal and instead pass a Resolution rejecting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Iran, the number one state sponsor of Islamic terror.

The rejection of the JCPOA is based up the Senator Corker Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, signed by President Obama, which prohibits a vote of disapproval if the complete deal, including any side deals between Iran and any other parties are not handed over to Congress for their proper and professional review.

Our analysis is based upon the outstanding and extensive work of former U.S. Prosecutor, Andy McCarthy.

For an excellent summary, see Andy McCarthy’s National Review article “Obama’s Iran Deal Is Still far from Settled.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama, It’s Time to Reverse Course on Iran Deal

VIDEO: Six Patriots explain why the Iran Nuke Deal is a ‘Bad Deal’ for U.S.

The United West video taped six American patriots on the Iran nuclear deal. These six distinguished individuals include: a Rabbi, a former Iranian prisoner and dissident, a gold star father, a wounded warrior veteran of Iraq, a retired Army Lieutenant General and a former CIA operations officer.

A statement by William Kristol, Chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, on the potential vote in Congress on the Iran deal reads:

“The Obama Administration has not complied with the legal requirement that it provide Congress ‘any additional materials’ related to the Iran deal, including ‘side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.’ The Administration has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, one which describes how key questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as how the verification regime will work.

“Congress should not accept this evasion of the law by the Obama Administration. Congress should insist on the text of this and any other side agreements. Lacking this, Congress can and should take the position that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress to review, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions.

“We understand the temptation of leadership to get to a vote on a resolution of disapproval and then to move on to other votes. But the Iran deal isn’t just another legislative issue where some corner-cutting by the Administration is to be accepted with a brief expression of discontent followed by a weary sigh of resignation.

“The Iran deal is the most important foreign policy issue this Congress will have before it. Congress should rise to the occasion and insist on its prerogative — and the American people’s prerogative — to see the whole deal. The first resolution the House should consider when it returns tomorrow should be one stating that Congress has not been provided the material it needs, that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions on Iran.”

Please take the time to watch all the videos or one that interests you the most. It is important to keep the pressure on those 34 Democrat U.S. Senators who have decided that the interests of Iran far outweigh the interests of the American people.

Thanks for taking the time to watch, share and send this compilation to your U.S. Senators and member of Congress.

VIDEO #1: Billy Vaughn and Staff Sargent Robert Bartlett. Gold Star father Billy Vaughn and U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Ret.) Robert Bartlett urge everyone to call their Congressman and Senators to vote NO on the Iran Deal. Our soldiers died and sacrificed for your freedoms, pay them back by simply making your voice heard.

VIDEO #2: LTG Jerry Boykin. Retired U.S. Army General Jerry Boykin is one of America’s most significant leaders on national security issues, including Iran’s march to Atomic weapons. Moreover, Boykin is an ordained Minister serving as the Executive Vice President at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. Listen to this his critically important and insightful analysis of the Obama/Iran Nuclear Deal.

VIDEO #3: Amir Fakhravar. Amir Abbas Fakhravar, (Siavash) is an Iranian jailed dissident and award winning writer. Amir exposes the Blindfolded inspection procedure under the current Iran deal. Currently Fakhravar serves as Research Fellow and Visiting Lecturer at the Institute of World Politics.

VIDEO #4: Clare Lopez. Clare Lopez is a retired CIA Operations Officer, currently VP of Research & Analysis at Center for Security Policy. Recently in Montecito California she presented an amazing, short, insightful deconstruction of this horrendous deal that President Obama has made with the Iranian Ayatollah.

VIDEO #5: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg. Unedited footage of Efrem Goldberg protesting Joe Biden on the Iran deal in Broward County FL, at a Jewish Community Center.

VIDEO #6: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg at his Boca Raton synagogue. Senior Rabbi at the prestigious Boca Raton Synagogue in Florida delivers a powerful, on-point message against the Obama Iran Nuclear deal. Please listen to this very brave man!

VIDEO #7: Ryan Mauro, Research Analyst for the Clarion Project, producers of award-winning documentaries on national security issues presents a powerful deconstruction of the Iran/Obama Nuke Deal at the Montecito Luncheon Briefing.

The Narrowness of the C-Span

C-Span’s mission for the past 35 years has allegedly been to make government more open to the American public, providing 8,000 hours of programming to 100 million American homes. While C-Span is committed to carrying Congressional proceedings in their entirety, sans editing, and claims no filtering to distort viewpoints, it abandons these lofty ideals of impartiality, honesty, and fair-mindedness on other occasions. The daily, three-hour talk show, Washington Journal (WJ), is a hate-fest that welcomes callers with their non-stop barrage of abuses and invectives directed solely at Jews and Israel, with no other creed, ethnicity or nation on the planet so vilified. In complete compliance with the indoctrinal hate speech of Islamism and Fascism, the hosts routinely encourage callers’ bigotry and propaganda, without interruption or correction, while averting negative comments about other groups.

One such caller attempted a comparison of drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed with the age-old demonization that Jews killed Jesus, calling the latter an “historical fact.” History and the Christian Scriptures unequivocally confirm that Jesus died at the hands of the Roman rulers of Judea, by the Roman method of crucifixion, and that, in fact, the followers of Jesus were Jews. Further, Pope Paul VI rejected the collective guilt accusation in 1965, and Pope Benedict XVI asserted there is nothing in Scripture that would place the culpability on the Jewish people. Yet, C-Span’s host maintained silence, thereby lending credibility to the caller’s renewed ancient accusation of deicide against the Jewish people.

Many rotating WJ moderators, such as Peter Slen, accept rambling anti-Semitic calls that derogatorily claim U.S. Congressmen have dual citizenship with Israel; that blame Jews for America’s entry into the Middle East, for the destruction of the World Trade Center, for being “too white” to belong in Israel, for the US’s failing banking system and Federal Reserve, for causing wars around the world, for manipulating the world’s oil supply, for dropping white phosphorus (which is neither a chemical weapon nor weapon at all), and all manner of conspiratorial accusations and defamation. C-Span also provided full program time for Medea Benjamin, a radical, left-wing activist for Code Pink, a self-described peace and social justice movement that promotes BDS (boycott-divestment-sanctions) against Israel.

While these are certainly issues that should be addressed by the C-Span because they are malicious, deceptive and libelous, C-Span’s conspiratorial silence aids in nourishing the public with false information, jihadi lies that can ultimately endanger the lives of all Israeli and American citizens. The arrangement allows the under-informed and the misinformed to remain biased, to be incapable of discerning friend from foe, to be more compliant in accepting the end of our Constitutional liberties and having them replaced with Marxist principles now being taught in our schools. Demonizing and delegitimizing Jews, Judaism and Israel brings us one step closer to vilifying Christianity and America, and putting Americans under Marxist or Islamic law.

Israel is a land of incredible diversity, an open society with consistent attention to democracy for all religions and ethnicities. Israel’s work ethic, a commitment that dates back to the Biblical Jacob and Joseph, is the driving force behind the country’s astonishing progress and contributions to other nations. The only stable, reliable expert and unconditional ally of the U.S., Israel is always at the ready, acting as America’s beachhead and “America’s largest aircraft carrier,” supplying us with more intelligence than all NATO countries combined – an effective ally against jihad, providing homeland security training for US airport security and police departments; counter-intelligence training, and defense against cyberspace sabotage.

Israel shares her knowledge and equipment in technology and security with the U.S. and countless innovations and inventions with mankind – including recent eye sight restoration for 90 patients in Kyrgystan; water expertise with U.S. cities and 131 Indian villages; greenhouse technology for the Philippines; successful treatment for Alzheimer’s; new lung cancer tests; a device to treat Peripheral Artery Disease, and Israel’s ExAblate system that provides pain management from bone metastases. Israel is also among the first responders to bio-terrorism and natural disasters worldwide, with hospitals, experienced staff, and equipment; Boston, MA General Hospital (Boston Marathon Bombers) received its training from Israel Disaster First Responders. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is a source of relief for people throughout the world, and oversees the daily delivery of 20,000 tons of food brought in 600+ trucks into Gaza. In short, Israel is dedicated to helping the world with her medical and technological innovations, yet we hear nothing of this vital information discussed on C-Span.

In contrast, there is no diversity in Islamic countries. Where there may still be pockets of Christian Yazidis, more than 3,000 have been kidnapped for sexual slavery, conversion, or slaughter. We have evidence of the ever-increasing brutality perpetrated by the Islamic State; the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of women currently held in sexual bondage; and the complete destruction of historical evidence of the conquered culture. Islam is dedicated to governing new infidels under Sharia law, inventing new means of torture and death, and designing new prohibitions for women.  Does C-Span ever expose the brutality of ISIS and other jihadi organizations to their audience?

The Palestinian Authority honors and embraces terrorists who murder Israeli children, their rewards as much as four times the average civil servant’s salary. Schools, summer camps, sporting events, and town squares are named to venerate murderers. In May, 2013, the official PA TV honored Palestinian terrorists responsible for the death of 156 Israeli civilians. Photos of the butchered victims in pools of blood are posted on Facebook as “heroic operations,” and seen as fulfilling Islam. Muslims derive their identity and raison d’etre from Koranic literature, central to which is the death and destruction of those who will not accept Islam’s religion and Sharia laws.  These unpalatable facts remain unaddressed by C-Span.

Interestingly, Canadian Jew, Steve Maman, inspired by Oskar Schindler, formed the nonprofit Liberation of Christian and Yazidi Children of Iraq (CYCI), dedicated to freeing those captured by terrorists for sexual slavery by ISIS. We are our brother’s keeper. We are all responsible for our survival and our country, and C-Span’s role in this should be to provide its listeners with the plain truths about both Islam and Israel.

Two American Jews get lost in Hebron, “Palestinians” firebomb their car

But deep down, they really, really want peace!

“2 American yeshiva students hurt in Hebron firebombing,” Times of Israel, September 3, 2015:

Five American yeshiva students were attacked by Palestinians in Hebron after they got lost in the West Bank city on Thursday.

Two of the students, residents of Brooklyn, NY were lightly-to-moderately injured in the riot that ensued after they accidentally entered the southern part of the predominantly Palestinian city, while en route to the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Palestinian assailants firebombed their car, setting it alight, according to the Walla news website.

The group was whisked away by a local, who let them hide in his house until Israel security forces arrived to extract them.

The two injured ultra-Orthodox students were evacuated for medical treatment.

“I heard shouts outside, I left my house and saw the five Jews frantically leaving their car, which was attacked by stones,” Faiz Abu Hamadiah, 51, told the NRG news site. “They were very anxious, one was injured and bleeding from his face. I reassured down. I told them in Hebrew that it will be okay, I gave them water, and I helped the injured man.

“I told them they were safe in my house. Immediately afterward they called the police, and I sent teenagers to call the army to take them to the checkpoint.

“I did the right thing,” he added, dismissing concerns of being branded a “collaborator” with Israel by his neighbors. “The people that threw stones at them and torched their car did a bad thing. We need to live here together.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Pakistan: 49 madrassas linked to terror orgs, jihad literature seized from madrassa

VIDEO: The ‘Nine Red Lines’ in the Iran Nuke Deal

Here are my remarks at the “Stop Iran Now” luncheon in Santa Barbara, California on August 30th, 2015.

I briefly outline the Center for Security Policy’s Nine Red Lines, which make this Iran Nuclear deal a bad one for the United State, Israel and the Western world.

To read more about the Nine Red Lines of the Iran Nuclear Agreement click here.

Lebanon: Unraveling the Enigma

Politics and War in Lebanon book coverTo paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Lebanon is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Unraveling the Lebanese enigma is the objective of a new book by Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Politics and War in Lebanon. Nisan is an accomplished Israeli political scientist and retired Hebrew University lecturer. His  body of work covers Zionism, Islam, Arab history, minority peoples, Lebanon, U.S. Middle East policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is rare that a book achieves its objective of unraveling the complex nuances of the Lebanon puzzle in both an astute and yet literate manner. Dr. Nisan has views on many issues including why the 80 year old confessional political system persists and has resilience. It has a lot to do with the adoption of the Maronite Christian independence ethos arising from the historic resistance against centuries of Muslim and later Ottoman rule under Islamic Sharia law.

The confessional political system maintains, a Maronite as President, Sunni as Premier and Shiite as Speaker of the Lebanese National Assembly. The Lebanese Parliament has 128 members split equally between Christians and Muslims elected to four year terms in multi-member constituencies, which often produces unexpected alliances. Nisan writes: “the idea of a numerical democracy for Lebanon, as for all typical democratic states, had been, as we know, rejected in favor of political confessionalism by assigning office according to a sectarian key.” Of course the Lebonese paradox was assisted by the fact that it only had one census back in 1932 that reflected a Maronite Christian majority which has since dwindled due to war, emigration and the demographic rise of both Sunni and Shia. Even during the period of the internal wars triggered by Palestinians against the Maronite hegemony that began in 1975, there were episodes where Druze, Shia and Sunni militias protected the precinct of the Maronite patriarch. The confessional political system remains durable despite the inroads made by external enemies like Syria, the Palestinians and internal ones, like Iran’s proxy Hezbollah dominating the country’s southern border and Eastern Bekaa Valley adjoining Syria.

There is also the long standing history of Maronite Christian – Zionist mutual respect that has never been recognized in formal agreements. Yet that figures prominently in understanding  the role of Israel in episodic military operations in Lebanon – dislodging PLO-Fatah terrorist armies, only to have them replaced with Shia Hezbollah forces occupying the Southern security belt that the IDF abandoned in 2000. Now, that Southern border is crenellated with underground fortifications and tunnels, equipped with over 150,000 Iranian-supplied rockets and missiles. That could figure significantly in a new Middle East War arising from a possible nuclear deal with Hezbollah’s creator, Iran. Nisan considers that episode one of Israel’s most abject geo-political failures.

Among the issues addressed in Nisan’s timely and cogent book is the political disintegration triggered by the Palestinian war on the Maronites in 1975. He addresses the Israeli incursion in 1978 and First Israeli Lebanese War in 1982 that ousted Yassir Arafat and Fatah-PLO leaders sending them packing under UN auspices to Tunisia and nine other countries. Nevertheless, he is critical of Israel’s pell mell abandonment of the southern security belt, held by the IDF and the South Lebanese Army (SLA) in alliance with Israel. The evacuation was ordered by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in May 2000. That catastrophe gave rise to the Hezbollah takeover and ethnic cleansing of South Lebanon. There is also the nearly 20 year predatory Syrian occupation of large sections of Lebanon that began in 1976.

Nisan has nothing but contempt for the behavior of the Assad Syrian regime of both father and son in what could only be characterized as the virtual looting of Lebanon’s economic and natural resources. There were Syrian companies grabbing Lebanese tenders, Syrian officials  pocketing tax revenues and running a protection extortion racket with local businesses. The results were a once vibrant economy faltering, with unemployment and poverty soaring. He notes that Syria never recognized an independent Lebanon in 1946. He considers the Syrian occupation the equivalent of the Nazi Anschluss of Austria comparing Lebanese Sunni and Orthodox Christians as the equivalent of pan-Germanic Austrians, because the latter identified strongly with both Syria and being Arab.

Nisan contends that the Israeli justification for the Southern withdrawal in 2000 was faulty. It was based on the following logic:

  1. Israel had to dismantle the SLA to comply with UN Resolution 425 of March 1978 that called for Israel to withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory.
  2. Hezbollah would overwhelm and murder its Christian and Shiite elements prompted by the memories of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp massacres.
  3. That if the SLA put up resistance against Hezbollah that it might complicate withdrawal leading to a possible return by Israel to assist its former allies.
  4. Israel sacrificed the SLA as a necessity to assure that Hezbollah not interfere with Israel’s withdrawal from the South.

Nisan believes that the debacle that occurred in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal might have been prevented if:

  1. Israel had bolstered the SLA as an independent force.
  2. Israel might have disarmed both the SLA and Hezbollah.
  3. Israel had called upon Syrian Forces to withdraw simultaneously with the IDF.

He concludes, “In Lebanon, Israel was drained of its political and public energy, had done little strategic planning, and in the end lacked a moral compass.”

Nisan notes the three signal events that occurred in 2000:

  1. In May the Israeli Army withdrew from Southern Lebanon and likewise forced the collapse of its SLA ally there.
  2. In June President Assad of Syria died and was succeeded by his son Bashar.
  3. Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, and a variety of political personalities, both Christian and Muslim, called for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.

In mid-July 2015, a worldwide gathering of Lebanese activists occurred in Washington, DC in the First Convention on the Cedars Revolution. It was the commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the Cedars Revolution. Several sessions were held with Members of Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon. The issues they addressed concerned the preservation of democracy in Lebanon’s confessional political system, military and security matters with the incursion of Syrian forces, reminiscent of original issue that ignited the Cedars Revolution in March 2005. It is indicative of the abiding concerns of the Lebanese and largely Christian diaspora, estimated at upwards of 14 million.

Even during several Arab Israeli conflicts, Lebanon stayed out of the conflicts. After the failure of the 1970 Black September campaign between PLO-Fatah forces and the Kingdom of Jordan, Yassir Arafat and Palestinian resistance leadership were given sanctuary in Lebanon. Less than five years later, Arafat fomented open warfare on Christians in a ferocious and bloody conflict. It was during that period that Lebanese Maronite leaders like Etienne Sakr (Abu Arz) and Pierre Gemayel reached out to Israel whose military covertly provided training and equipment to Christian militia forces. There were hopes of an eventual enduring peace between Lebanon and Israel. That possibility ended with the assassination on September 15, 1982 of Maronite President-Elect and leader of Lebanese Forces Bashir Gemayel of the Phalange Party. He was allegedly on his way to conclude a treaty with Israel in Jerusalem.

Nisan addresses the transformation of Lebanese Shia under Sayyid Fadlaallah from willing confessional participants to Sharia infused support of an Islamic state, reducing the dominant Maronite and other Christians to dhimmi status. Along with that, Fadlaallah denied Israel’s legitimacy and boosted the Palestinian cause against the “Zionist enterprise.” Instead of involving himself in the Lebanon political structure, Fadlaallah sought out the means of supporting jihad, through zakat, Muslim charity. The person who completed the transformation of Lebanon’s Shia was Imam Musa al-Sadr who, in the political chaos of the mid-1970’s, created the Movement for the Disinherited (al Harakat al-Muhrimum) to promote Shiite social equality and political activism and its companion military wing, Amal (“Hope”). Sadr disappeared in 1978 on a flight to Rome under mysterious circumstances. Leadership of Amal fell to successors Hussein al-Husseini, who later became Speaker, and ultimately, lawyer Nabih Berri. Berri sought resistance against the PLO in the 1970’s and 1980’s including laying siege to Palestinian refugee camps. However, the ultimate destination of Lebanon’s Shia community was to Iranian theocratic influence emanating from Shia seminaries in Iraq. The pro-Khomeinist returnees from Najaf provided fertile grounds to build Hezbollah – the party of God, a Qur’anic designation. Nisan notes that the ultimate leadership of Hezbollah was drawn from Southerners like Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Abdul Karim Obeid, graduates of the apocalyptic Twelver seminary in Qom, Iran. By 1982, 1,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were stationed in the Bekaa Valley training young Lebanese Shia fighters in Khomeinist doctrine and providing them with weapons and millions in funding. Syria under the Assad family became a strategic ally during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980’s allowing Damascus to become a transfer point for Iran to supply its proxy, Hezbollah. Hezbollah became Iran’s global terrorism arm. That is reflected in Iran’s support for Lebanese Shia émigrés in the Latin American tri-border area that provided a base for the 1992 Buenos Aires Israeli Embassy and 1994 Jewish AMIA blasts. The later is still roiling Argentine politics with the recent mysterious death of Argentine Jewish prosecutor Alberto Nisman and accusations of involvement at the highest political levels in both Iran and Argentina.

The Israel invasion of 1982 launched a series of terrorist spectacles by the late Imad Mughniyahin. In Beirut in 1983  he killed over 400 French paratroopers, US Marines and US embassy staff. That was followed by the 1986 TWA flight hijacking and killing of a US Navy diver hostage. Mughniyah, went big time with the Khobar Towers blast in Saudi Arabia in 1995. He had links to the East African US Embassy blasts in 1998 and a major role in training and facilitating the travel via Iran and Germany of the 19 Sunni perpetrators of 9/11. Mughniyah’s leading terrorist role ended in Damascus in February 2008, when his vehicle exploded in what many believe was a Mossad revenge attack.

The big breakthrough for Hezbollah was its campaign of attacks in the South of Lebanon and Israeli border incursions in the late 1980’s to 2000. Nisan notes that Hezbollah undertook 1,030 military operations over the period from 1990 to 1995, escalating to more than 4,928 operations from 1996 to 2000.

Nisan links Hezbollah’s political rise with the adoption of the triumvirate Lebanese Presidency system with the Taif agreement. That enabled Hezbollah to secure seats in the Chamber of Deputies in competition with the Shia Amal party. Its further rise to power was the product of one of its three expressed objectives of a 1985 Open Letter:

  1. Accepting Ayatollah Khomeini as leader of the world’s Muslims.
  2. Wiping out Israel and opposing America.
  3. Forming relations with Christians in Lebanon while calling them to embrace Islam.

Nisan noted the impact of the third objective expanding the 128 member Assembly split 64 Christian/64 Muslim. He wrote, “many Muslim voters were electing Christian deputies in the South, while Christians elected a Shiite in Jbayl and Sunnis were elected by Maronites and Druze in the Shouf.”

By 1999, when the US State Department designated Hezbollah a foreign terrorist group, Hezbollah was a mini-state within a state. In May of 2000, the ring of fate was sealed in Southern Lebanon with the Israel evacuation and collapse of the SLA resistance. Under a secret agreement between Hezbollah and the IDF, the former agreed not to attack Israeli forces as they completed their retreat. That action, as Nisan notes, led Yassir Arafat to instigate the so-called Temple Mount Second Intifada triggered by the visit of Israel PM Sharon on September 28, 2000. Sharon was the Defense Minister who undertook the invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

At the conclusion of Nisan’s book, he posits three scenarios:

  1. The Iranian Shiite axis could collapse with a short time.
  2. The Arab world could continue its slide into fissured decay while distracted from its historic and national vision.
  3. The Arab-Israeli conflict will likely remain intractably irresolvable according to the tried and tested formulae for peace.

In the midst of Nisan’s speculations he draws attention to the aftermath of the Maronite Patriarch a-Ra’I 2012 visit to Jerusalem. That enraged Hezbollah, but brought commendation from Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. Maronite President Sleiman whose term ended in 2014 paid a visit to Jumblatt’s home town of Mukhtara before he stepped down. The message was one of reconciliation within the confessional system that might bring the sectarian groups together and avoid a civil war. With a vacant presidential post and parliamentary elections postponed until 2017, trouble looms for the country caught up in the vicissitudes of the Syrian civil war spilling over its borders, bringing in a flood of refugees. Currently, Lebanon is embroiled in a highly politicized trash crisis involving a protest Group “You Stink” that some believe may cover a possible power grab by the Hezbollah party and Michael Aoun’s Free Patriot Movement. The concern is the crisis might bring down the National Unity Government of Sunni Prime Minister Tammam Salam.Reuters reported both Saudi Arabia and Iran gave their blessing to the present government with a Cabinet composed of Sunni Muslim former Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s Future movement, Shi’ite Hezbollah and Christians. Nisan wrote about a hopeful sign, “The March 14 camp asked Patriarch Beshara a – Ra’I to suggest names for the presidential post. Maybe somehow two Maronites – patriarch and president would help save the country from oblivion.” The expression in Hebrew is, alevai. Its English meaning, “that should only be.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Also see Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

VIDEO: DEFEAT the Iran Nuke Deal

The Principled Candidate Promotion Project (CCC PAC) has release a new video titled, “No to the Iran Nuke Deal!” The video explains in 1 minute why members of Congress must defeat the Iran nuclear weapons deal.

CCC PAC in an email states, “Our message to Congress will be clear:  if you vote YES on Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal, we will defeat your re-election bid and bring an end to your political career.  Time is of the essence, so please stay tuned as we update you on our efforts to DEFEAT the Iranian nuclear deal.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump: Nuclear deal calls for U.S. to defend Iran against Israeli attack

Gold Star Father Asks the U.S. Congress to Reject the Iran Nuke Deal

arron karen and billy vaughn

Navy SEAL Arron with parents Karen and Billy Vaughn.

Golds Star Father Billy Vaughn tells us why Congress should vote AGAINST the Iran Deal.

Billy and Karen Vaughn are the parents of fallen Navy SEAL, Aaron Carson Vaughn (SEAL Team VI).

On August 6, 2011 Aaron was killed in action in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan when a chopper (call sign Extortion 17) carrying thirty Americans was shot from the sky. The day Aaron’s life ended theirs began again.

Here is a panorama of the August 30th, 2015 Boston Stop Iran Now rally:

panorama of boston stop Iran rally

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Misleading Claims Obama Made About Iran Deal In New Remarks

White House Pushes for Iran Filibuster

Pentagon not targeting Islamic State training camps

Main Bangkok jihad bombing suspect Mohamed Museyin arrested, bomb-making materials in apartment

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran Nuclear Treaty by Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When we published “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” in the August 2015 New English Review, we reviewed several options. One proposal suggested by Dr. Robert B. Skalorff entailed direct litigation by Congress before the Supreme Court under provisions of the US Constitution seeking a ruling  treating   the Iran nuclear pact as a  treaty requiring  advise and consent of the Senate . We  wrote:

That proposal entailed independent Congressional litigation on demonstrable Constitutional legal grounds regarding executive overreach. If the Senate was granted standing on direct appeal, based on the B. Altman SCOTUS ruling, it might result in a predisposed SCOTUS rendering a positive ruling thus quashing the Iran nuclear pact. Further, the ruling might unfetter the hands of any successor to President Obama on inauguration day in 2017 to undertake remedial actions. Such actions might reduce the current existential threats to both the US and Israel.

In furtherance of that original proposal we are publishing  the following article by Dr. Robert A. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, Esq. which expands upon the original concept noting support from  Constitutional law experts and applicable case citations.

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran TREATY

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day, one of the most pressing issues on the agenda is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as “the Iran deal.” Much has been discovered since the Corker-Cardin-Menendez bill was enacted, including the White House’s and State Department’s deceit which influenced the Senate to abandon its constitutionally-provided role regarding treaties.

Now it might take a lawsuit spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse not only the damage to the Constitution but also potential damage to America and our allies as a result of the provisions of the Iran nuclear-deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has overwhelming justification to sue President Obama over the JCPOA which constitutes a treaty and thereby must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those present prior to implementation.

Such a suit could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to disclaim Obama’s portrayal of this document as an Executive Agreement. It could also sustain the overwhelming will of the American people–according to polling data—to trash this “legacy” effort, for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed.

Blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear-deal would thereby necessitate the legislative branch triggering a confrontation between the judicial and the executive branches.

Two essays {authored by RBS} published in The Hill explored the legalities of this initiative, focused on its “treaty” [July 29] and “rule-of-law” [August 25] components.

In the interim [USA Today, August 5], Professor Alan Dershowitz recognized that a Supreme Court opinion challenged the President’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. He cannot avoid Congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty [Gibbons v. Ogden]:  “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress.”

Two other authors, legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy [National Review Online, July 17] and accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick [Jerusalem Post, July 21] also claimed the deal is a treaty, but none of these columnists proposed a remedy that would force a clash with this out-of-control Obama Administration. Jerry Gordon has detailed, comprehensively, “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” [New English Review, August 2015].

The drip-drip-drip of news about details of the deal as well as “secret” side arrangements that has emerged this summer congeals into two major rationales for such litigation, addressing both specifics and lack of transparency. Specifically, multiple side-deals between Iran and the IAEA satirize the concept of “anytime, anywhere surveillance” but, perhaps more important, Obama and his cabinet-members “inexplicably” failed to reveal this information to Congress as secrets.  Moreover, the Administration also misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the deal and the resulting preservation of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and right to continue advanced research that will provide it with a bomb when the pact expires in a mere decade to 15 years.

The “legislative intent” of the Corker-Cardin Bill (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015) was focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact the Administration concluded that was expanded to allow lifting of conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought—and was granted—this specific concession at the very end of the negotiations.  This was outside what the Administration had originally advised Congress about the parameters of this deal, focused on nuclear-weapons capability and not conventional weapons (or ICBMs). Thus, the final version of the Iran nuclear-deal encompassed issues, such as weaponization, that the Administration did not disclose to Congress before it debated and passed the Corker-Cardin Bill.

(Other facets of the negotiation were also misrepresented by the Obama Administration prior to when Kerry inked the deal. For example, although release of American prisoners was not ultimately achieved, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on  January 21, 2015 that the Administration’s negotiators “continue to insist” that Americans held in detention be released.)

This pattern of deception started before the Corker-Cardin Bill was passed in May. It was even maintained by Iran when the Tasmin News agency reported [June 15] “Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani reiterated that negotiations between Tehran and six major world powers solely focus on nuclear topics, dismissing any talk of military subjects in the talks.” And, reflecting the persistence of the deception,  it was manifest one week prior to when the deal was signed [July 14] during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing via testimony from Defense Secretary Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey that the arms embargo, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1929, was not to be lifted [July 7].

Thus, overall, absent the ability to review all relevant data, the Senate (1)—cannot render an informed judgment, consistent with its “advise/consent” role, and (2)—cannot be viewed to be facing a 60-day deadline, for the Corker-Cardin Bill mandates that this “clock” start “ticking” only after the database has been completed.

Refusal to provide copies of side-agreements to Congress continues unabated, as per testimony on August 5 by chief-negotiator Wendy Sherman and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. We now know why normally-sedate Senator Corker exploded (“We cannot get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin”) because such inspections have been serially outsourced by Obama to the IAEA and then, we learned more recently, by the IAEA to Iran.

The “toughest inspections-regime in history” forces America (and the world) to allow Iran to provide proof that Iran is not making nukes in Iran.

Perhaps more ominous is the dismissive posture adopted by Secretary of State Kerry [July 28] when confronted by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The innocent hypothetical was unambiguous:  Would he “follow the law” governing existing congressional sanctions if Congress voted to override a veto? The elitist reply challenged rule-of-law:  “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are.”

Could BHO go rogue?

The ability of the Supreme Court to exercise “judicial review” is rooted in the Supremacy Clause, was affirmed in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison], and has never been tested again to this day.

But, because the Supreme Court does not command any enforcement-military, the remedy for potential lawlessness is unclear. Indeed, this concern would extend to any nullification effort by the President related to the prospect that the Supreme Court would declare the Iran-Nuclear Deal to be a “treaty” rather than the “executive agreement” the President has potentially improperly considered it to be, to skirt congressional oversight and approval.

These concerns were predicted [May 7] and corroborated [July 23] in essays that presage the current crisis [by RBS, both published in The American Thinker]. They were confirmed in an e-mail exchange by noted constitutional scholar, Dr. John C. Eastman [the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence]:First, because only a ‘treaty’ is the Supreme law of the land, a mere executive agreement could not overturn statutorily-imposed sanctions.” Eastman continued in an e-mail, “And neither, in my view, could a change in the constitutionally-mandated default rule for adopting a treaty.  Second, if that is true, then members of the Senate who, collectively, had the votes to prevent ratification of a treaty would have standing to challenge the process that negated their vote.  That’s the Coleman v. Miller case on all fours.” This 1939 landmark decision ensured that Congress was empowered to specify a deadline by which an external entity was to affirm proposed legislation, such as a Constitutional amendment.

The Ottoman-Islamic defeat at the “Gates of Vienna” in 1683 is on the verge of being reversed by Obama/Kerry and their P5+1 partners, again in Vienna; the irony is that the West is validating Iranian-Islamic supremacism. It seems only the U.S. Senate can rescue (Judeo-Christian) Western Civilization from the Administration’s collaboration and perfidy.

The Senate must definitively impose a limit to the President’s executive lawlessness before a constitutional crisis erupts. Resolution by the courts may be the most effective way to check and to balance the scales that Obama has usurped.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.  Lee S. Bender, Esquire, is an attorney, activist and co-author of the book, “Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Iranian national arrested in Hancock County, Mississippi accused of tackling deputy, making terroristic threats

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

I am proud to be a ‘crazy’ woman that opposes the Iran deal by Rachel Avraham

Iranamputation86

Iran executed body parts of prisoner Photo Credit: Shabnam Assadollahi

Obama referred to the people that oppose his Iran deal as “the crazies.” However, some of the most innovative and thoughtful people throughout human history were considered crazy in their times but there was never an instance where it was good to appease terrorism like Obama does.

Politico recently reported that U.S. President Barack Obama recently called everyone who opposes the Iran deal “the crazies.” In Obama’s world view, you are either with him when it comes to appeasing the terrorist regime in Iran or you are insane. In the past, Obama has compared opponents of the deal to Iranian hard-liners, which prompted many Republicans to ask whether he would include in that category Democrats who oppose the deal such as the respectable incoming Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer.

As a duel Israeli-American citizen, I want to tell Obama that I wear the badge of being viewed as crazy by him with a badge of honor. All great and innovative people were initially viewed as crazy. When Moses approached Pharaoh and asked to free the Jewish people from slavery before G-d performed the miracle of the Ten Plagues, Pharaoh and his entire court related to Moses as a ridiculous crazy magician. When Judah Maccabee decided to liberate the Land of Israel from the Seleucid Empire, I am sure the average Joe in the ancient world viewed him as nuts for standing up against such a mighty empire with such meager forces at his disposal. When Theodore Herzl spoke about the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel, many people including numerous Jews did not think that it had a chance of actually happening. Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was viewed by many to be nuts for declaring the existence of the Jewish state on lands where Jews were a minority and faced an onslaught of five invading Arab armies on the outside with meager forces at his disposal. In the end, he is viewed by historians to be one of the greatest leaders in Jewish history.

In world history, Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church’s Inquisition for making new discoveries on his special telescope. He was viewed by them to be a heretic and a nut as his ideas opposed their theology. In the end, everyone knows who Galileo was and no one knows the names of these inquisitors. Many of the contemporaries of Leonardo Da Vinci probably considered him crazy for thinking that one day that there would be flying machines but now, airplanes are a common part of our world.

When former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared “peace in our times” following the deal he signed with Adolph Hitler that surrendered the Sudetenland to a horrendous fate in the hopes that by feeding the Nazi crocodile the big countries of Western Europe would be spared, Winston Churchill knew better but many people were skeptical of him and did not agree with him on this issue. Now, everyone knows Churchill was right and Chamberlain has been written down into history as a horrible world leader. Many people claim that Muslims aren’t capable of having democratic regimes that respect human rights but Mohammed Mosaddegh succeeded to create such a regime in Iran until 1953, when the American and British intelligence foolishly overthrew his regime in favor of the Shah just so they could have a better oil deal. Iran has never been a democracy since. This proves that Muslim countries can be democratic one day and Iran is not condemned to always be under the totalitarian rule of the mullahs.

Therefore, I think it is much better to be among these crazies than to go down in history as an appeaser of terrorist regimes like Obama has. This Iran deal won’t create “peace in our times.” Even if it solves the nuclear issue, which it likely won’t as the IAEA does not have the resources to inspect Iran properly and the system in place has too many loopholes, the Iranian issue is much greater than Iran’s nuclear program and this deal does not address those other critical issues. Therefore, it will only lead to more wars, more terrorism, and more grave human rights abuses but if the world had listened to Netanyahu, maybe a better deal could have been reached that would have prevented this. Now with the sanctions in the process of disappearing, that hope has vanished and only Israeli intervention can possibly stop the Iranian threat now.

The Iranian government is a regime that rapes virgins before they are executed from cranes; amputates body parts; declares homosexuals, Bahais, and the State of Israel don’t have a right to exist; and brutally represses both women and minorities. This is a regime that is behind massive terrorism in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and other places throughout the world. This is a regime responsible for terror attacks against Israelis and Jews abroad in addition to murdering Iranian dissidents who left that are too politically active. It is a totalitarian regime in every sense of the word and it will remain a threat to world peace as any successful deal, which this one isn’t, must also end human rights abuses within Iran and ensure that Iran is no longer a threat to other countries. Any deal short of that is not worth it, especially if it involves the removal of sanctions. It is better to be among the crazies who identified evil when it is front of them and sought to stand against it even if the rest of the world seeks to follow the path of Neville Chamberlain in the hopes that the Iranian crocodile will eat them last than to appease Iranian terrorism and to have that be my legacy. And it appears that there are Iranians who agree with me.

In response to these developments, prominent Iranian Canadian human rights activist Shabnam Assadollahi had the following to state: “According to US President Barack Obama, anyone who doesn’t believe in his lies and his weak foreign policy is crazy. Obama has failed because he acts like a dictator who keeps threatening the US Congress by vetoing anything against his wishes. He lacks dignity and shows no respect to his established allies especially Canada since Canada has been leading in opposing the bad Iran deal. But Obama prefers to build friendships with those regimes that violate their own citizen’s rights, showing no respect for religious and ethnic minorities. When you have allies, you are meant to be in alliance with them, not calling them crazies.”

“The regime Obama is appeasing and shaking hands with has been holding four American citizens as hostages in jail for years,” Assadollahi stressed. Additionally, Iran recently executed six prisoners, among them Kurdish dissident Behrouz Alkhani: “They beat the family in front of the prison. The poor guy was only 30.” Despite Amnesty International and the international human rights community calling not to execute Alkhani, Iran not only executed him but refused to hand over his body to his family: “They gave the other five prisoners bodies over but they did not give his to the family and told them to go to court tomorrow. And Obama is calling us the crazies. I wonder if Obama’s daughters were in the hands of the Mullah’s regime would he still call me crazy. It seems that Obama’s cozying up with the Mullah’s regime of Iran has prompted him to ignore the fact that the true crazies are those Iranians who burn US flags in the streets of Tehran shouting ‘Death to America!’ Obama, I am proud to be called crazy by you who have appeased and empowered the inhumane, murderous, evil, terrorist Islamist regime of Iran.”

In conclusion, I want to state that I don’t know what the best way to proceed is! On the one hand, with Iran purchasing all of these new weapons, Israel cannot really afford to wait to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities as the existential threat will only grow greater the longer we wait. By the time a Republican could potentially be elected, it will be much harder to attack Iran than today and if that Republican is Donald Trump, it might not be much of an improvement for he said he would uphold the Iran deal despite its flaws. But on the other end of the coin, Obama will create major problems for Israel or anyone else who stands in the way of his deal as he views us as the “crazies” and can’t tolerate a different vision that goes against appeasement of terrorism, much less Israel acting upon that worldview. Israel will face terrible diplomatic ostracism that will also adversely affect the American Jewish community if Israel attacks Iran under Obama’s watch. The recent drama with the Palestinians at the UN will look like a joke in comparison to the actions that Obama could take against Israel for attacking Iran. Israel’s leaders have difficult decisions to make these days.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column by Rachel Avraham originally appeared on the JerusalemOnline.com website. It is reprinted with the permission of the author.

Florida: Stop Iran Demonstration at offices of Rep. Lois Frankel (D- FL 22) [Video]

On Tuesday August 25, 2015 a group of pro-American activists assembled at the office of Florida Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D-22) to protest the current Obama deal with Iran and visit with Rep. Frankel to find out where she stands.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Iran’s Support for Terrorism, and How It Relates to the Nuclear Deal

Why Reagan Would Have Opposed Iran Deal

Meet Five Key Democrats Who Could Determine the Fate of the Iran Deal