Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Just Released Third Video Exposing Planned Parenthood



The third Center for Medical Progress video exposing Planned Parenthood for trafficking in aborted baby parts is out. This one takes a different approach, it features a woman who once worked in Planned Parenthood clinics describing the profit motive involved in Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, and includes new admissions from top-level Planned Parenthood leadership about the illicit pricing structure interspersed with parts of the second video with new revelations.

Holly O’Donnell, is a licensed phlebotomist (someone who draws blood) who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012.
“I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.
For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress
 “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”
The video also shows Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

Dr. Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San Diego, describes her affiliate’s long-time relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a middleman company that has been providing aborted fetal organs since 1989:
“We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”
“Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts is an offensive and horrifying reality that is widespread enough for many people to be available to give first-person testimony about it,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for The Center for Medical Progress.
“CMP’s investigative journalism work will continue to surface more compelling eyewitness accounts and primary source evidence of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking and selling baby parts for profit. There should be an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while Congress and the states determine the full extent of the organization’s lawbreaking.”
This video will make you sick, not simply for the callous way they talk about "baby parts" but the graphic pictures and most of all just the concept. Think about it for a moment. If a veterinarian killed puppy fetuses, and carefully picked which part of their bodies to crush so she could save the others for scientific research, there would be a progressive demonstration at the National Mall about five minutes after the news was leaked.

For God's sake at one point in the video they are picking apart a fetus in a petri dish and talking about the money they get for each body part.

These are human fetuses and the progressives are defending the practice and worse they see these fetuses as just a lump of goo, no they are unborn people.



P5+1 Deal Has An Exit Clause (Iran Can Take The Money And Run)

The P5+1 Agreement has an exit clause. As pointed out by Owen Alterman of the Institute for National Security Studies Tel Aviv, Israel, it's right there on page 19, paragraph 36 (the paragraph is at the bottom of this post.

As previously discussed the deal is not forever as John Kerry promised, but most of the key provisions expire after ten years the rest after fifteen.  But according to  paragraph 36 any party, be it Iran, Prime Minister of Great Britain, or a future U.S. president can kill the Iran nuclear deal with 35 days' notice.
Iran might need to wait a little longer—an extra 30 working days—to check a box buried in Annex IV. But, after that, under Paragraph 36, Iran can claim that any of the P5+1 is "not meeting its commitments" under the agreement. That triggers a 35-day set of meetings. Once that clock runs, Iran can claim the issue "has not been resolved to [its] satisfaction" and that it “deems” that the issue "constitutes significant non-performance." Iran can then "cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part." The agreement is done.
On the other hand, once Iran has its $150 billion (okay Kerry says it's only $100 billion) and made some long term oil deals they can give the nuclear agreement the big heave ho and just take the money and run. That way the can go back to the way it was but have a little nest egg to get through the rough sanctions (if the snap back provision actually works).

Of course the exit provision also allows a new president to ditch the lousy deal.
On January 21, 2017, a new U.S. president could point to an Iranian breach and, on February 25, 2017, pull the United States out of the agreement. He could also have diplomats sit through the five weeks of meetings and then exit at some later date; Paragraph 36 sets no deadline.
A future U.S. president does not need to renounce the agreement; he can simply exit the agreement under the agreement's own terms. Expect this to be an issue in the 2016 campaign. But honestly I do not see a new president, even if it is a Republican (please God), killing the deal without the support of the international community. 
Paragraph 36 purports to be a dispute resolution clause. Underneath the costume, this is really a termination clause. Those who disagree will likely point to three arguments. First, they will say, moving along the exit ramp depends on making the case that someone else has violated the deal. If the P5+1 is keeping its end of the bargain, they will argue, then Iran would have no grounds to cut and run.

Yet in a complex deal such as this one, a party will likely be able to point to some plausible story of breach. Iran has a ready candidate. Paragraph 25 says that if any U.S. state or local government “is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting,” then the federal government must “take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities.”

“All” authorities? If the New York State Assembly slaps sanctions on Iran, does D.C. need to cut all money for New York’s highways? Stop funding New York’s Medicaid? Play Germany to New York’s Greece? Even then, Iran could point to some “authority” not used. The United States would not be “meeting its commitments,” Iran would say. Iran would “deem” the breach significant—note the subjective standard—permitting Iran to jump ship. This type of brainstorming is not limited to Iran. For a future U.S. president wanting to exit the deal, effective lawyering—or real Iranian breach—could supply the plausible story needed.
Second, some would argue that whimsically ditching the agreement would violate the parties’ Preamble promise to “implement this JCPOA in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere.” But good faith is not easy to define, and bad faith not easy to prove. A Republican presidential hopeful, for example, could help his case by avoiding crowd-pleasing promises to ditch the deal and instead just pound the podium vowing to play tough on implementation.

In any case, the goal in this situation, unlike in most contracts, is not to convince a judge who has enforcement power. The goal is to have a plausible story to tell supporters and to win at least a slice of global public opinion. Even if not all are convinced that a party is acting in good faith, some will be convinced, and that could be enough.
While exiting the deal would make our Saudi, Israeli and other Gulf State Allies happy unless there is a clear Iranian violation (not totally out of the question) even a GOP POTUS would not want to alienate our European allies, along with Russia and China by killing the deal that's was in place for over a year (by Jan. 2017) without an Iranian screw-up
Third, some might fall back on the argument that in the dog-eat-dog world of international relations, Iran (or a future U.S. president) does not need Paragraph 36 or any other high-falutin’ legal theory. The party could just walk away. Fair enough, but the two routes to the exit do not supply the same legitimacy. Un-signing an agreement is gauche and stains a country’s credibility. Using an agreement’s own terms to exit has a different patina. The country would not be breaking its word, but, rather, following an agreement as it sees fit. This makes the exit easier.

One final note: For lawyers, Paragraph 36 packs other goodies. Scroll down in your PDF, and you'll find an imaginary creature, the "Advisory Board." The agreement provides for a non-binding, arbitration-style "Advisory Board," a laudable idea. But how is the panel's third member picked? The drafters don’t tell us. So the Advisory Board might never be able to convene.
While paragraph 36 is basically an exit clause, in practical terms it is much more likely that Iran takes the money and runs, than a future president killing the deal after its been implemented. The bottom line is if the deal is going to be stopped, it must be stopped NOW by a congressional vote. Because at least from the US perspective it cannot be stopped later.

Paragraph 36: If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Oversight Committee To Obama---Get Rid Of IRS Chief Or We Will

Finally sick and tired of his obfuscation, Republicans on House Oversight Committee on Monday called on President Obama to oust Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen for obstructing the committee’s investigation into the tax agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

And if the president ignores the committees request, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said the committee was actively considering contempt charges and impeachment proceedings against Mr. Koskinen in the event the president does not remove him from office.

In a letter to President Obama, the Committee outlined the findings, thus far, of its investigation into the IRS targeting scandal. The letter explains and provides evidence of the violations on the part of the IRS and Commissioner Koskinen in properly complying with both a congressional subpoena and its own internal preservation order.

Chairman Jason Chaffetz issued the following statement:
“Mr. Koskinen should no longer be the IRS Commissioner. We have asked the President to remove Mr. Koskinen from office.
Mr. Koskinen failed in his duty to preserve and produce documentation to this Committee. The IRS failed to comply with a congressional subpoena. The IRS further failed by making false statements to Congress. We will pursue all constitutional remedies at our disposal, including potential contempt proceedings or perhaps impeachment of Commissioner Koskinen.

Under Mr. Koskinen’s leadership, the IRS failed to properly preserve agency records despite a subpoena and an internal preservation order. Shortly after being sworn into office, Mr. Koskinen was issued a subpoena. This created a legal obligation to preserve materials relevant to the Congressional investigation. However, just one month later, with an awareness that a gap existed in Lois Lerner’s email production, the IRS destroyed back-up tapes. These tapes may have contained the missing emails from the time frame in which she admitted the agency was targeting conservative 501(c)(4) groups.

Not only did this destruction of 24,000 potential emails occur after the materials were under subpoena, but also after the agency’s own Chief Technology Officer (CTO) issued a preservation notice ordering employees not to destroy anything. The CTO later stated he was ‘blown away’ that back-up tapes were destroyed ten months after his preservation notice.

Further, The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s (TIGTA) June 30, 2015 investigative report confirmed the IRS destroyed documents and misled Congress about the agency’s efforts in complying with congressional subpoenas.

Mr. Koskinen misled Congress and the American people when he appeared before the Oversight Committee in 2014 and asserted he would produce all of Ms. Lerner’s emails. At the time of his testimony, the agency was already aware that gaps existed in Ms. Lerner’s email production due to a hard drive crash. Mr. Koskinen did not make Congress aware of this problem nor did he take sufficient efforts to recover the missing emails. TIGTA’s report confirmed that the IRS failed to even look for the back-up tapes and neglected to look at five of the six sources where emails could have existed.

At best, Commissioner Koskinen was derelict in his duties to preserve agency records. At worst, he and the IRS engaged in an orchestrated plan to hide information from Congress. Given Commissioner Koskinen’s obfuscation and misleading statements to Congress, and the false claims that key evidence was permanently destroyed, the result has been an unnecessarily protracted investigation. More importantly though, the American people will never know all the facts surrounding the agency’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups. This is an unacceptable outcome and one that demands those responsible be held accountable.”
And to seal their case the committee released a 10-minute video outlining their case against Mr. Koskinen and the failure of the IRS to follow its own rules for preserving email records. Its embedded below:



How The P5+1 Deal Lets Iran Build Bomb in 10-15 Years


Even if Iran keeps to the terms of the P5+1 agreement negotiated in Vienna there will still be a crisis over Iran's nuclear program only the timing of the crisis will be delayed until the strictest provisions expire in 10-15 years depending on the provision. 

The main reason is that the deal allows the rogue nation to continue to run centrifuges most of which will be enriching uranium.  But if the Iranians are really running a peaceful program there is no need for them to have centrifuges or enrich uranium.  Even John Kerry said at the beginning of negotiations that there was no reason for Iran to enrich and more importantly there was no right for them to enrich.

We are told that the goal of the agreement is to ensure that Iran will be prevented from building nuclear weapons for the life of the deal. According to an oped written by John Kerry and Earnest Moniz published last week the life of the deal is "forever" however that's not true:

The plan approved in Vienna does not expire — it is indefinite. Some provisions will be in place for 10 years, others for 15, and still others for 20 or 25 years. But the transparency requirements and Iran’s most fundamental obligation — to preserve the peaceful nature of its nuclear program — are permanent.
Under the agreement Iran is allowed to keep 5,060 centrifuges, which according to former deputy director of the CIA is a large enough program to produce bombs but not enough for a power program. On Feb. 18th of this year, Mike Morell told Charlie Rose (video embedded below)
The potential Iran nuclear agreement would limit Iran to the number of centrifuges needed for a weapon but too few for a nuclear power program.

If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon."
Now the remaining 14,000 centrifuges do not get destroyed. Most of them will get stored at their Natanz plant for ten years. Afterwards they are available for use.

One third of the 1044 centrifuges in the underground site of Fordo will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment. However the process to produce isotopes is very similar to enriching uranium (just a different raw material). The remaining two thirds will remain idle for 15 years; afterward they too are available for use.

Iran is allowed to build and test gas centrifuges, which are used for plutonium but are allowed to play with only a few of each type for the first ten years. In other words while restrictions are in place Iran can't use them to enrich but will be able to perfect advanced plutonium producing gas centrifuges.

On one hand the preface of the P5+1 agreement assures that Iran’s nuclear program is for “exclusively peaceful purposes, consistent with international non-proliferation norms.” But if the deal is forever as Kerry wrote, and if according to the agreement Iran "pinky swears, crosses their heart hope to die stick a needle in their eyes" their nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes, consistent with international non-proliferation norms," then why as the limits on the program wane, some after year 10, and the rest after year 15, why is it easy for Iran to once again to pull the old centrifuges out of storage, and use their updated technology to make new ones and once again become a nuclear threat. Why do they need to enrich at all?

By the end of year 15, Iran could have in place a nuclear infrastructure that could produce the significant quantities of weapon-grade needed to create a few nuclear weapons within months.

And there is absolutely nothing in the deal to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons after 15 years---nothing!

If Iran's nuclear program is truly for peaceful purposes the preface of the deal reads, there is no reason for Iran to enrich uranium on its own, they could get it from other countries.

In November 2013 John Kerry said the U.S. does not recognize a right to enrich:
"There is no inherent right to enrich," Kerry said on ABC's "This Week." "And everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on."

Kerry added: "We do not recognize a right to enrich."
Somewhere in the intervening twenty months Kerry changed his mind and signed a deal that if Iran keeps to the agreement (a huge if) the rogue nation will be a nuclear power within months of the agreement expiring.


Why Huckabee's Holocaust Statement Was Entirely Appropriate



In an interview with Breitbart Radio on Saturday presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee made a comment for which he received much criticism: 
This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,” Huckabee said.
On Sunday Democrats practically tripped over their underwear as they rushed to criticize Huckabee.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) who is also head of the DNC, called on Huckabee to apologize:
“This rhetoric, while commonplace in today’s Republican presidential primary, has no place in American politics,” Wasserman Schultz said, according to CNN. “Cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable. Mike Huckabee must apologize to the Jewish community and to the American people for this grossly irresponsible statement.”
Schultz wasn't alone:
The National Jewish Democratic Council said in a statement, “Republicans have fallen over themselves to speak out against Donald Trump’s outrageous rhetoric on immigration and veterans. Will they now do the same and speak out against this unacceptable attack against President Obama that smears the memory of Holocaust victims … or will they stand by in silence and implicit approval?”
 And of course the ADL weighed in on Huckabee's statement:


I happen to agree with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable, in the past I have criticized both Republican Randy Weber (R-TX), and Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) for caviler and inappropriate holocaust analogies.

But I also believe that Governor Huckabee's analogy was not caviler but was very appropriate.

The Iran deal leaves Israel under the threat of a nuclear holocaust. At best it allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons in ten years.  If it cheats the weapons will be built earlier.   Since Iran has threatened to destroy Israel over and over again during the past decade, yes this deal may lead to the death of the 8.3 million people living in Israel. Or to put it another way the P5+1 deal will "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

What is not appropriate is the way the news covered the reactions to the former governor's statement.  Obviously, Debbie Wasserman Shultz's criticism is based on the fact he is a highly partisan supporter of President Obama who puts party politics before the interests of America or Israel. This is a woman who went across the country in 2012 repeating the lie that Obama was good for Israel. I doubt highly that the DNC Chair read the agreement, because if she did it's weakness would motivate her to have a different position.

Where were all these protectors of the holocaust when Jim Clyburn compared the tea party positions to Nazi propaganda?  Where were they when John Kerry warned that Israel was going to become an apartheid state? I can tell you where they were sitting on their hands doing absolutely nothing.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (which supports the Iran deal) is Jewish in name only. Rather than an organization which supports the combination of Democratic Party and Jewish values it is simply a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party talking points. The next time the NJDC disagrees with the Obama administration will be the first.

But ever since Abe Foxman has taken over the group has abandoned its mission to fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, and is using its donated tax-free funds to concentrate on a political agenda.

For example, while most were questioning the President's confusing announcement about going after ISIS last September, like the good soldier he is Abe Foxman praised it:

In President Obama’s announcement of a wider campaign to stop the growing threat from ISIS, he set down a marker to all terrorist organizations: Threaten the United States, and the United States will take action. While this operation will be complex and difficult, U.S. leadership in countering this force for terror and instability is essential.
The ADL added its voice because ever since the now retired Abe Foxman took over the ADL it regularly strays from its mission to worship the golden calf of progressive politics. Below are some examples:
  • Supported Partial Birth and other forms of Abortion. In 2008, urging both parties to adopt a pro-choice stance in their presidential platforms. I wonder if Abe Foxman realizes that not all Jews support the ADL's pro-choice position. 
  • Before Chuck Hagel was appointed to Defense Secretary position they strongly opposed his selection. Once Obama named Hagel they tamed their words considerably.
  • Advocates for Gay Marriage. Remember in NY CD#9 when many Orthodox Jews voted against the Democrat because he voted for the New York State Gay Marriage Bill? Well Abe Foxman's ADL couldn't care less.
  • Issued a "White Paper" promoting the progressive's negative PR spin about the Tea Party movement. They said the Tea Party was part of the "New Rage in America"
  • Refused to recognize the anti-Semitism present within Occupy Wall Street, until Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com embarrassed them into making a statement.
And there are many other examples. In a rare nod to its mission of protecting the Jewish people, the ADL opposes the Iran Deal, but because it hates anything/anyone who doesn't have a progressive agenda it took the opportunity to criticize Huckabee.

There is only one thing wrong with Huckabee's statement.  As an observant Jew and a blogger, I am very upset I did not come up with the "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven” statement before he did.

Note: I am not a supporter of Huckabee or any other presidential candidate. While there may be an endorsement of one of the sweet sixteen GOP candidates in the future, to be honest I haven't even begun to think about which GOP candidate to support.