Friday, September 2, 2016

Iran: No Range Limit for Our New Ballistic Missiles

Iran: No Range Limit for Our New Ballistic Missiles

An Iranian missile test (Photo: © Reuters)
The Iranian defense minister recently pronounced that the Islamic Republic has “no limit for the range” of the ballistic missiles it is developing.
In making the pronouncement, General Hossein Dehqan also said that Iran is now on par with world standards for most of its weapons and military equipment, specifically, that “production of the national individual weapons and efforts to improve the quality and precision-striking power of ballistic missiles are among the defense ministry's achievements..."
One of the advanced weapons Iran has developed is a ballistic missile that deploys multiple warheads against a single target. As the government-aligned Fars News Agency reported, “This makes for an efficient area attack weapon.”
(Never mind that just three months ago, that the state-owned IranianPress TV announced that “all these advancements on the military level are only for defensive reasons.”)
In addition, Iran has now deployed the long-awaited Russian-made, long-range S-300 missile system. The system was deployed to protect the country’s Fordo nuclear facility, which the commander of Iran’s air force calls paramount “in all circumstances.”
Western officials, who tried to block the delivery of the missile system, said that once in place, the S-300 would essentially eliminate the military option to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The nuclear deal made with Iran and the world powers was sold to the public as a way to contain not just Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but its ballistic missile program as well.
Ballistic missiles are mainly used to deliver nuclear warheads. Under the terms of the agreement we were told that the current UN restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program would remain in effect for eight years, including forbidding Iran from testing of ballistic missiles.
Less than two months after the deal was formalized, a senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Amirali Hajizadeh, announced, "Some wrongly think Iran has suspended its ballistic missile programs in the last two years and has made a deal on its missile program ... We will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies."
As far as the defense minister Dehqan, commenting about the restrictions, he said, “To follow our defense programs, we don't ask permission from anyone."
After the first ballistic missile test conducted by Iran after the agreement was made, the U.S. administration backtracked, saying that the test was really not a violation of the nuclear agreement but there were “strong indications” that the test violated UN restrictions.
The second ballistic missile test came as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel. Painted on the two missiles (which had the capability of reaching the Jewish state) were written the word in Hebrew, “Israel should be wiped out.”
Hajizadeh said at the time, “The 1,240-mile range of our missiles is to confront the Zionist regime. IRNA, Iran's state news agency, reported the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as saying the test had Iran's enemies "shivering from the roar" of the missiles.
For his part, Biden said at the time, the U.S. would “act” if Iran broke the nuclear agreements.
Judging from its lack of action, the U.S. ostensibly does not count this as a violation of the agreement, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Since the signing of the nuclear agreement Iran has engaged in aprovocative “cat and mouse” game with the U.S.
In addition, to the ballistic missile tests, since signing the agreement:
●      In September, Iran simulated a missile attack on a US aircraft carrier in an agitprop video titled “If Any War happens.”
●      In October, just three days after one of the ballistic tests, Iranian state TV aired unprecedented footage of an underground missile base.
●      In December, Iran tested rockets with live fire within 1,500 yards of American warships in the Strait of Hormuz
●      In January, Iran test-fired an upgraded surface-to surface cruise missile in a new set of wargames code-named Velayat-94
●      In January, an unarmed Iranian surveillance drone flew near U.S. and French aircraft carriers in the Gulf, managing to take “precise” photos while the ship was involved in an ongoing naval drill. An Iranian submarine was also detected in close proximity to the aircraft carriers.
●      In January, Iran captured 10 U.S. sailors whose boat had strayed into Iranian territorial waters. The soldiers were humiliated and held for 15 hours. Iran has since used the incident to mocked America in videos and plays.
“Without understanding Iranian culture, it is impossible to understand what is going on,” said Harold Rhode, an expert on Islamic culture who worked for the Pentagon for 28 years, in an interview with The Algemeiner. “Nothing is in and of itself. The way negotiations work among Iranians is that an agreement as we understand it means nothing. It is nothing more than a step along the way to getting what they want.”
 “From an Iranian cultural point of view, at all times there is a balance — ‘Are you giving it or are you getting it?’ … It’s simply domination; it’s simply power.”
Iran has successfully played America as the fool, challenging the U.S. to stand up to its belligerence. Every time America backs down, by either making excuses for the Islamic Republic (i.e., by redefining the deal) or ignoring their latest outrage, Iran becomes more empowered.
Sanctions relief let the Iranian genie out of the bottle. Now, the terror-supporting and oppressive regime is taking its place on the world stage unrestrained and unopposed.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

FBI FINDS UP TO 30 DELETED BENGHAZI EMAILS CLINTON DID NOT TURN OVER

FBI FINDS UP TO 30 DELETED BENGHAZI EMAILS CLINTON DID NOT TURN OVER

I hadn’t intended to write two Hillary Clinton email posts tonight. However, news that FBI investigators recovered 30 Benghazi-related emails from Hillary Clinton’s wiped server is potentially too important not to comment on right away.
Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta today that some of the 30 recovered emails relating to Benghazi — they didn’t say now many — were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton. The State Department’s lawyer also told the judge that the Department needs until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.
Judge Mehta was skeptical. He questioned why it would take so long to release so few documents, urged that the process be expedited, and ordered the department to report to him in a week with more details about why the review process would take a full month.
As AP points out, Clinton previously has claimed that she withheld and deleted only personal emails not related to her duties as Secretary of State. Clearly, though, any and all Benghazi-related emails related to those duties.
If it turns out that some of the newly recovered emails contain new content, as opposed to just duplicating previously turned over material, Hillary will be caught in yet another lie — this one relating to Benghazi, an area of particular vulnerability.
In addition, it’s possible that the recovered emails contain incriminating information about Clinton’s handling of Benghazi and/or the truthfulness of her public comments about the debacle. Such emails are just the ones Team Clinton would have the greatest incentive to destroy.
Here’s where the issue of redaction may be important. As Judge Mehta told the government, redacting 30 or fewer emails should be a simple task — one that does not require a month to accomplish. However, redacting them artfully enough to prevent damage to Hillary Clinton is a bit more complicated, if it comes to that.

GREENFAIL NUMBER–WHAT ARE WE UP TO NOW? ETHANOL

GREENFAIL NUMBER–WHAT ARE WE UP TO NOW? ETHANOL

From the Telegraph, a report on a new study that finds “Biofuels are ‘worse than petrol’ for the environment.”
“Green” biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are in fact worse for the environment than petrol, a landmark new study has found.
This, of course, assumes that emitting CO2 is bad.
The alternative energy source has long been praised for being carbon-neutral because the plants it is made from absorb carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, from the atmosphere while they are growing.
But new research in the US has found that the crops used for biofuel absorb only 37 per cent of the C02 that is later released into the atmosphere when the plants are burnt, meaning the process actually increases the amount of greenhouse gas in the air.
The details:
Professor John DeCicco, from the University of Michigan, said his research was the first to carefully examine the carbon on farmland where biofuels are grown.
“When you look at what’s actually happening on the land, you find that not enough carbon is being removed from the atmosphere to balance what’s coming out of the tailpipe,” he said.
“When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline.”
Professor DeCicco said the study, which is published in the journal Climatic Change, reset the assumptions, that biofuels, as renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, are inherently carbon neutral simply because the C02 released when burned was originally absorbed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

However, the scientists from Michigan ignored the prevailing models and analysed real data on crop production, biofuel production, fossil fuel production and vehicle emissions.
A radical approach, apparently. The scientists are asking governments to rethink their policies (e.g., ethanol mandates) as a result of their findings:
The scientists behind the study have called on governments to rethink their carbon policies in light of the findings.
Did anyone ever actually believe it was a good idea to burn 40% of America’s principal food crop? I doubt it. Don’t expect anything to be rethought, because ethanol has never been anything but a means of raising the price of corn.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

MAJOR CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR DENIED ENTRY INTO U.S. DUE TO TERROR TIES

MAJOR CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR DENIED ENTRY INTO U.S. DUE TO TERROR TIES

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN CLINTON CASHHILLARY CLINTON,TERRORISM
The name Gilbert Chagoury will be familiar to many readers. He’s a friend of Bill Clinton and a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. According to Judicial Watch, which cites Clinton Foundation documents, Chagoury has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor.
Chagoury’s name came up recently in a newly released 2009 email from Clinton Foundation official Doug Band to Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, who were then top aides to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Band told Mills and Abeden to put to put Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band explained that Chagoury is a “key guy [in Lebanon] and to us.”
At $1-5 million, you bet he’s a key guy to the Clintons.
In our post about this email, we noted that Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria. He is thus another in a long line of crooks with whom the Clintons have closely associated themselves, dating back to their Arkansas days.
But Chagoury isn’t just a crook. The Los Angeles Times reports that Chagoury was denied entry into the U.S. last year because of his ties to a Lebanese organization that has allegedly given money to the terrorist group Hezbollah. (Hat Tip: Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller.)
According to the LA Times, the State Department denied Chagoury’s visitor’s visa after he applied for one at the U.S. embassy in Paris last summer. The State Department made its determination based on a 2013 FBI intelligence report which cited sources saying that Chagoury gave money to Michel Aoun, a Lebanese politician who was suspected of “facilitating fundraising for Hezbollah.”
Aoun is the founder of the Free Patriotic Movement, an Iranian backed Shiite group that the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization because of its role in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
So the Clinton Foundation interceded with the Clinton State Department to help not just a donor but a donor who the State Department, now that Hillary Clinton doesn’t run it anymore, doesn’t think should be admitted to the U.S. because of his ties to terrorists.
But it may be worse than that. It may be that the Clinton Foundation interceded with the Clinton State Department in furtherance of the donor’s efforts to help his friend Aoun, the head of a terrorist organization.
Ross cites a CNN report that the Clinton campaign said on background that Chagoury sought contact with a U.S. official in charge of Lebanese affairs in order to discuss issues related to elections that would be held months later.
Aoun was up for re-election that year, says Ross. So when Band told Mills and Abedin to put Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon, it might have been for the purpose of helping Chagoury’s friend Aoun in an election. (From all that appears, Chagoury and Aoun are no longer friends or allies; I haven’t been able to determine what their relationship was in 2009 when Band pushed Mills and Abedin for the meeting.)
It’s not clear whether Chagoury got a meeting with the U.S. “substance person on Lebanon.” It is clear that Chagoury had access, via the Clinton Foundation and by virtue of his donations to that outfit, to Hillary Clinton’s top aides at the very least, and that Abedin followed up on Band’s request on behalf of Chagoury.
Last year, by the way, wasn’t the first time Chagoury had trouble entering the U.S. In 2010, according to Ross, his private jet was grounded at an airport in New Jersey. The Department of Homeland Security eventually apologized for the incident.
It would be interesting to know whether then-Secretary of State Clinton or her staff had anything to do with securing the apology. In any case, with Clinton long gone, it appears there was no apology for the State Department’s refusal to allow Chagoury to enter the U.S. last year.
Unfortunately, it’s likely that Hillary soon will be back, and not just at State. With her will come her husband and a seemingly endless parade of crooks and sharp operators who are ready and well-positioned to have their needs and interests attended to by the new administration without regard to the nation’s interest or, indeed, its security.

Covering up the $1.3 billion payoff to Iran

Covering up the $1.3 billion payoff to Iran


Call it judgment day. It looks like the Obama administration may yet face some kind of reckoning — in Congress, at least — over its payoff of a long-simmering claim to the Iranian regime.
That’s because to do so, the administration tapped a little-known account at the Treasury Department called the Judgment Fund. It is a special account used to pay out claims against the US government.
The details of how the administration did this, however, are being treated like a state secret. The State Department spokesman has clammed up tighter than a conch in a mudslide.
The topic erupted at the State Department’s daily briefing on Tuesday and Wednesday. That was after Claudia Rosett reported in the New York Sun that the administration made 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 each.
Those payments add up to 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion. They were made Jan. 19, two days after President Obama announced he’d cut a deal with the mullahs for $1.7 billion to avoid an adverse judgment at a court in The Hague.
We know, thanks to the Wall Street Journal, that $400 million of that was made in foreign currency, loaded on wooden pallets and delivered in a special cargo plane and functioned as a ransom payment to the mullahs, who had been holding a group of Americans hostage.
The remaining $1.3 billion only started to come into focus when Rosett discovered the 13 transfers totaling $1.3 billion on a Treasury Department website related to the judgment fund.
She sees no other explanation than that the payments, which went from Treasury on behalf of the State Department, were to cover the Iran settlement.
State’s daily briefing Tuesday was opened by the dean of the Foggy Bottom press corps, Matt Lee of the Associated Press. He called the settlement payments “the story that doesn’t seem to want to go away.”
Persistent as Lee was in his questioning, he could get bupkis out of the department spokesman, Mark Toner. He conceded nothing except that the Treasury Department was even less transparent than State.
This window into the shenanigans the administration is using to implement its deal isn’t just about whether the latest move is legal. No one has yet said it broke the law.
One of the principles of newspapering, though, is that the scandal is often not about what’s illegal but what’s legal. How can the administration tap the taxpayers for $1.3 billion without the say-so of Congress?
This is one of the most basic prohibitions in the Constitution. “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” is the way the parchment puts it.
The government maintains the judgment fund is legit. It calls it an “indefinite, permanent appropriation.” The idea is that Congress didn’t want to be bothered with having to pass a law for every nickel-and-dime settlement.
Could it have intended to authorize a blank check to send $1.3 billion to a regime that calls us the Great Satan and threatens to wipe Israel off the map? What Congress in its right mind would do such a thing?
What makes it so galling is that the administration knows that had the Iran payments been submitted to Congress for approval, they would’ve been turned down. Majorities in both houses were against the entire Iran nuclear deal — which is why it was treated as an executive, unilateral action and never submitted to the Senate for ratification, as a treaty would have to be.
And this is why the State Department and the Treasury are playing dumb. On the line is the constitutional good faith of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.
Not to mention Hillary Clinton. She seems to be hoping that she can get all the way to November without having to answer for the appeasement of Iran that started on her watch and that she’s endorsed.
I opposed even the initial talks with Iran, because history has taught that the talking itself begets the appeasement. Once it starts, the appeasing party — in this case the administration — keeps getting sucked in for more.
No wonder that within hours of Rosett’s story appearing on the web, The Post, in an editorial, predicted that the matter would prove to be “a rich trove for congressional investigators.” You can bet your last $99,999,999.99 on it.

MEMO SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON CLINTON-RUSSIA URANIUM SCANDAL

MEMO SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON CLINTON-RUSSIA URANIUM SCANDAL

Of all the Clinton Foundation/Clinton cash scandals, the one I’ve always considered most disturbing involves the Russians gaining control over a large share of America’s uranium. Relying on a New York Times report, I wrote about this scandal here.
Newly uncovered State Department documents shed additional light on this scandal. But before getting to the new material, I’ll summarize what the New York Times reported.
What we knew already
In 2005, Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra visited Kazakhstan. Giustra is a massive donor to the Clinton Foundation.
Giustra’s goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. To this end, he and Bill Clinton met with leaders of the Kazakhstan government.
As a result of the visit, Giustra got major mining concessions, which were approved by the Kazakhstan government. Kazakhstan got Bill Clinton publicly to praise its alleged progress in democracy and human rights. The Clintons received a $31 million donation to their Foundation from Giustra, along with a pledge to donate $100 million more.
The deal with Kazakhstan made Giustra’s company, Uranium One, a major player. It proceeded to buy large amounts of holdings in the United States, and became an attractive target for Russia. A Russian company made a hugely attractive offer to purchase the company. Uranium One agreed to the purchase.
The deal required approval by the U.S. government, including by the Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton. During the period when the deal with Russia was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation reportedly $2.6 million from Uranium One. Its contributions were not disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Hillary had reached with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
During this period, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One stock. This was more than his usual speaking fee.
Hillary Clinton duly approved the deal. It made the Russian company Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Vladimir Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
The deal left huge amounts of U.S. uranium under the control of Russia. The New York Times estimates this share at 20 percent. But Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, say that it amounts to up to 50 percent of projected U.S. uranium output.
What we have recently learned
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
Clinton, then, had ample reason to intervene in the decision. But doing so would have been inconsistent with the interests of those who were donating so generously to her Foundation.
Despite the warnings from her own diplomats and from Congress, Clinton let the deal go through.
Who were the winners in the transactions that began with Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and ended when the U.S. approved the Uranium One-Rosatom deal? The Russians, obviously, but not just them.
Frank Giustra won big. So did the Clintons who raised tens of millions, if not more, in this saga. Even Kazakhstan came away with something, though whether it contemplated Russia controlling its uranium is another matter.
Only America is the loser.