No Americans in IAEA's Iran inspection teams, says Susan Rice

This can't be true. We brokered the deal and no American is allowed to inspect? Surely this new caveat will be the kiss of death in Congress!

----------------------------------------

American investigators will not be part of the International Atomic Energy Agency team inspecting Iranian nuclear sites, inspections that are mandated in a historic agreement signed this week to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting crippling international sanctions. 

"The IAEA will field an international team of inspectors and those inspectors will, in all likelihood, come from IAEA member states, most of whom have diplomatic relations with Iran. We [the United States] are a rare exception," US National Security Adviser Susan Rice told CNN on Thursday. 

"No Americans will be part of the IAEA team," she emphasized.

"There are not going to be independent American inspectors separate from the IAEA" in Iran, Rice said when pressed on the issue. "The IAEA will be doing the inspections on behalf of the US and the rest of the international community."

IAEA inspectors at Iran's nuclear power plant in Natanz on January 20, 2014 (IRNA/AFP Kazem Ghane)

She did not indicate whether this was a condition placed by Iran for agreeing to the inspections.

The US cut off diplomatic relations with Iran in the wake of the 1979 hostage crisis at the embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days. Since the election of the relatively moderate President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, the US and Iran have seen a gradual, if careful, rapprochement, including a phone call between President Barack Obama and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly two years ago.

Iran and the US-led P5+1 world powers signed a deal in Vienna this week aimed at reining in Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The deal allows IAEA inspectors to visit suspect Iranian facilities, though the inspections may only take place some 24 days after a question arises, which opponents of the accord, including Israel, see as a major flaw and a potential loophole for concealing forbidden nuclear work.

But Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Friday that the UN inspectors will have plenty of time to detect any Iranian bid to cheat.

"I can assure you our intelligence community is completely comfortable that 24 days is not enough time for them to be able to evade our technical means, our capacity to observe," he told MSNBC.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and others have slammed the deal for not going far enough to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state. Opponent have also criticized what they deem far-reaching US concessions to Iran, including on inspections and sanctions.

Israel has maintained that the billions that will flow into Iranian coffers following the lifting of punitive measures will go to finance terrorism on a major scale, an argument the US has had some difficulty disputing.

In her CNN interview, Rice said the US thinks Iran will spend the money "on people and their economy which is tanked," but acknowledged that "it is possible and in fact we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now."

"But the goal was never, and was not designed to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in the region, they're doing that today. The goal is to ensure that they don't have a nuclear weapon, and therefore when they are engaging in that bad behavior, it's that much more dangerous," she added vaguely.

The deal sets out a so-called "snapback" mechanism to put the old sanctions back in place. It establishes a joint commission which would examine any complaints if world powers feel Iran has not met its commitments under the Vienna deal.

The United Nations Security Council is expected to endorse the 10-year deal next Monday.

The text of the resolution circulated by the United States to members of the council "requests the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency to undertake the necessary verification and monitoring of Iran's nuclear commitments."

The new resolution, when passed, would replace the existing framework of seven sets of Security Council sanctions imposed since 2006 on Iran, enshrining a new set of restrictions.

Once the council receives the IAEA's report on compliance, the seven sets of Security Council sanctions can be repealed.

No Americans in IAEA's Iran inspection teams, says Susan Rice

Barry goes for an end around Congress...AGAIN

Obama's U.N. plan backfires in Congress

Corker should have told Barry something along this line.

This is the last straw. We own the House and the Senate. The minute you try to circumvent Congress by going over our head to the UN will be the minute we file Articles of Impeachment. We’ll drag this out for as long as it takes. You may or may not be impeached. But your legacy as the worse president in history, already etched is stone, will be further intensified with another black mark on your record called impeachment proceedings. 

You make the call.




Think about it. What do these feckless Republicans have to lose? At least stand for something! They could frame it like this... a vote for impeachment is a vote against a nuclear Iran. A vote against impeachment is a vote for a nuclear Iran.

Why impeachment? Because of all his scandals and crimes this buy far is the worse.

1.  It puts America in harms way

2.  No polite way to put it. Barry just fucked Israel

(If you're a Jew and voted for Barry once, let alone twice, you must feel like a complete fool)

3.  Because of this deal he set in motion a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Barry will never pay the price for this because when the shit hits the fan he'll be out of office blaming his successor.

So make him pay now.

----------------------------------------------

President Obama's attempt to outmaneuver Congress and win quick United Nations approval for the Iran nuclear agreement is backfiring on him in Congress, and could further erode support among key players.

Key senators were already outraged that the administration was taking the lead in negotiating a deal and sidelining Congress' traditional role of being directly involved in haggling the finer points of arms control agreements. They were resigned to let the administration handle the negotiations in return for the promise that they would have ample opportunity to review the deal and vote on it.

But Kerry this week moved to exert the maximum global leverage on Congress by circulating a legally binding draft of the deal to the United Nations Security Council. A vote at the U.N. is expected early next week to end the international body's sanctions against Iran in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.

He made the move before Congress had received the full documents related to the deal and before the Senate's 60-day review period began. And he even seemed to dare Congress to try to reject the deal, which he said would make the U.S. the non-compliant country.

"If Congress were to veto the deal, Congress — the United States of America — would be in noncompliance with this agreement and contract to all of the other countries of the world," Kerry said earlier this week.

The comments were in stark contrast to Kerry's assurances earlier this year to senators that the administration is not trying to marginalize Congress.

The 180-degree turnabout outraged Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as its ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who appeared to be leaning in favor of backing the agreement before Obama's strategy became apparent.

The two emerged from a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden Thursday, and proceeded to call out the administration's efforts to sideline Congress. Corker called the move an "affront to the American people" and Congress, and said he talked to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power earlier in the day and told her the step isn't "prudent."

Cardin echoed that, and warned the administration not to move forward with a U.N. vote on the deal until lawmakers have a chance to review it.

"Acting on it at this stage is a confusing message to an independent review by Congress over these next 60 days," he said. "If the United States is signing onto the United Nations program and later on we're not part of it, what we'll do is inconsistent with the U.N. resolution, so it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution."

Still, he noted that any U.N. action next week or during Congress' 60 day-review period wouldn't result in the sanctions being lifted before Congress votes on the resolution. He noted that the U.N. resolution won't take effect for 90 days, pushing any international sanctions relief until October.

The two followed up with a letter to Obama Thursday arguing that any move to get United Nations approval before Congress has a chance to review the deal would break the president's promise to give Congress and the American people a chance to fully review the deal.

"We are deeply concerned that your administration plans to enable the United Nations Security Council to vote on the agreement before the United States Congress can do the same," they wrote.

Cardin's support for the letter is a key sign that Obama might lose some of the Democratic support he'll need to get the deal through the Senate. Republicans are known to oppose the deal, and they also piled on by opposing Obama's maneuver.

The White House tried to do some damage control Thursday afternoon, saying there's nothing in the U.N. Security Council resolution that requires the U.S. to implement the agreement.

"We will not begin implementation of the plan until after the congressional review period is over," deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters traveling on Air Force One.

"… We should be clear about the sequencing here," he said. "We are sending the draft version of the deal to the Security Council immediately for its review and we hope for a quick endorsement."

"We should make clear that the Security Council does not lessen the importance of Congress or its review" of the deal, he said.

But the comments did nothing to stop the outrage among Republicans.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a vocal opponent of the deal, accused the White House of trying to preempt Congress's 60-day review of the Iran deal, and called the move "a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and congressional prerogative."

"I am shocked that Secretary of State Kerry actually admitted, on the record, that he wants to create a situation where congressional disapproval of the Iran deal would make the United States in violation of the international community," Kirk said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential contender, called the move "absolutely unacceptable," "undemocratic," and said it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the administration's own agreement.

"The president is relying on adversaries like Russia and China to stifle the views of the American people's elected representatives. It's a clear sign that he knows if this deal is reviewed closely by the American people, it will be rejected," Rubio said.

He then pledged to do "everything in my power" to ensure that we reject this deal despite Obama's attempt to silence Congress. "We cannot allow America's security to be outsourced to the United Nations," he concluded.

Barry goes for an end around Congress...AGAIN

"There's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom"

Guess this didn't apply when he decreed Amnesty for 5 million illegals.

The proof is in the pudding.

Video 129

----------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama on Bill Cosby: If you give someone a drug and have sex with them, that's rape

(And when you tell someone they can keep their insurance but they can’t, that’s a lie)

President Barack Obama responded to a reporter's question Wednesday regarding whether he will revoke comedian Bill Cosby's Medal of Freedom.

"I'll say this -- if you give a woman or man, without his or her knowledge a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape," Obama said during a White House press conference on Capitol Hill. "I think this country, any civilized country should have no tolerance for rape."

Obama added that there's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom.

The press conference, which was intended to cover the newly struck Iran nuclear deal comes one day after the U.S. and five other world powers sealed the long-sought and controversial deal.

More than two dozen women have accused Cosby of sexual misconduct in the past four decades, and many alleged that he drugged and raped them. The 78-year-old comedian, who has never been charged with a crime, denied some accusations while declining to comment or respond to the others.

In addition to Cosby's legal woes, a group supporting sexual assault victims is petitioning President Barack Obama to revoke Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Promoting Awareness Victim Empowerment launched the campaign Wednesday through the White House's "We the People" website. The group says it is working with women who have accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them. It's collected about 2,000 signatures in less than a day.

President George W. Bush presented the nation's highest civilian honor to Cosby in 2002, citing his revolutionary portrayal of blacks on television and his interest and dedication to education.

The group's executive director says: "Bill Cosby's name does not belong among this distinguished list."

"There's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom"

The path to the bomb

Better if you click the YouTube music below first and turn the volume up. This is the first photo in the series.

Video 130

The path to the bomb

Forget Feinstein ...illegals are making the rules

Feinstein scolds S.F. for freeing man accused in pier killing

She sat on her fat ass the last 20 years and did nothing but support it and now she feigns outrage? 

Anyway...this story isn't about her. 

It's about Campos.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, (left) leads Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, into the courtroom for his arraignment at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco, Calif. on Tues. July 7, 2015, on suspicion of murder in the shooting death of Kate Steinle on San Francisco's Pier 14 last Wednesday.San Francisco assistant district attorney Diana Garcia follows behind.

Image 1 of 17

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, is seen in this April 22, 2015 photo. 

In a sharply worded rebuke just days after the killing of Kathryn Steinle, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the man charged with her murder — an immigrant in this country illegally who had a string of felonies and deportations — “should not have been released” by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and urged the city to “take immediate action” against further tragedy and join a new federal program aimed at deporting “dangerous criminal aliens.”

In a letter to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Feinstein expressed her outrage that defendant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was freed in April despite a detainer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. She placed the blame for his crime squarely on Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s department.

“I strongly believe that an undocumented individual, convicted of multiple felonies and with a detainer request from ICE, should not have been released,” she wrote to Lee. “The tragic death of Ms. Steinle could have been avoided if the Sheriff’s Department had notified ICE prior to the release of Mr. Sanchez, which would have allowed ICE to remove him from the country.”

Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, urged local officials to “prevent such a tragedy from happening again” by having the city participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s new Priority Enforcement Program, which was created as part of President Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration.

L.A. joining program

Feinstein said that by agreeing to participate, “San Francisco would provide notice to ICE before releasing aliens with long criminal records.” She noted that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution requesting that the Los Angeles County sheriff also take part in the program.

Lee’s spokeswoman Christine Falvey said Tuesday that his office “has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to understand how San Francisco could participate” in the federal program “while still upholding the laws and values of our city’s sanctuary-city ordinance, which does not prohibit local law enforcement from contacting federal authorities.” 

She said Lee “shares the senator’s concerns surrounding the nature of Mr. Sanchez’s transfer to San Francisco and release.” But she said Lee “has always maintained that our sanctuary status does not create a safe haven for people convicted of serious or violent felonies, and he wants to understand how the Department of Homeland Security’s Priority Enforcement Program can help us prevent a similar tragedy.”

But progressive members of the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday reiterated their strong support for San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy and the legislation, approved by all supervisors and the mayor in 2013, prohibiting the release of undocumented immigrants to ICE unless they have committed violent felonies. The release of Lopez-Sanchez appears to have been in line with city policy because none of his felonies was violent.

Speaking to a bank of television cameras before the supervisors’ Tuesday afternoon meeting, Supervisor John Avalos said he doesn’t think the city’s policy should be changed.

“Either the legislation exists or it doesn’t exist,” he said. “If it doesn’t exist, you’ll see that witnesses will not be protected and they will be fearful of talking to law enforcement, and that will have a detrimental impact on everyone’s safety.”

Widespread anger

Feinstein’s tough words came as outrage rippled from Sacramento to Capitol Hill, with legislators slamming city officials’ actions and proposing get-tough measures aimed at avoiding a repeat tragedy.

In her first major televised interview as a presidential candidate, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton also joined the chorus, telling CNN, “I think the city made a mistake” by not handing Lopez-Sanchez over to ICE, and saying he should have been deported.

In Sacramento, state Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Riverside, proposed what appears to be the first legislation aimed at revising the 2013 California Trust Act, which has come under scrutiny since Steinle’s slaying. The Trust Act says local law enforcement officials can hold people suspected of being in this country illegally for federal authorities only if they have been convicted of specified serious or violent crimes. There is no evidence, however, that those requirements would have applied to Lopez-Sanchez.

Stone told The Chronicle that his bill “will require all of California‘s cities and counties to cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities,” especially when criminals in custody for drug offenses are involved.

On Capitol Hill on Tuesday, legislators slammed both local and federal officials for freeing Lopez-Sanchez.

“He had a criminal warrant but was released into the general society to commit a murder. Does that make any sense to you?” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee, said at a Tuesday hearing. “Because I’ll tell you it doesn’t make any sense to the American public.”

Philip Miller, an ICE official, blamed San Francisco, saying officials here did not honor a federal request, known as a detainer, to keep Lopez-Sanchez in custody. Mirkarimi has repeatedly defended his office’s move — and has faulted ICE for failing to deliver a warrant for Lopez-Sanchez, which he insists would be required to detain him further.

Supervisor David Campos, who entered the United States illegally from Guatemala as a child, said “a lot of hysteria” about the slaying was clouding the important reasons for the sanctuary-city policy to exist, including enabling people who are in the U.S. illegally to report crimes freely and serve as witnesses without fear of deportation.

“The focus should be on substance and not on political points that people want to score,” he said. “My fear is that we’re going to let the act of one individual — horrific as it was — dictate a policy and lead to an overreaction that makes the entire community unsafe.”

So I got this straight this guy Campos who concocts the rules for Sanctuary Cities is here illegally himself? What does this tell you about how deep-rooted the left is with their scam called Sanctuary Cities? "We need illegals in the U.S. to report crimes freely and serve as witnesses without fear of deportation for being a witness to another illegal committing a crime?" So when they witness a crime and a person then goes to jail he or she is then released because of the Sanctuary City policy. This makes no sense. I'm sure Campos's 'only interest' in this is for the safety of the community and not to import more illegals.

 Nine lives were lost in Charleston in a senseless act of murder but it pales in comparison to the amount of Americans killed by illegals. Click here. There may be someone you know or at the very least heard about. 

http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

Maybe Campos is worried about Trump. Operation Wetback part 2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

He pointed out that many city police chiefs — including San Francisco’s Greg Suhr and New York City’s William Bratton — are supporters of sanctuary-city policies.

Sharp words from union

However, San Francisco’s police union on Tuesday published strong wording on its Facebook page that called sanctuary city a “failed San Francisco policy” that has been backed by progressive politicians including Mirkarimi and Public Defender Jeff Adachi. It did not note that Mayor Lee and Suhr, who has strong union support, also backed it.

“Bottom line is a young innocent woman has been murdered in cold blood, in front of her father, by a 5 time deported illegal alien drug dealer. He is an ILLEGAL ALIEN not an undocumented immigrant and if he was where he belonged (Mexico) this innocent victim would still be alive,” the union’s post reads.

Forget Feinstein ...illegals are making the rules