What Kind Of A Treaty Does This?

Townhall.com posted an article today reporting that Iran has just sentenced two Americans to ten years in prison.

The article reports:

Iranian-Americans Baquer Namazi and his son Siamak have been sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $4.8 million, according to Iran’s official news channel IRINN.

Iran officials say five people were convicted and sentenced for “cooperating with Iran’s enemies,” a government euphemism that usually implies cooperating with the United States.

Siamak Namazi was arrested nearly a year ago and became the first US citizen reported to have been detained in the country since the announcement of the Iranian nuclear program deal.

We paid the Iranians billions of dollars in cash to get the last four hostages back. Will there be another secret deal to get these men back?

Has Anyone In Washington Read The U.S Constitution?

The question really should be, “Has anyone in Washington read the U.S. Constitution, and do they take their Oath of Office to uphold it seriously?” Currently, the obvious answer to both questions is “no.”

On Tuesday The New York Post posted an article about the Congressional maneuverings on the Iranian nuclear deal. First of all, I would like to note that many of our Congressmen and Congresswomen have been paid off by the Iranian lobby (rightwinggranny). The article in The New York Post points out how the approval process for the Iranian nuclear agreement is unconstitutional.

The article reports:

Under the Constitution, treaties require the support of two-thirds of the Senate. The deal with Iran is a treaty in every respect — a legally binding long-term agreement between sovereign powers, in which hundreds of billions of dollars will flow and billions of dollars in nuclear materiel will be destroyed.

Since this is a treaty and we have 100 senators, Obama should have been obliged to secure the backing of 67 senators, not 41.

But Obama knew he could never get his treaty through Congress. You see, the American people have given the Republican Party majorities in both the House and the Senate.

The very fact that the American people did so to put a brake on Obama’s outsized ambitions just wasn’t going to hold this guy back.

So where are we now? The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sometimes also known as “Corker-Cardin,” allows the Iran Nuclear Agreement to be treated like any other piece of ordinary legislation. In order to block the deal, the Senate would have to override a Presidential veto if the Senate voted the agreement down. Thus, rather than the two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify the agreement (required for a treaty), you need two-thirds of the Senate to oppose it or it becomes law. The Republicans cannot filibuster the treaty because forty-two Democrats support it–they can block a filibuster. The Iranian lobby will get its money’s worth, and the treaty will pass. The U.S. Constitution and the American people are the losers in this deal. Iran will now receive millions of dollars to use to support terrorism around the world. Even if a Republican President is elected in 2016, and voids the agreement, the money will have gone to Iran, and the damage will have been done. No Senator who supports this treaty should be re-elected. The Republican leadership who did not use all of the legal tools at their disposal to fight this treaty should also be replaced. We need Senators and Representatives who have read the U.S. Constitution and who will be faithful to their Oath of Office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. At the current time, that is not what we have.

Following The Money On The Iran Treaty Public Relations Campaign

Kyle Shideler posted an article at the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday about some of the campaigns supporting the nuclear deal with Iran. Recently the Iran deal was endorsed by three-dozen retired flag and general officers. This sounds a little odd, but makes perfect sense when you consider who composed the letter and asked for the signatures.

The article reports:

Adm. Barnett’s support for the deal is not necessarily surprising. Barnett has repeatedly taken public positions on military or national security related issues that align closely with those of the Obama White House, including opposition to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in favor of changes to DOD’s Transgender policy, and applauding the use of national security as a reason to support school lunch changes proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama. In his capacity as a Venable employee, Barnett also worked a high profile case on sexual abuse in the military during a period at a moment when the White House was seized with the topic.

Barnett solicited signatures for the letter from his Venable work email, but denies that his employer played any role in the letter.

Given that Barnett had denied what appears to be obvious White House involvement, his other denial seems worthy of further investigation as well. Is there reason to believe that the firm has an interest in ending Iran sanctions?

Oddly enough, there seems to be a financial connection. The article goes on to list some of the companies that Venable is associated with–the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), an Iranian-American group, with its own political PAC is one of Venable’s non-profit clients, According to the article, One of PAAIA’s “Founding Donors” was Venable Partner Robert S. Babayi.

The article further reports:

Babayi is also the co-founder of the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA). Venable held presentations for the IABA on Iranian Americans living in or doing business in Iran and Iran sanctions laws. In March of 2010, IABA screened the anti-Guantanamo Bay detention facility movie “The Response” which was executive produced by Venable LLP. Venable representedEgyptian detainees at Guantanamo (the subject of the film), and Babayi’s email is listed as the RSVP email.

Babayi apparently left Venable to become Managing Director of Vector IP, a boutique Patent law firm in June 2014. Babayi is also a U.S. Advisory Team member for IBridges, an organization that works to promote High Tech entrepreneurship in Iran.

Venable may also have other interests in Iran:

A 2013 article by Asharq Al-Awsat identifies one Majid Javedani-Tabrizi as a lawyer representing Venable LLP who announced Iran was preparing to reinstate direct flights to the United States. While Iran denied this, it subsequently signaled that a new nuclear deal may open the door for direct flights. Venable reportedly did not reply when questioned about its role in the announcement.

…Either way, their letter underscores the fact that powerful financial interests at work in securing approval of the Iran deal, interests that would appear likely to profit from seeing Iran sanctions end.

Inquiring minds want to know: Were such interests at Venable and among its clients disclosed to the senior military officers before they signed on?

As with most things in the Obama Administration, following the money tells a whole lot more than what is actually being said.

This Is Just Ugly

Yesterday CBS News reported that the deal with Iran negotiated by America, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and Germany will be voted on by the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Since five of the countries who negotiated the treaty with Iran are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it is fairly certain the agreement will be adopted.

The article reports:

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration.

Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

Whether Congress approves the treaty or not, it goes into effect internationally. Whatever happened to America? First of all, even if Congress votes against the treaty, the treaty goes into effect worldwide. So where is American sovereignty? Second of all, why do we need Congress if the Senate’s role to advise and consent to treaties has been taken out of the equation.

The article concludes:

If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.”

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.

She told reporters: “It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.'”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the “time and space” for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

America has become internationally irrelevant.