Private Powerbrokers Bankrolled Iran Diplomacy

Posted on by

Thomas Pickering, an anti-Israel steward of progressive bent was designated by Hillary Clinton to head up the task of the Accountability Review Board report to investigate the Benghazi deadly attack.

Being a powerbroker with lots of money, an agenda and the quest to create expanded business opportunity with the enemy is what the Iran Project is about.

Iran has been an rogue country for decades and a state sponsor of terror, yet to some that does not matter even when American have been killed. Shameful.

The deal being negotiated with Iran by the P5+1 comes down to lifting sanctions, funding and missiles. Through this the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is about to being even richer than the $8 billion in their control now. Does that even sound remotely acceptable?

Click here for the Iran Project summary and review the signatories.

Cunning Diplomacy Bubbles to the Surface

How Freelance Diplomacy Bankrolled by Rockefellers Has Paved the Way for an Iran Deal

Bloomberg:

Cutting a nuclear deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be the easy part for President Obama, who must then persuade both houses of Congress to sign off on the pact. Republicans and many Democrats abhor the idea of lifting sanctions and readmitting oil-rich Iran to the global economy until it disavows all nuclear research and stops meddling through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Advocating for an Iran truce is a loose coalition of peace groups, think tanks, and former high-ranking U.S. diplomats bound together by millions of dollars given by the Rockefeller family through its $870 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The philanthropy, which is run by a board split between family members and outsiders, has spent $4.3 million since 2003 promoting a nuclear pact with Iran, chiefly through the New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former U.S. diplomats. For more than a decade they’ve conducted a dialogue with well-placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, now Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator. The Americans routinely briefed officials in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, including William Burns, Obama’s former deputy secretary of state. Burns hammered out much of an interim nuclear agreement in secret 2013 talks with his Iranian counterparts that paved the way for the current summit in Vienna, where Secretary of State John Kerry leads the U.S. delegation.

The Rockefellers’ Iran foray began in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks. Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, convened a board retreat at the Rockefellers’ Pocantico Center in Westchester, just north of New York City, to consider new approaches to the Islamic world at a time when the U.S. was focused on the threat from al-Qaeda. One invited speaker was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-American professor at George Washington University. “He got me thinking more and more about Iran, its geostrategic importance and its relationship to the Sunni world,” says Heintz.

The Rockefeller fund decided to create the Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S., a nonprofit that promotes the UN’s work then headed by William Luers, a career diplomat who served as ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia. Luers made contact with Zarif through Iran’s mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering, who served as Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Israel and George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, and Frank G. Wisner, who served as Reagan’s ambassador to Egypt and whose father was a high-ranking officer in the Office of Strategic Services and then in the CIA. “Each of us came from a special place on the compass,” Wisner says.

With encouragement from the Bush administration, says Heintz, the trio developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, the Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties. It was hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute at a small hotel outside Stockholm. The Iranians came armed with talking points, Heintz says, and the meetings were stiff and unproductive. The initial goal of developing a road map to restoring relations between Washington and Tehran, along the lines of Nixon’s 1972 Shanghai Communique preceding U.S.-China relations, proved elusive, according to Pickering. After every meeting, Heintz says, Iran Project leaders would brief staffers at the State Department or White House, including Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state. “As we had no contacts at all with Iran at the time, their insights were very valuable,” says R. Nicholas Burns, who served as under secretary of state for political affairs under Bush.

The secret meetings in European capitals were suspended after Mahmoud Ahmedinejad won Iran’s presidency in 2005. But the group’s relationship with Zarif proved key in helping to jump-start negotiations after he was made foreign minister in 2013 by Rouhani, the newly elected president. A State Department official says the administration welcomes back-channel efforts like the Iran Project’s because “it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible.”

The Iran Project kept an eye on public opinion from the start. Among those invited to its events in New York was Robert Silvers, editor of the New York Review of Books, who found them “helpful in framing ideas for a workable nuclear treaty,” he says. The ideas floated at the meetings included letting the Iranians keep a limited capacity for enriching uranium to save face. “But everyone knew that a huge amount depended on how far the Iranians would go.” Silvers published multiple essays detailing the proposals by Pickering and Jessica Mathews, another Iran Project participant who preceded William Burns as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Iran Project’s briefing papers have provided a counterweight to criticism from pro-Israel groups, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, opposed to a deal.

For Wisner, breaking bread with Iranians exorcised a few ghosts. He was on Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s senior staff during the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979 and knew diplomats held at the embassy. “I lived that,” he says. He also remembers listening to his dad planning the military coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, from power in 1953 and replaced him with the U.S.-backed shah, Reza Pahlavi. “They don’t trust us, and we don’t trust them,” says Wisner. He says his father’s role in the Mosaddegh coup didn’t come up in any of the Iran Project meetings. “The Iranians, like us, have made a major political decision to engage,” he says.

The Rockefeller fund has given about $3.3 million to the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based disarmament group that has spent $4 million since 2010 to promote a deal with Iran and shepherded the peace groups and think tanks it supports to back Obama. “We’re trying to leverage our investments to play on our strengths,” says Joseph Cirincione, its president.

On June 23, when the New York Times ran an op-ed, “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw,” Ploughshares coordinated its grantees’ responses to the claim that the deal would leave Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon within three months. The Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan group established in 1971, published a rebuttal on its daily blog, which other Ploughshares-affiliated groups sent to their contacts in Congress. “The pro-deal side has done a very good job systematically co-opting what used to be the arms control community and transforming it into an absolutist, antiwar movement,” says Omri Ceren, senior adviser for strategy for the Israel Project, a nonprofit that opposes a deal. “Sometimes, if your goal is stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you have to make the hard decision to take military action, or at least signal you’re willing to.” Cirincione says that mistakes the rationale behind the Iran Project. “Iran is the boulder in the road,” he says. “You have to resolve this issue to get to the rest of the nonproliferation agenda. That’s why we’re doing this.”

 

Center for American Progress Running Govt Agency Policy

Posted on by

At the Environmental Protection Agency, the collusion with The Center for American Policy runs deep. Whether it is invoking a hidden carbon tax, controlling green house emissions or promoting the cottage industry of climate change, Barack Obama’s cabinet secretaries listen, take heed and obey.

All in the name of progress right? Not so much but rather in the quest for money, revenue and control of business.

The Collusion Begins, Emails and Facts are Funny Things and why Redact?

Center for American Progress Helped Craft EPA Press Strategy

Emails reveal liberal think tank’s climate strategy director advised top EPA officials on dealing with skeptical reporter
WFB:

A prominent left-wing group helped formulate Environmental Protection Agency talking points designed to sell a controversial regulatory scheme to skeptical journalists, internal emails show.

The emails show Joseph Goffman, the senior counsel of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, circulating talking points from Center for American Progress climate strategy director Daniel Weiss among EPA colleagues attempting to sell the agency’s controversial power plant regulations to a New York Times reporter.

Weiss emailed Goffman in September 2013 with a series of suggestions for convincing the Times’ Matt Wald of the commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, a vital component of the agency’s stringent power plant emissions regulations.

Five minutes later, Goffman sent an email to five colleagues in his office and the agency’s public affairs division. Unredacted language in the email is identical to language in Weiss’ list of talking points.

The Environment & Energy (E&E) Legal Institute obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request. Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow at E&E, said they show extensive behind-the-scenes collaboration between EPA and third-party groups that support the regulations.

“The chief lawyer tasked with making the global warming agenda happen cuts and pastes Team Soros arguments and strategies into emails and sends them to colleagues as his own,” Horner said in an email.

Weiss, who is now the senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters, another influential green group, did not respond to a request for comment.

Goffman took the lead in crafting the EPA’s legal justification for its power plant rules, which are expected to hit coal-fired power plants hardest. Laws require federal regulations to be commercially viable, so the EPA needed to show it was possible for coal plants to comply with the rule.

To do so, it relied on CCS technology, which it said could allow such plants to reduce carbon emissions below the regulations’ threshold. Critics of the rules, including the coal industry, said CCS was not “adequately demonstrated,” the standard for technology that allows private actors to comply with the regulations.

On Sept. 20, 2013, Weiss emailed Rohan Patel, a special assistant to President Obama who led White House messaging on the regulations, and Brian Bond, EPA’s associate administrator of public engagement and environmental education.

Weiss’ email had a frantic tone. “Very important,” the subject line said. “NYT to write CCS not adequately demonstrated?” He warned Bond and Patel that Wald sounded skeptical of CCS’s commercial viability. “It might be worth your while to have [EPA administrator] Gina [McCarthy] or some other senior person call him ASAP.”

Patel forwarded the email to Goffman, associate EPA administrator for public affairs Tom Reynolds, and Dan Utech, the president’s deputy assistant for energy and climate change. Reynolds and Goffman scheduled a phone call to discuss Wald’s forthcoming story.

Minutes later, Goffman emailed Weiss. “Thanks for the note on Matt Wald,” he wrote. “We’re on it.”

Weiss replied with a series of suggestions for selling Wald on CCS’s commercial viability. “The key is to make the most compelling case that CCS is ‘adequately demonstrated,’” he wrote. “Since the strategy of the opponents seems to be cast doubt on the technology, the more evidence that it is on its way, the stronger the case.”

Five minutes later, Goffman emailed five other EPA officials, including Reynolds. Most of the email is redacted, pursuant to a FOIA exemption designed to protect the confidentiality of internal deliberations among federal officials.

However, the first and last sentences are identical to language in Weiss’ email. Horner says that suggests that Goffman simply copied Weiss’ suggestions into his own message. “The brazen collusion is staggering,” he said.

“This is a spectacular example of how ideological activists brought in to the Obama administration to jam through the left-wing agenda see no distinction between EPA and their former green-group colleagues,” Horner said.

EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison dismissed concerns that Goffman had simply copied Weiss’ talking points into intra-agency communications.

“No one forwarded a suggestion as their own, and one email is not representative of how the agency works,” she said in an emailed statement.

“EPA’s priority is reaching out and engaging with the public and stakeholders so we hear from as many voices as possible,” Harrison said. “Nothing we do is about one individual or group coming up with an idea or suggestion.”

Wald’s eventual story, published on Sept. 20, cast doubt on the commercial viability of CCS technology.

“In the last few days, Ms. McCarthy has referred to several early-stage carbon capture projects as a sign that industry can build the needed equipment,” he wrote. “But the four she referred to in the committee hearing ranged from under construction to planned. None of them would sequester the carbon dioxide, and all would sell it.”

Five days later, Weiss co-authored a CAP paper echoing the points he had emailed to EPA.

CAP has been described as “a boot camp” for the Obama administration’s climate policy staff. A number of the think tank’s experts have moved on to influential roles in the administration, and its proposals are frequently incorporated into administration policies.

“Anyone who pays attention to these issues must acknowledge that CAP plays a very unique, almost extraordinary role in developing documents for the administration and in advancing personnel,” energy lobbyist Scott Segal told Greenwire in April.

Horner said collaboration between CAP and EPA illustrates a trend that has borne itself out in the language of regulations promulgated by the agency, including its rules regarding power plant emissions.

“Other emails I have obtained demonstrate that they take what the greens tell them and paste it in,” he said. “That’s unlawful and one of the major reasons these greenhouse gas rules need to be blocked.”

 

Thirteen Miles Away, Those are Russian Bombers

Posted on by

The US Air Force reportedly scrambled fighter jets to intercept two pairs of Russian bombers that flew off the coast of California and Alaska on July 4.

The first incident occurred off the coast of Alaska, forcing the Air Force to send two F-22 jets from their base in Alaska to intercept two Tupolev Tu-95 long-range nuclear bombers, Fox News reports, citing US defense officials.

The second incident happened off the central coast of California, where another pair of Tu-95 Bear bombers were intercepted by two F-15 jets.

A defense official said that neither pair of Russian bombers entered US airspace–12 nautical miles off the coast.

Such incidents are not an uncommon occurrence between Russia and the United States.

A US Air Force reconnaissance aircraft encountered with a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea in May, American military officials said last month.

According to officials, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet, flying at high speed, flew alongside the US RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft at the same altitude, and shadowed the plane before leaving the area.

Also in May, the Russian military deployed Su-24 jets to ward off The US Navy destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea after it was found heading into Russia’s territorial waters, according to several Russian media outlets.

The number of flights by Russian bombers over the US Air Defense Identification Zone doubled last year from their norm, according to data from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

Congressional hawks see the moves as a veiled message by Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Putin is KGB’ing Barack Obama:

While the two leaders have not had any communications since February, Putin allegedly reached out to the White House first in a phone call and then in a written communication.

Ultimatums abound, but who is listening.

Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have reason to be disappointed after their telephone conversation on June 25.

It was the first direct communication between these leaders since February, and both the Kremlin and the White House reported that the conversation ranged over the Ukraine crisis, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the NATO buildup in Eastern Europe, as well as the impending conclusion of the talks with Iran over suspect nuclear weapons.

Putin initiated the exchange, but Obama did all of the asserting and exhorting that, in the end, came to a standoff in all the threatened regions. Chiefly, Obama is said to have insisted upon actions by Putin without offering anything in exchange. Obama’s conduct, according to Kremlin informants, was a premeditated performance of ultimatum.

Demands and provocations

First, Obama pressed Putin with the claim that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula.

The White House reported Obama’s remarks in terms of last February’s Minsk agreement between the so-called Normandy Four, Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia: “President Obama reiterated the need for Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements, including the removal of all Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory.”

At no point before or after that agreement has the Kremlin acknowledged there are Russian troops or weapon systems inside Ukraine in support of the Donbass separatists. There is no language in the agreement saying that there exist Russian armed forces in Ukraine to be withdrawn. There is mention of “foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries.” Since then, the U.S. has deployed both military units and military equipment into Ukraine in support of the Kiev government. Kiev claims it has deployed 60,000 troops along the Donbass cease-fire line. The U.S., Great Britain and Canada speak of sending trainers for the elite national guard units (though not the neo-fascist Azov Battalion).

Obama’s remarks to Putin about Ukraine took the form of a diktat. From the Russian point of view, Obama sounded peculiarly unrealistic. There was the suggestion of desperation in Obama’s demands in order to create a foreign policy legacy despite the disorder in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

Obama also demanded that Russia support the pending deal between the P5+1 powers — the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — and Iran over Tehran’s suspected secret nuclear weapons program. Russia, a party to the negotiations, has not voiced its opinion of a deal yet to be concluded. Obama told Putin that Russia must go along with the deal because this is what the international community demands.

Read more details here.

Bunker Busters vs. Kerry’s Pro-Iran Lobby

Posted on by

Sanctions and Ballistic Missiles

From Reuters:

A dispute over U.N. sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo were among issues holding up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers on Monday, the day before their latest self-imposed deadline.

“The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no reason to connect it with the nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept,” one Western official told Reuters. “There’s no appetite for that on our part.”

Iranian and other Western officials confirmed this view as the foreign ministers of the six powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States – gathered in Vienna to try to strike a deal with Iran by Tuesday night.

“The Western side insists that not only should it (ballistic missiles) remain under sanctions, but that Iran should suspend its program as well,” an Iranian official said.

“But Iran is insisting on its rights and says all the sanctions, including on the ballistic missiles, should be lifted when the U.N. sanctions are lifted.”

Lobbying on Behalf of Tehran

From Reuters:

It’s always awkward to defend your enemies. But that’s the position U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has found itself in with Iran as it pushes for an historic accord that would end a 12-year nuclear standoff.

Tehran and Washington, which have called each other the “Great Satan” and a member of the “Axis of Evil” during 36 years of hostility, are more used to exchanging insults than defending each other. The two foes cut diplomatic ties after Iranian revolutionaries seized 52 hostages in Tehran’s U.S. embassy during the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Yet for a month now the U.S. State Department has been defending Iran from suggestions that it was on the verge of violating a requirement to reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile under a 2013 interim nuclear with major powers.

Offensive Measure, Bunker Busters

From LA Times:

As diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran’s most heavily fortified nuclear complexes, including one deep underground.

The bunker-busting bombs are America’s most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons. At 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

In development for more than a decade, the latest iteration of the MOP — massive ordnance penetrator — was successfully tested on a deeply buried target this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The test followed upgrades to the bomb’s guidance system and electronics to stop jammers from sending it off course.

U.S. officials say the huge bombs, which have never been used in combat, are a crucial element in the White House deterrent strategy and contingency planning should diplomacy go awry and Iran seek to develop a nuclear bomb.

Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb.

“A military solution will not fix it,” Obama told Israeli TV on June 1. An attack “would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, speaking to reporters Thursday at the Pentagon, sought to downplay the likelihood or the utility of an attack. He said no plan under consideration, including use of the bunker-busters, could deliver a permanent knockout blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and enrichment plants.

How About that Immigration Slush Fund?

Posted on by

How about using $1.3 BILLION to fix just one home country first?

First, you need some background on the Department of Homeland Security and how they not only publish crap but how they justify it and then ask for their annual budgetary requirements with glowing accomplishments. So to help you out, click this link and head on over to the Janet Napolitano DHS operations on page 121 and read on if you can stomach the task.

Now, let us move on to the slush fund shall we?

Hat tip to Senator Jeff Sessions, he held a subcommittee meeting in March and discovered a $1.3 billion dollar slush fund and lots of nefarious actions with that money. I watch this stuff on C-Span and report:

“USCIS has been hoarding fees paid by legal immigrants to subsidize the planned new executive amnesty for an estimated five million illegal aliens and failing to screen applicants adequately to prevent criminal aliens from obtaining benefits. In addition, the agency has created a pathway to citizenship for many of these illegal aliens.”

There is more.

“USCIS has accumulated a “reserve fund” of unexpended revenues that now totals $1.2 billion (with a “B”). The agency has a policy to maintain a reserve balance of $600 million to help it manage in the event of revenue fluctuations, but USCIS is using these funds to launch the new executive amnesty programs (without any statutory authorization). One cannot help but wonder how this reserve fund got so big over the years, because by law USCIS is supposed to charge fees that reflect the exact cost of processing the benefits. Did they overcharge millions of legal applicants or cut corners on the processing of benefits? Both?

Sen. Tom Tillis (R-N.C.) asked why USCIS has not used its huge cash reserves to reduce the processing backlogs for legal applicants instead of setting up unconstitutional work permit programs for illegal aliens.

USCIS had already spent $11 million getting ready for the new executive amnesty until it was blocked by a federal judge in mid-February. About $7 million was spent to lease office space in Crystal City, Va., and those rent payments still need to be made whether the program goes forward or not. The total cost of the processing facility alone is estimated to be $26.2 million.

Before the program was stopped, USCIS had hired “one or two” people to work on the program and had made job offers to 360 others, which are now on hold. The plan is for the amnesty applications to be adjudicated by 700-800 brand-new employees, with no experience in evaluating immigration applications.”

You can actually get a few more details here.

Yippee for Senator Cruz, he has introduced  A BILL

To eliminate the offsetting accounts that are currently available

for use by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

This is great in action but gaining real traction is slim to none. This is why you need to apply pressure to your respective lawmakers.

Now, USCIS has a website, where a full welcoming and kindly layout encourages anyone into the United States and helps them find a way to do it.

Okay, so remember now that was $1.8 BILLION and that is not including the budget at DHS for 2015. You see, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employs more than 13,000 people and in 2012, there were 72,000 refugee applications and 29,000 asylum applications. Add that to the unknown quantity coming across the border and we have no clue what language we will be required to speak to keep our job.

On page 133 of this latest document:

USCIS ensures that information and decisions on citizenship and immigration benefits are provided to customers in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, and professional manner, while also working to safeguard our national security. More than 50 different types of citizenship and immigration benefit applications
are processed by USCIS. Every case is unique and requires specialized attention from experienced USCIS immigration officers. USCIS is also responsible for enhancing the integrity of our country’s legal immigration system by deterring, detecting, and pursuing immigration-related fraud, combating the unauthorized practice of immigration law, and helping to combat unauthorized employment in the workplace.
Each day, USCIS employees work to fulfill the USCIS mission of enhancing both national security and the integrity of the legal immigration system by: (1) identifying threats to national security and public safety posed by those seeking immigration benefits; (2) deterring, detecting, and pursuing, immigration benefit fraud; (3) identifying and removing systemic vulnerabilities in the legal immigration system; and (4) promoting information sharing and collaboration with other governmental agencies.
In addition, USCIS extends humanitarian protection to refugees, both within and outside of the United States, in accordance with U.S. law and international obligations.

There are these 2 samples of how DHS states their accomplishments:

  • Collaborated in the effort to respond to the April 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings including the establishment of Task Force 1 as a centralized hub for fielding requests from interagency partners.
    • Interviewed and performed security checks for approximately 72,000 refugee applicants in more than 66 countries to support the admission of 69,930 refugees to the United States; interviewed, performed security checks, and completed more than 29,000 affirmative asylum applications; and performed more than 43,000 asylum screenings for reasonable and credible fear.

Sheesh….How many questions need to be asked now? The first one is how is this fleecing of the American taxpayer a benefit and what is the threat matrix to our national security?