An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
There are 38 countries that participate in the State Department Visa Waiver Program. There are very few conditions for people traveling to the United States from those countries to enter our country. There are countless problems with this program most of which is those that over-stay and never go home.
Europe has an unspeakable problem with Islamic State sympathizers and those from the UK are allowed to travel to the U.S. without any real conditions.
To make America safer immediately a first step is to suspend this program immediately and for at least two years.
Have no fear…yeah sure. The program is getting tighter security measures.
Just days ago, Adil Batarfi, one of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) senior commanders, issued a threat against America and the West if they continue to blasphemy Islam. Amid these continued calls for terrorist attacks on the homeland, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced new security enhancements to the US Visa Waiver program (VWP).
The VWP is administered by DHS and enables eligible citizens or nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa. The VWP constitutes one of a few exceptions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in which foreign nationals are admitted into the United States without a valid visa.
To enhance the security of the program, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced a number of additional or revised security criteria for all participants—both current and new members— in the VWP. The new criteria include the following:
Required use of e-passports for all Visa Waiver Program travelers coming to the United States;
Required use of the INTERPOL Lost and Stolen Passport Database to screen travelers crossing a Visa Waiver country’s borders; and
Permission for the expanded use of U.S. federal air marshals on international flights from Visa Waiver countries to the United States.
“As I have said a number of times now, the current global threat environment requires that we know more about those who travel to the United States,” Johnson said. “This includes those from countries for which we do not require a visa.”
Johnson said the new enhancements build on a number of changes implemented last September. DHS required travelers from the 38 VWP countries where a visa is not required for US entry to provide additional passport data, contact information and other potential names or aliases in their travel application submitted via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) before they could travel to the US.
DHS took steps to improve the program in the wake of the adoption of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2178 last September, which urged member nations to do more to address the growing threat of foreign terrorist fighters.
“The security enhancements we announce today are part of this department’s continuing assessments of our homeland security in the face of evolving threats and challenges, and our determination to stay one step ahead of those threats and challenges,” Johnson said. “And, it is our considered judgment that the security enhancements we announce today will not hinder lawful trade and travel with our partners in the Visa Waiver Program. These measures will enhance security for all concerned.”
Homeland Security Todayreported earlier this year that lawmakers have become concerned that the program could be used as a gateway for terrorists to enter the United States. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the VWP the “Achilles’ heel of America,” saying citizens from visa waiver countries could travel to Syria to fight for jihadist groups and return home to conducts attacks.
A UN report from earlier this year revealed that the number of foreign fighters leaving their home nations to join extremist groups in Iraq, Syria and other nations has hit record levels, with estimates of over 25,000 foreign fighters coming from nearly 100 countries.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has raised similar concerns. During an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,” McCaul said, “We have a visa waiver-free system where they can fly in the United States without even having a visa. We need to look at all sorts of things like that.”
However, defenders of the program believe VWP is critical to national security. At a speech at The Heritage Foundation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff made the case for continuing the VWP.
“Now is not the time to handicap or dismantle our intelligence collection programs … that have literally been at the cornerstone of protecting the United States since 2001.” VWP is “a plus-plus for our national security and our economic security,” Chertoff said.
“As you can see, the Lone Star State is just pathetic as far as political attitudes are concerned,” Lerner’s friend Mark Tornwall wrote in 2014.
“Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best,” Lerner responded, according to USA Today. “He should’ve let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets.”
Committee Concludes Two-Year Investigation into the IRS’s Treatment of Tax-Exempt Organizations
WASHINGTON – Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today released the Committee’s bipartisan investigative report detailing their investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status after the Committee voted to report out the findings in a closed executive session. As required by law, members were briefed by Committee staff with 6103 authority to review private taxpayer information in a number of closed-door briefings on the findings and recommendations of the report before the vote.
“This bipartisan investigation shows gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the IRS and confirms an unacceptable truth: that the IRS is prone to abuse,” Hatch said. “The Committee found evidence that the administration’s political agenda guided the IRS’s actions with respect to their treatment of conservative groups. Personal politics of IRS employees, such as Lois Lerner, also impacted how the IRS conducted its business. American taxpayers should expect more from the IRS and deserve an IRS that lives up to its mission statement of administering the tax laws fairly and impartially – regardless of political affiliation. Moving forward, it is my hope we can use this bipartisan report as a foundation to work towards substantial reforms at the agency so that this never happens again. ”
“The results of this in-depth, bipartisan investigation showcase pure bureaucratic mismanagement without any evidence of political interference,” said Wyden. “Groups on both sides of the political spectrum were treated equally in their efforts to secure tax-exempt status. Now is the time to pursue bipartisan staff recommendations to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
During the years 2010 to 2013, IRS management failed to provide effective control, guidance and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
Top IRS managers did not keep informed about the applications involving possible political advocacy and thereby forfeited the opportunity to provide the leadership that the IRS needed to respond to the legal and policy issues presented by these applications.
Lois Lerner, who headed the Exempt Organizations Division, became aware of the Tea Party applications in early 2010, but failed to inform her superiors about their existence. While under Lerner’s leadership, the Exempt Organizations Division undertook no less than seven poorly planned and badly executed initiatives aimed at bringing the growing number of applications from Tea Party and other groups to decision. Every one of those initiatives ended in predictable failure and every failure resulted in months and years of delay for the organizations awaiting decisions from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status.
The Committee also found that the workplace culture in the Exempt Organizations Division placed little emphasis or value on providing customer service.
Few if any of the managers were concerned about the delays in processing the applications, delays that possibly harmed the organizations ability to function for their stated purposes.
The Committee made a number of recommendations to address IRS management deficiencies as follows:
The Hatch Act should be revised to designate all IRS, Treasury and Chief Counsel employees who handle exempt organization matters as “further restricted.” “Further restricted” employees are precluded from active participation in political management or partisan campaigns, even while off-duty.
The IRS should track the age and cycle times of applications for tax-exempt status to detect backlogs early in the process and allow management to take steps to address those backlogs.
The Exempt Organizations Division should track requests for assistance from both the Technical Branch and the Chief Counsel’s office to ensure the timely receipt of that assistance.
A list of over-age applications should be sent to the Commissioner on a quarterly basis.
Internal IRS guidance should require that employees reach a decision applications no later than 270 days after the IRS receives that application. Employees and managers who fail to comply with these standards should be disciplined.
Minimum training standards should be established for all managers within the EO Division to ensure that they have adequate technical ability to perform their jobs.
Issuance of the report was delayed for more than a year after the IRS belatedly informed the Committee that it had not been able to recover a large number of potentially responsive documents that were lost when Lois Lerner’s hard drive crashed in 2011.
By failing to locate and preserve records, making inaccurate assertions about the existence of backup data, and failing to disclose to Congress the fact that records were missing, the IRS impeded the Committee’s investigation. These actions had the effect of denying the Committee access to records that may have been relevant and, ultimately, delayed the investigation’s conclusion by more than one year.
A table of contents for the appendix can be found here. The appendicies can be found below:
Additional views from Chairman Hatch can be found here. A summary can be found here.
Additional views from Ranking Member Wyden can be found here. A summary can be found here.
Background:
On May 20, 2013, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee sent a detailed, 41-question document request to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking information about the alleged targeting by the IRS of certain social welfare organizations applying for tax-exempt status based on those organizations’ presumed political activities. That letter marked the beginning of a bipartisan investigation by the Committee into the IRS’ activities related to the review of tax-exempt applications and related issues raised by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) in his May 14, 2013, report.
In June 2014, the Committee learned that Lois Lerner had experienced a hard drive failure in 2011, which raised questions about the IRS’s ability to produce all the documents necessary to complete the Senate Finance Committee investigation. As a result, Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden asked TIGTA to investigate the matter. Specifically, TIGTA looked into: 1) what records the IRS lost; 2) if there was any attempt to deliberately destroy records, or otherwise impede congressional and federal investigations; and 3) whether any of the missing information can be recovered.
TIGTA provided their findings to the Committee on June 30, 2015.
Upon completing the report, Committee investigators had interviewed more than 32 current and former IRS and Treasury employees and reviewed nearly 1.5 million pages of documents.
The opening salvo was much earlier, yet in earnest, the talks with Iran began in 2011 and it appears, Obama’s campaign team were tooling the talks to perhaps be part of his re-election campaign. It was already decided that Hillary was out and Kerry was in as Secretary of State.
Pathetic when we need to find some back-end truths from Iran, a terror nation. Read on readers, this is a fascinating summary with clear citations and annotations.
By MEMRI: Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the U.S. since their early stages. Their statements indicate that the U.S. initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after President Hassan Rohani, of the pragmatic camp, was elected in 2013, but rather in 2011-2012, in the era of radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[1] The disclosures also indicate that, already at that time, Iran received from the U.S. administration a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the Majlis speaker, specified that the letter had come from John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iranian vice president and top negotiator Ali Akbar Salehi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by President Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.
The following are initial details from these disclosures; a full translation is pending.
Khamenei: Bilateral Talks Began In 2011, Were Based On U.S. Recognition Of Nuclear Iran
In a speech he delivered on June 23, 2015, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that the American administration had initiated the nuclear talks with Iran during Ahmadinejad’s term in office, based on a U.S. recognition of a nuclear Iran: “The issue of negotiating with the Americans is related to the term of the previous [Ahmadinejad] government, and to the dispatching of a mediator to Tehran to request talks. At the time, a respected regional figure came to me as a mediator [referring to Omani Sultan Qaboos] and explicitly said that U.S. President [Obama] had asked him to come to Tehran and present an American request for negotiations. The Americans told this mediator: ‘We want to solve the nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.’ I told that mediator that I did not trust the Americans and their words, but after he insisted, I agreed to reexamine this topic, and negotiations began.”[2]
Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam: Kerry Sent Iran A Letter Via Oman Recognizing Iran’s Enrichment Rights
In an interview with the Tasnim news agency on July 7, 2015, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, said that John Kerry had relayed a letter to Tehran recognizing Iran’s enrichment rights: “We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the U.S.] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via Oman, stating that America officially recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle. Then there were two meetings in Oman between the [Iranian and U.S.] deputy foreign ministers, and after those, Sultan Qaboos was dispatched by Obama to Khamenei with Kerry’s letter. Khamenei told him: ‘I don’t trust them.’ Sultan Qaboos said: ‘Trust them one more time.’ On this basis the negotiations began, and not on the basis of sanctions, as they [the Americans] claim in their propaganda.”[3]
Salehi: Obama Appointed Senator Kerry To Handle The Nuclear Dossier Vis-à-vis Iran; Later He Was Appointed Secretary Of State
Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi and head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, who was restored to the nuclear negotiation team this year, served as Iran’s foreign minister in 2010-2013. In interviews he has given on Iranian media since April 2014, he too claimed that the Americans initiated the secret talks with Iran in 2011-2012, and stressed his role in jumpstarting the process from the Iranian side. In a comprehensive interview with the daily Iran on August 4, 2015, he elaborated on the secret contacts initiated by the Americans. The following are excerpts from the interview:
Interviewer: “Why was Oman chosen as a mediator [in the contacts with the U.S.]?”
Salehi: “We have very good relations with Oman. When [Supreme Leader] Khamenei recently mentioned ‘a respected regional figure,’ he was obviously referring to the Omani leader. Oman is also respected by the West, and it had mediated between America and Iran on several previous occasions, for instance in the affair of the American mountain climbers who were arrested in Iran [in 2009]… When [Iranian deputy Foreign Minister] Qashqavi was there [in Oman], an Omani official gave him a letter in which he announced that the Americans were willing to hold negotiations with Iran and that they were very interested in solving the challenging [crisis] between Tehran and Washington. We [Iranians] were willing to help facilitate the process, and it looked like a good opportunity had come up. The 2012 U.S. elections had not yet started back then, but Obama had already launched his reelection campaign. The Omani message came just as [Obama and Romney] were starting their race in the U.S. elections, but there was still time before the elections [themselves]. At that stage I did not take the letter seriously.”
Interviewer: “Why didn’t you take it seriously? Because it was delivered by a mid-level Omani official?”
Salehi: “Yes. This fact concerned us, because the letter was hand-written and back then I was not familiar with that official. After a while, Mr. Souri, who was the CEO of an Iranian shipping [company], visited Oman to promote various shipping interests and talk with Omani officials.”
Interviewer: “This was how long after the delivery of the letter?”
Salehi: “He came to me about a month or two after the first letter was delivered, and said to me: ‘Mr. Salehi, I visited Oman to promote shipping interests, and an Omani official conveyed to me that the Americans were willing to enter secret bilateral negotiations on the nuclear dossier.’ It was clear that they wanted to launch negotiations…”
“The Omani official whose message Souri was relaying was one Isma’il, who had just been appointed an advisor to the Omani leader and who still holds a position in the Omani foreign ministry. He had good relations with the Americans, and Omani officials trusted him [too]. I said to Souri: ‘We are not at all certain to what extent the Americans are serious, but I’ll give you a note. Go tell them that these are our demands. Deliver [the note] during your next visit to Oman.’ On a piece of paper I wrote down four clearly-stated points, one of which was [the demand for] official recognition of the right to enrich uranium. I thought that, if the Americans were sincere in their proposal, they had to accept these four demands of ours. Mr. Souri delivered this short letter to the mediator, stressing that this was the list of Iran’s demands, [and that], if the Americans wanted to resolve the issue, they were welcome to do so [on our terms], otherwise addressing the White House proposals to Iran would be pointless and unjustified.
“All the demands presented in this letter were related to the nuclear challenge. [They were] issues we had always come up against, like the closing of the nuclear dossier, official recognition of [the right to] enrichment, and resolving the issue of Iran’s past activities under the PMD [possible military dimensions] heading. After receiving the letter, the Americans said, ‘We are definitely and sincerely willing, and we can resolve the issues that Iran mentioned.'”
Interviewer: “With whom did the Americans hold contacts?”
Salehi: “They were in contact with Omani officials, including the relevant figure in the Omani administration. He was a friend of U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry]. Back then Kerry was not yet secretary of state, he acted as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In any case, we received from the Americans a positive response and message. We came to the conclusion that we could prepare [to take] further steps on this issue. That’s why I asked the Omanis to relay to Iran an official letter that I could present to the officials in Iran. I assessed we had a good opportunity and that we could take advantage of it… They did so, and I presented the official letter that was received to the regime officials and went to the [Supreme] Leader to detail to him the process that had been conducted…
Interviewer: “What was the American position in the first meetings that took place between Iran and the P5+1 during Rohani’s presidency?”
Salehi: “After Rohani’s government began working [in August 2013] – this was during Obama’s second term in office – a new [round of] negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 was launched. By this time, Kerry was no longer a senator but had been appointed secretary of state. [But even] before this, when he was still senator, he had already been appointed by Obama to handle the nuclear dossier [vis-à-vis Iran] and later [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state. Before this, the Omani mediator, who was in close touch with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed secretary of state. In the period of the secret negotiations with the Americans in Oman, there was a more convenient atmosphere for obtaining concessions from the Americans. After the advent of the Rohani government and the American administration [i.e., after the start of Obama’s second term in office], and with Kerry as secretary of state, the Americans expressed a more forceful position. They no longer displayed the same eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became more rigid and the threshold of their demands higher. But the situation on the Iranian side changed too, since a very professional team was placed in charge of the negotiations with the P5+1…”[4]
‘Nuclear Iran’ Website: Three Rounds Of Talks With The U.S. Took Place Before Iran’s 2013 Elections
The “Nuclear Iran” website, which is affiliated with Iran’s former nuclear negotiation team and which supports the ideological camp, reported on April 20, 2014 that “Two additional conditions, out of the four conditions [set out by Khamenei], were that foreign minister [Salehi] himself not take part in the talks, and that the negotiations yield tangible results at an early [stage]. The policy for these negotiations was set out by a committee of three figures, [all of them] senior government officials, though Ahmadinejad himself did not have much of a role in it. The main strategy in these negotiations was [handing] America an ultimatum and exposing its insincerity and untrustworthiness. Before the 2013 presidential elections, three rounds of talks took place in Oman, and at these talks the Americans officially recognized Iran’s [right] to enrich [uranium]…”[5]
Endnotes:
[1] This is in contrast to what was implied by U.S. President Obama on July 14, 2015, when he announced the nuclear deal with Iran in a speech that began with the words “After two years of negotiations…” Whitehouse.gov, July 14, 2015.
[2] Leader.ir, June 23, 2015. Ahmad Khorshidi, a relative of Ahmadinejad’s, told the website Entekhab in 2014 that negotiations between Tehran and Washington did not start during President Rohani’s term. He said that during the Ahmadinejad period, there were three rounds of talks between the sides, which were also attended by then-foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi. Entekhab.ir, June 11, 2014.
This spooky dude just wont go away. He has made a lifetime out of subverting all that which has made America great. This campaign season, some are taking real notice and you should as well.
FreeBeacon: Top Clinton campaign lawyer also behind challenges to voter ID laws ahead of 2016 elections
An election integrity group has filed motions to assist three states that have been hit with anti-voter ID lawsuits.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”
The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.
Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.
“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”
The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into partisan weapons to leverage federal power over state elections merely to advantage one political party and disadvantage another.”
Adams hopes to assist the states against the lawsuits that were launched in Ohio this past May and in Wisconsin and Virginia in June
Marc Elias, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie and a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, filed the lawsuits against the three states. The anti-voter ID challenges are backed with millions of dollars from George Soros.
Elias first contemplated taking action against multiple states with voter identification laws in January 2014. When Soros learned of what Elias had planned, the liberal billionaire put $5 million behind the efforts.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times at the time.
Elias is working independently on the lawsuits although they are supported by the Clinton campaign. The Washington Free Beacon previously sought comment from both Elias and Soros’s press office on their multi-state effort challenging the laws. Neither returned the inquiries.
“This is a national strategy to affect the outcome of a national election,” Adams told the Free Beacon.
In June, as the lawsuit submissions were underway, Clinton began publicly stepping up her attack on voter identification laws.
During a June 4 speech at historically black Texas Southern University, Clinton called on Republicans to stop “fear-mongering” over a “phantom epidemic” of election fraud.
“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during her speech to a half-empty arena at the university.
Clinton also called for a universal, automatic voter registration system for 18-year-olds and expressed her support for extending early voting up to 20 days before an election.
As of March 25, 2015, a total of 34 states have passed voter identification laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of the 34 states, 32 currently have laws that are enforced.
Elias and Soros are expected to bring additional lawsuits in other states as part of their national campaign.
Politico in July: A trio of pro-Hillary Clinton groups raised more than $24 million in the first half of the year, including $2 million each from billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, POLITICO has learned.
Priorities USA Action, a super PAC dedicated to airing ads supporting Clinton and attacking her opponents, revealed Thursday that it raised $15.6 million during the first half of the year, including $2 million from Hollywood mogul Saban and $1 million from financier Soros.
American Bridge 21st Century, an opposition research super PAC founded by Clinton enforcer David Brock, raised $7.7 million — including $1 million from Soros — an official with the group said Wednesday. A linked non-profit group called American Bridge 21st Century Foundation – which is not required to disclose its donors – raised an additional $1 million, the official said.
The super PAC numbers are an encouraging development for Clinton, whose campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination announced Wednesday that it had raised $45 million during her first three months in the race.
Clinton is a fundraiser par excellence, and her ability to raise money for her own campaign was never in doubt.
The fundraising ability of the pro-Clinton super PACs, however, was less clear.
But the early fundraising details from Priorities and American Bridge — which will be fleshed out more completely in mandatory reports due at the Federal Election Commission before a July 15 deadline — suggest some of the party’s core mega-donors are stepping up to the plate.
According to sources in Democratic finance ciricles, Priorities collected big checks from Democratic Hollywood stalwarts including DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and producer J.J. Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath, and cause donors like California investor Herb Sandler and Boston philanthropist Barbara Lee. It got some organized labor cash as well, with a check coming from the union representing plumbers and pipefitters.
Soros’s checks in particular send an important signal. The Hungarian-born investor is one of the few Democratic donors who has shown a willingness to drop eight-figures in an election cycle, having donated more than $20 million in 2004 to groups that tried to oust then-President George W. Bush. After the failure of that effort, Soros dialed back his big-money political spending, but he is still closely watched by other rich Democrats as a bellwether donor.
An adviser to Soros said his boss also gave $1 million this year to America Votes, a liberal non-profit group that mobilizes voters around issue and election campaigns. But Soros has not decided how much to donate overall in 2016, or how to divvy up his big political checks among groups, the adviser said.
David Brock
Rodell Millineau
The $7.7-million super PAC haul for American Bridge — which has played a key role in defending Clinton against GOP attacks — marks its largest six-month fundraising haul since the group was formed in 2011. The cash came from 55 donors, for an average contribution of $140,000, and it came at an important time in the preliminary stages of the big-money cash race.
Guy Cecil, Priorities’ chief strategist, wrote supporters Thursday morning stressing the importance of raising big money more than six months before the first nominating contests.
“It may seem early to many of us, but with the amount of money pouring in from the far right wing, the time has come for our side to kick things into high gear,” Cecil wrote in an email first reported by The New York Times. “We have a lot of work to do in the months ahead, but we are starting to see some real momentum.”
The super PACs supporting Clinton’s prospective GOP rivals like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are raking in huge checks or commitments from their side’s billionaires. New York hedge fund manager Bob Mercer is the leading backer behind a network of pro-Cruz super PACs that boasted of raising $31 million while Miami businessman Norman Braman is considering donating as much as $25 million to a super PAC backing Rubio. Mega-donor cultivation is shaping up an essential aspect of the 2016 presidential campaign because super PACs have begun assuming some of the roles traditionally played by campaigns.
Unlike campaigns – which are limited to maximum donations of $5,400 this election cycle – super PACs can accept checks of unlimited amounts, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and a subsequent lower court decision that struck down key political spending restrictions.
While super PACs are still barred from coordinating their spending strategies with the campaigns they’re trying to help, operatives in recent years have pioneered techniques for ensuring complementary efforts.
American Bridge 21st Century, for instance, in 2013 launched a project called Correct the Record, that has been filling many of the functions of a traditional campaign rapid-response operation, providing real-time push-back against GOP attacks on its website and via email for use by Clinton’s defenders. The group became a stand-alone super PAC in May, splitting off from American Bridge, and hinting at plans to work even more closely with Clinton’s campaign.
Note: American Bridge is one of the most left-wing political action committees on record as noted by Open Secrets.org. The treasurer of American Bridge is Rodell Mollineau, who previously worked for the Obama re-election campaign. The largest mission of American Bridge is to hire trackers, these are boots on the ground armies that follow all republican politicians, whether they be governors, congress-people, senators or even state house legislators. They report back their surveillance reports often twisting actual words, events and objectives. This nefarious political action committee is well known by the republicans where they often put out red-alerts and you can read more here.
It was rather like hand signals, encryption in voice conversation and other covert communications that were used to ensure top points were met in P5+1 and Iran negotiations. Still, Iran prevailed and outplayed John Kerry and the White House.
Most curious is what has come to be known about the Fordow nuclear facility and the centrifuges.
In part from the Guardian: In the JCPOA, a total of six 174-centrifuge cascades will remain in Fordow, a total of 1044 machines, in line with the Supreme Leader’s decree. However, only two cascades will spin, producing stable isotopes, rather than enriching uranium. The other four cascades will remain idle. This anecdote chimes with the accounts of Western negotiators who have said that while the Supreme Leader’s edicts frequently complicated proceedings in Vienna, both sides were able and ready to find creative ways around them.
In his comments, Araqchi confirms a detail about Fordow that Western governments have long claimed but that Tehran had never acknowledged, that the Iranian government only informed the UN atomic watchdog, the IAEA, of Fordow’s existence in 2009 after Tehran realised it had been discovered by Western intelligence agencies. More details are here.
Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) has released details of a private meeting between Iran’s top nuclear negotiator and IRIB directors about the July 14 nuclear deal in Vienna.
The meeting, which was off the record, took place at the end of July. On Saturday, August 1, the IRIB news site published the comments without the permission of Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s chief negotiator.
Abbas responded immediately, saying the publication of the private conversation was “contrary to national interests and security” and “incompatible with professional ethics.” He also said that the published text contained numerous errors.
A few hours later, the IRIB site retracted the story, stating that the publication had been a mistake. Most of the other Persian-language sites that had republished the text also removed it following Araghchi’s objections.
During the private meeting, Araghchi had tried to not only rebut criticisms of the deal but to also convince IRIB directors that the nuclear agreement encompassed many important achievements. He told them that the media had little influence over the foreign ministry and that IRIB must play its part in ensuring the Iranian people did not become frustrated with the agreement.
Although his statements were removed, it was too late: the controversy had begun.
But what exactly did Araghchi say that was so controversial? IranWire reviews some of the most salient points.
1. The Americans got what they wanted.
Araghchi told IRIB directors that the Americans had one important demand that they needed to meet, and they succeeded: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “The main demand of the other side was to block Iran from getting nuclear weapons … We had no problem with that, and granted it to the enemy …meaning that we provided trust, trust that we will not be moving towards the bomb. We granted this to the other side in two ways, by accepting certain limitations and certain supervisions. The other side got what it wanted and can say that they prevented an Iranian atomic bomb.” But he said Iran had not conceded to anything it had not wanted to: “We gave up atomic bomb, a bomb which we did not want and considered forbidden.”
2. Iran arms Hezbollah.
Araghchi confirmed that Iran is arming Lebanese Hezbollah: “We said that we cannot stop giving arms to Hezbollah, and we’re not ready to sacrifice it to our nuclear program. So we will continue doing it.”
3. No deals over other issues in the region — but definitely debate.
Araghchi denied that there had been a deal over regional issues as part of the nuclear negotiations. But he did confirm that discussions took place and important connections had been made during negotiations. “Mr. Kerry said a few times: ‘you are the victim of your own successes in the region. You have had successes in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon and have gained influence. Under these conditions, if we lift the arms embargo against you, we would kill the deal and we would no longer be able to defend it — not with our own allies, not with Arabs, not with Israel and not with Congress. There will be no deal. So we have to keep the arms embargo.’”
4. The possibility of US military action was real, and Iran took it very seriously.
Araghchi confirmed that over the past few years, reports of possible US military action against Iran were taken seriously. “For 10 years they [the Americans] tried everything and used military threats to a maximum level. Maybe people are not aware of the details, but our Revolutionary Guards and military friends know that there were nights in 85-86 [2006-2007] when we were worried that by the morning Iran would be surrounded,” he said. He added that several times they expected to awake to military operations unfolding around them. He said military personnel met to analyse maps to see where military bases were located and “what planes were stationed where. An attack on Iran only depended on the political will of Mr. Obama, who could decide to strike, and they would.”
However, media agencies had queried this, pointing out that Obama became president in 2009. Although it might have been a simple misunderstanding — Araghchi could have simple been referring to the fact that Obama had expressed readiness to use military might, or at least threatened it: Obama did repeatedly emphasize that military action was “not off the table.”
5. Parliament approval is not compulsory.
During the meeting, Araghchi implicitly opposed the claim that Iranian parliament had to approve the Vienna agreement. But he did concede that parliament should be in a position to review the document. “According to its own resolution, parliament must review the agreement — not approve it. The Supreme Leader has stated that the legal process must be followed, but the few times that he mentioned this point, he did not refer to parliament. Nevertheless, the Islamic Consultative Assembly [parliament] will review it. However, I believe that parliamentary approval is not prudent, because the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) contains voluntary provisions, which will turn into compulsory obligations if it is approved by parliament … We have to announce our decision as soon as possible so that if the US Congress wants to reject the agreement, it will singlehandedly carry the weight of rejecting the agreement, and the failure of negotiations. In this case we won’t lose anything. We can return to our own program and the world will consider us to be justified.”
6. Ayatollah Khamenei was in the loop.
Contrary to some regime propaganda, Araghchi explained in detail that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was involved in every stage of the negotiations and the agreement: “He was very clear that all the general principles, frameworks and red lines must be decided and supervised by him. He even let his views be known about some of the details. When he first brought up the subject of 190,000 Separative Work Units, he showed that he was a master of the details. He intervened when it was necessary, and we were never poorer for that.
“Those who say that the Leadership has been sidestepped … are debasing the role of the leadership and are doing him an injustice. They don’t help the leadership in any way. It is unjust to him that we should think that he was not and hasn’t been involved in the process of negotiations, or that he hasn’t seen the agreement. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution was involved in the general framework and the red lines … During recent negotiations, a couple of times messengers brought us messages …The Supreme Leader expressly ordered that 1,000 centrifuges remain at Fordo [Iran’ underground nuclear enrichment facility]… We were worried sick that this wasn’t possible, because they [the Americans] wouldn’t consent to even one centrifuge in that location…What happened at the negotiations and how they came to consent to it is another story. It was a blessing from god.”
7. Even one ton of enriched uranium is enough to make a bomb
Araghchi also addressed Iran’s technological capability for developing an atomic bomb, and what impact it had on Iranian domestic politics. “Some friends claim that it would take us several years to fully restore our [nuclear] program. But it is important to note that these critics are not talking about returning to our current situation. It is not important to return to the situation where we have eight or 10 tons [of enriched uranium]. Even one ton is enough to make a bomb. Of course, we are not going down that road, and we consider the bomb to be forbidden … They [the Americans] are worried that future political developments in Iran could cause the re-activation of the program. They are afraid of this, so are trying not to be left empty-handed. They want to keep sanctions as long as possible, so both sides can continue the process of building trust.
8. A Preemptive Disclosure of Secret Activities.
Araghchi then went on to discuss Iran’s secret work at Fordow: “When they discovered Fordow, we were aware of this and knew that they wanted to make an announcmement about it, so we preempted this. Mr. Soltanieh [Ali Asghar Soltanieh, former chief nuclear negotiator] was ordered to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency; he disclosed this information in a letter to Mr. ElBaradei [director-general of the IAEA until November 2009].”
9. There will be losses, just as in war.
Araghchi compared the recent nuclear agreement with the Iran-Iraq war: “The troublesome details were the costs that we had to pay. But can you show us any [military] operations that did not entail similar troublesome details? When it came to successful operations, did we say how many tanks we lost or how many people were martyred instead of saying what we achieved? Would have we said, for example, ‘Mr. Commander, it was not 100 [martyrs], but 120’? During the Sacred Defense [the war with Iraq], several operations failed, but we never said we were defeated. At most, we said that we had not been victorious. This was the phrase you used in the news.”
10. The conflict with America continues.
Araghchi advocated for continued confrontation with the US, both politically and in the media: “People should not get the feeling that America is now our friend and that enmities are a thing of the past. This is definitely not the case. Our enmity against the US, and their enmity towards us, is not over. We have managed and solved just one bilateral issue. Otherwise, our hostility towards their tyrannical system and their enmity towards the Islamic Republic, its ideals and its values will continue. You must illustrate these points in every way possible, so that that people will not become frustrated. So whenever American officials say anything negative about us, it should not be reported in a way that will make people feel we have been cheated or that they have shown us up.”
11. “We felt alone.”
During the meeting, Araghchi took the opportunity to lash out at certain figures in Iran’s domestic politics: “Unfortunately, over the past two years, we have felt alone many times. We felt that we had to carry the whole weight, and that everybody else was just sitting and waiting to see what the foreign ministry would do. Even in the foreign ministry itself, when there were especially heavy pressures on the team, I distinctly noticed that the media distanced themselves from them; when the negotiations went well, they came closer.”
12. The nuclear program will be cost-effective “in time”.
Araghchi shared his own insights about nuclear weapons and the Iranian nuclear program: “If we had wanted the bomb, then JCPOA is an utter defeat. But if we are after internationally legitimate enrichment and a completely peaceful nuclear program, then this agreement is a great victory. I have always said that if we judge our nuclear program on purely economic criteria, it is a big loss — meaning that if we calculate the cost of the products, it makes no sense at all. But we paid these costs for our honor, our independence and our progress. We will not be bullied by others … Our program will follow the process of industrialization and will become cost-effective in time.”
13. The president’s brother communicated “in code”.
Araghchi’s comments about President Rouhani’s brother, Hossein Fereydoon, attracted considerable attention. “He was our liaison to the president and he took on this role during negotiations. But he was not directly involved in the negotiations. [When contacting the president] he could ask urgent questions in the Semnani dialect [an Iranian dialect difficult to understand and which was widely used during the Iran-Iraq war].” Araghchi said those on the margins of negotiations who communicated in Semnani were helpful because they could hold secret discussions in a language that could not be understood. Again, the reference to the Iran-Iraq war is significant.
14. Hide and Seek with the IAEA
Araghchi did concede there was some shortcomings in Iran’s dealings with IAEA: “We failed at some points, and were late in informing them. Some of these past mistakes were combined with trumped-up charges and unfounded allegations to make a case against our country, which Mr. Amano [the IAEA chief] later referred to as ‘possible military dimensions’…A purely technical case was turned into a political issue. The phrase possible military dimensions (PMD) was used. Cooperation with the agency and giving it more information made the situation worse. Ask our friends at the defense ministry. They are angry that these intelligence leaks made the situation worse. In the new cycle [of negotiations], I told our friends at the defense ministry: ‘I promise you that we will not add a word to the information previously given to the agency.’”
15. A Secret Roadmap with IAEA.
Araghchi provided new information about the confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA: “A roadmap has been signed by Mr. Salehi [the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization] and Mr. Amano. For example, by August 15 we will provide [the IAEA] with a series of our own evaluations of PMD. The agency will review them and by October 15 the agency’s job will be done.” Aright said the team had no other issues with the agreement but that they would have to wait until December 15 for the final report from Amano. “We have made some predictions and there are a series of things that we must do, but we must wait for the agency to issue that report.”
