Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

Letters Between Sharon and GW Bush

Posted on by

It is ten years later and still there is no peace for Israel. Why you ask? The Palestinians don’t want peace. Money flows in to the Palestinian Authority leadership, making them very wealthy. It is a very pricey cottage industry that has lasted decades. So going back ten years in a letter exchange would be a good lesson to understand how in earnest and full commitment Israel has worked to find peace while the Palestinians, Hamas and even Turkey continue hostilities on all fronts.

Exchange of letters between PM Sharon and President Bush

14 Apr 2004

MFASummaryNew

During their meeting in Washington, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George Bush exchanged letters aimed at achieving a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians in the context of the Roadmap and the prime minister’s Disengagement Plan.

Letter from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon  to US President George W. Bush

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President,

The vision that you articulated in your 24 June 2002 address constitutes one of the most significant contributions toward ensuring a bright future for the Middle East. Accordingly, the State of Israel has accepted the Roadmap, as adopted by our government. For the first time, a practical and just formula was presented for the achievement of peace, opening a genuine window of opportunity for progress toward a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, involving two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

This formula sets forth the correct sequence and principles for the attainment of peace. Its full implementation represents the sole means to make genuine progress. As you have stated, a Palestinian state will never be created by terror, and Palestinians must engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. Moreover, there must be serious efforts to institute true reform and real democracy and liberty, including new leaders not compromised by terror. We are committed to this formula as the only avenue through which an agreement can be reached. We believe that this formula is the only viable one.

The Palestinian Authority under its current leadership has taken no action to meet its responsibilities under the Roadmap. Terror has not ceased, reform of the Palestinian security services has not been undertaken, and real institutional reforms have not taken place. The State of Israel continues to pay the heavy cost of constant terror. Israel must preserve its capability to protect itself and deter its enemies, and we thus retain our right to defend ourselves against terrorism and to take actions against terrorist organizations.

Having reached the conclusion that, for the time being, there exists no Palestinian partner with whom to advance peacefully toward a settlement and since the current impasse is unhelpful to the achievement of our shared goals, I have decided to initiate a process of gradual disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians. The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Roadmap to resume.

I attach, for your review, the main principles of the Disengagement Plan. This initiative, which we are not undertaking under the roadmap, represents an independent Israeli plan, yet is not inconsistent with the roadmap. According to this plan, the State of Israel intends to relocate military installations and all Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip, as well as other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria.

In this context, we also plan to accelerate construction of the Security Fence, whose completion is essential in order to ensure the security of the citizens of Israel. The fence is a security rather than political barrier, temporary rather than permanent, and therefore will not prejudice any final status issues including final borders. The route of the Fence, as approved by our Government’s decisions, will take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

Upon my return from Washington, I expect to submit this Plan for the approval of the Cabinet and the Knesset, and I firmly believe that it will win such approval.

The Disengagement Plan will create a new and better reality for the State of Israel, enhance its security and economy, and strengthen the fortitude of its people. In this context, I believe it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. Additionally, the Plan will entail a series of measures with the inherent potential to improve the lot of the Palestinian Authority, providing that it demonstrates the wisdom to take advantage of this opportunity. The execution of the Disengagement Plan holds the prospect of stimulating positive changes within the Palestinian Authority that might create the necessary conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations.

We view the achievement of a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians as our central focus and are committed to realizing this objective. Progress toward this goal must be anchored exclusively in the Roadmap and we will oppose any other plan.

In this regard, we are fully aware of the responsibilities facing the State of Israel. These include limitations on the growth of settlements; removal of unauthorized outposts; and steps to increase, to the extent permitted by security needs, freedom of movement for Palestinians not engaged in terrorism. Under separate cover we are sending to you a full description of the steps the State of Israel is taking to meet all its responsibilities.

The government of Israel supports the United States efforts to reform the Palestinian security services to meet their roadmap obligations to fight terror. Israel also supports the American’s efforts, working with the International Community, to promote the reform process, build institutions and improve the economy of the Palestinian Authority and to enhance the welfare of its people, in the hope that a new Palestinian leadership will prove able to fulfill its obligations under the roadmap.

I want to again express my appreciation for your courageous leadership in the war against global terror, your important initiative to revitalize the Middle East as a more fitting home for its people and, primarily, your personal friendship and profound support for the State of Israel.

Sincerely,

Ariel Sharon

 

Letter from US President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

His Excellency
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter setting out your disengagement plan.

The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.

The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. The United States will join with others in the international community to foster the development of democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civic institutions, the growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organizations.

A peace settlement negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians would be a great boon not only to those peoples but to the peoples of the entire region. Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

House Suing Obama? YES, Really

Posted on by

Earlier this year, Speaker of the House, John Boehner called the White House, got Barack Obama on the phone and told him he was suing him. Obama’s reply was, ‘You’re suing me?’.

Now the explanation of how this lawsuit is coming to pass.

More than once, the Solicitor General in the Obama administration has represented cases before the Supreme Court. The most contested case(s) have been those relating to the Affordable Care Act and this is the case that John Boehner is using to sue Barack Obama.

A few facts:

Obama has signed several executive orders that either amend, annex, suspend, alter or edit the Affordable Care Act. When the Solicitor General argues a case on behalf of the government at the behest of Barack Obama, the president and his pen cannot have it both ways with both sides of the law.

The House has passed several laws to stop the most damaging and destructive law in the history of America, the Affordable Care Act. But all the bills regarding the ACA passed by the House have been stuffed and ignored on Harry Reid’s desk, the Senate Majority Leader.

So, Boehner led the House to approve a bill that would represent the House only in a law suit against Barack Obama. Now we need to know what is next. Is this lawsuit moving forward? YES   Boehner has hired a lawyer to move forward on the lawsuit and if you have paid attention, you know his own politics are quite secondary to defending the Constitution, law and the process. His name is Turley.

Turley has even gone to far as to say Barack Obama’s action on amnesty is also a threat to the Constitutional powers of the president.

We have an honest broker and a real defender of the rule of law and a protector of the Constitution.

TURLEY AGREES TO SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.

On July 30, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted, by a vote of 225-201, H. Res. 676, which provided that

the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.

I have previously testified that I believe that judicial review is needed to rebalance the powers of the branches in our system after years of erosion of legislative authority. Clearly, some take the view of a fiat accompli in this fundamental change in our constitutional system. This resignation over the dominance of the Executive Branch is the subject of much of my recent academic writings, including two forthcoming works. For that reason, to quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House “had me at hello” in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches.

As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.

After I testified earlier on this lawsuit, I was asked by some House Members and reporters if I would represent the House and I stated that I could not. That position had nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit. At that time, in addition to my other litigation obligations, I had a national security case going to trial and another trial case in Utah. Recently, we prevailed in both of those cases. Subsequently, the House General Counsel’s Office contacted me about potentially representing House. With the two recent successes, I was able to take on the representation.

It is a great honor to represent the House of Representatives. We are prepared to litigate this matter as far as necessary. The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers. That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts.

Jonathan Turley

 

 

Terrorists Among US

Posted on by

FEATURED: Youssef Qaradawi Says ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Was Once Muslim Brotherhood; First English Translation Of Statement

Anyone heard the Muslim community in the Unites States speak out yet against Daesh (Islamic States)? Me neither. But Barack Obama and crowd says Islamic State is not Islamic…..sheesh

 

For a complete Muslim Brotherhood organizational chart operating in the United States click here.

For the completed translation of the Muslim Brotherhood plan for the United States click here.

For a graphic of the Islamic organizations click here.

For a list of people that are implicated in Islamic criminal activity in the United States click here.

For a library on historical Muslim Brotherhood terror events click here.

The very liberal Council of Foreign Relations has a summary of the Muslim Brotherhood click here.

Events happen in your own backyard, are you paying attention?

Outside organizations associated with Islamic organizations are also important to understand like the ACLU.

The genesis of what we need to know begins with the Holy Land Foundation investigation and trial. Links are numerous yet a good one for reference is here, here  and here.

 

 

 

 

Amnesty, How Many Lawyers Does it Take?

Posted on by

Nothing happens in Washington DC without several conversations with lawyers. That is actually easy as there are lawyers all over DC and just about every powerbroker in the Obama administration is a lawyer. But these lawyers twist the law, find means to blur the spirit of the law, seek methods not to enforce the law and most of all use nefarious reasons on discretion of the law when it comes to enforcement.

So we have immigration. We have promises to illegals. We have refugees to deal with. We have amnesty. Honestly, none of this is necessary at all if DACA had never occurred and deportation and adherence to immigration law was enforced.

Once the 9-11 Commission Report was published, there was a serious chapter in that report on adherence to law with regard to immigration. Every lawmaker swore to compliance and actions of the reports recommendations for the single sake of national security. Today, that is all forgotten. There are countless reasons for this agenda and now we have to look at the Office for Legal Council and Eric Holder. Holder has likely learned to not put anything in writing given his past obfuscations and lies.

Be sure to read the comments to this article at the bottom.

The Missing Immigration Memo

Has Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel for its legal opinion?

If the White House press corps wants to keep government honest, here’s a question to ask as President Obama prepares to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants by executive order: Has he sought, and does he have, any written legal justification from the Attorney General and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for his actions?

This would be standard operating procedure in any normal Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder is the executive branch’s chief legal officer, and Administrations of both parties typically ask OLC for advice on the parameters of presidential legal authority.

The Obama Administration has asked OLC for its legal opinions on such controversial national security questions as drone strikes and targeting U.S. citizens abroad. It was right do so even though the Constitution gives Presidents enormous authority on war powers and foreign policy.

But a Justice-OLC opinion is all the more necessary on domestic issues because the President’s authority is far more limited. He is obliged to execute the laws that Congress writes. A President should always seek legal justification for controversial actions to ensure that he is on solid constitutional ground as well as to inspire public confidence in government.

Yet as far as we have seen, Mr. Obama sought no such legal justification in 2012 when he legalized hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The only document we’ve found in justification is a letter from the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Janet Napolitano, to law enforcement agencies citing “the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion.” Judging by recent White House leaks, that same flimsy argument will be the basis for legalizing millions more adults.

It’s possible Messrs. Obama and Holder haven’t sought an immigration opinion because they suspect there’s little chance that even a pliant Office of Legal Counsel could find a legal justification. Prosecutorial discretion is a vital legal concept, but it is supposed to be exercised in individual cases, not to justify a refusal to follow the law against entire classes of people.

White House leakers are also whispering as a legal excuse that Congress has provided money to deport only 400,000 illegal migrants a year. But a President cannot use lack of funds to justify a wholesale refusal to enforce a statute. There is never enough money to enforce every federal law at any given time, and lack of funds could by used in the future by any President to refuse to enforce any statute. Imagine a Republican President who decided not to enforce the Clean Air Act.

We support more liberal immigration but not Mr. Obama’s means of doing it on his own whim because he’s tired of working with Congress. His first obligation is to follow the law, which begins by asking the opinion of the government’s own lawyers.

CommonCore = CommonCrap

Posted on by

Much has been written about the CommonCore educational system being pushed on state education systems nationally. While more than 60% of states push back after really learning what the syllabus is about, it has been proven what the system is about but few are listening.

CommonCore was created by leaders of global corporations to indoctrinate students into a very narrow channel of choices when it came to what they could study for the sake only of the future of business enterprise.

But now we have even more companies vying for a slice of the money via no bid contracts as a result of studies, marketing and database analysis of student performance.

CommonCore is yet another platform for fraud, collusion and abuse where most sadly students and parents are the pawns. C’mon parents get involved for the sake of your children, for the sake of their education and for the sake of taxpayers and for the sake of a viable and sound future of America.

Fight Is On for Common Core Contracts

Testing Companies Jockey for a Growing Market, Protest States’ Bidding Process

By

Caroline Porter

Caroline Porter
The Wall Street Journal
CANCEL

29 COMMENTS

As states race to implement the Common Core academic standards, companies are fighting for a slice of the accompanying testing market, expected to be worth billions of dollars in coming years.

That jockeying has brought allegations of bid-rigging in one large pricing agreement involving 11 states—the latest hiccup as the math and reading standards are rolled out—while in roughly three dozen others, education companies are battling for contracts state by state.

Mississippi’s education board in September approved an emergency $8 million contract to Pearson PLC for tests aligned with Common Core, sidestepping the state’s contract-review board, which had found the transaction illegal because it failed to meet state rules regarding a single-source bid.

When Maryland officials were considering a roughly $60 million proposal to develop computerized testing for Common Core that month, state Comptroller Peter Franchot also objected that Pearson was the only bidder. “How are we ever going to know if taxpayers are getting a good deal if there is no competition?” the elected Democrat asked, before being outvoted by a state board in approving the contract.

ENLARGE

Mississippi and Maryland are two of the states that banded together in 2010, intending to look for a testing-service provider together. The coalition of 11 states plus the District of Columbia hoped joining forces would result in a better product at a lower price, but observers elsewhere shared some of Mr. Franchot’s concerns.

The bidding process, which both states borrowed from a similar New Mexico contract, is now the subject of a lawsuit in that state by a Pearson competitor.

For decades, states essentially set their own academic standards, wrote their own curricula and designed their own tests. In a bid partly to help the U.S. education system keep up with overseas rivals, state leaders began working on shared benchmarks.

With financial and policy incentives from the Obama administration, 45 states and D.C. initially adopted Common Core. But the standards have faced pushback from some parents and conservatives who say they represent federal overreach. Two states have pulled out and are writing their own standards.

Still, most states are implementing Common Core and accompanying testing this year. The sheer size of that effort and this year’s deadline heighten the stakes and exacerbate the difficulty of hiring test suppliers.

“Winning the policy battle was not even half the battle,” said Michael McShane, a research fellow in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, who is skeptical about Common Core. “It was more like 10%, and 90% of the battle is implementation.”

The $2.46 billion-a-year U.S. testing market is seeing more competition beyond the three traditional powers of Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Co. and McGraw-Hill Education CTB, according to Simba Information, a market-research firm. While McGraw-Hill recently got a $72 million contract for assessment services with several states, meanwhile, midsize vendors such as AIR Assessment and Educational Testing Service are winning big states like Florida and California.

Amplify, the education subsidiary of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal, also provides assessment products.

Some experts say legacy companies are best able to meet states’ demands and offer familiar relationships during this period of flux. At the same time, the move to new standards coincided with a switch to digital and online learning that has forced vendors to rethink their strategies.

Maryland’s contract with Pearson was built off the one in New Mexico, which took the lead in writing the bidding documents for a four-year, roughly $26 million contract that applied to that state. But other states in the coalition were meant to copy the contract and competition, meaning its full value could balloon to $1 billion.

In the spring, New Mexico field-tested new state exams. The state relied on Pearson for a piece of software that delivers the test. AIR Assessment, a rival company to Pearson, protested over the bidding process last year and filed a lawsuit in the Santa Fe First Judicial District this past spring alleging that only Pearson could fulfill the bid requirements.

This summer, Judge Sarah M. Singleton ruled that state administrators had to review AIR Assessment’s concerns. New Mexico officials subsequently found the concerns invalid.

AIR Assessment is appealing that finding and asking that New Mexico reopen the bidding process with new specifications for the next school year—potentially reopening the contracts in all 11 states and D.C. Judge Singleton could rule as soon as this month, according to Jon Cohen, president of AIR Assessment, a division of the American Institutes for Research, a not-for-profit organization.

“We just want a fair bid,” Mr. Cohen said, whose company recently won a $220 million contract to provide Common Core-related testing products over six years to Florida. A spokesman for New Mexico’s education department called AIR’s allegations “frivolous.” Pearson declined to comment on the suit.

“You’re seeing a whole ecosystem transform,” said Shilpi Niyogi, a Pearson official. “There’s new players and new innovation, and we’re constantly looking at the relationship between innovation and scale.”