Since February 2013, Iran has received billions of dollars in sanctions relief as incentives to attend negotiations with the United States and others in Geneva. However, from March 2012, until January 2016, when the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Iranian banks were not connected to the Belgium-based SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system.
“Nobody could pay the Iranians via normal lines, not even in euros,” a European oil trader was quoted saying. Then how did the regime access the payments and the billions of dollars it was given?
Following Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s complaint that Iran’s banks are still under sanctions (due to its sponsorship of international terrorism), the Obama administration decided to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering laws to help Iran’s economy.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has pointed out that the Obama administration’s plan, allowing Iran “access to U.S. dollars through offshore clearinghouses,” undermines U.S. and international anti-money laundering laws.” His Washington Post article last week argued the “U.S. must not aid and abet Iranian money laundering.”
But under the Obama administration, Americans have been witnessing, and many have accustomed to the president’s disregard to laws governing his own country.
I think comparing Trump’s antics and his cooing fans to Nazis or Stalin are wrong. Those mass killers are in a different and more vile league. He is more akin to Latin American tin pot dictators- those who were populists, promised great reforms, challenged the status quo, and corrupt governments, got elected by large margins and went on to ruin their nations’ hopes for change. I think of men like Venezuela’s late and unlamented Hugo Chavez.
In 1998, in a nation with a tanking economy in spite of one of the world’s great oil reserves, and a public distrust of government’s theft and repressions, Chavez began an unlikely quest for the presidency. His populist appeal resonated with a public distrustful of “inside politics” and corruption. By December 5, 1998 he won 56 percent of the votes.
As president he stacked his government with cronies, he abolished term limits, bypassed all existing restraints on presidential powers. He embarked on systematic appropriation of industry, communications, electric, and construction materials such as steel and cement. He nationalized all oil reserves and expropriated farms and woodland. He shut down opposition media and enacted laws making criticism or parody of his government a felony.
He also said outrageous things:
At the UN in March 2007 Chávez compared President Bush to the devil…in his own lofty words: “The devil came here yesterday. Right here … it smells of sulphur still today. It was almost mild compared to his insult on September 2006 when he told the American President : “You are a donkey, Mr. Danger.” On Septembr 12th 2006, he announced that it was very likely that the United States was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nonetheless, he got a pass from the media and his deluded fans.
In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted eleventh in the list of “Heroes of our time” and in 2006 he was Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year.”
Trump is not a criminal like Chavez, but he is an unprincipled megalomaniac, whose insatiable lust for power will make him a ruinous president with catastrophic and irreversible consequences.
Steve Chapman the writer and columnist for the Chicago Tribune warned in a column “History Repeating as Farce” in 2007:
“A phony revolution may nonetheless be a durable one. If the Venezuelans who go to the polls give Chávez what he wants, they are likely to discover a paradox: They can bring about dictatorship through democracy, but not the reverse.
Now there’s a sobering thought forTrump’s deluded supporters…..rsk
The United States is facing a humiliation of the first order resulting from almost comically provocative Iranian test launches of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles earlier this month and the lack of any real response from Washington, save for largely symbolic sanctions. For the Obama Administration, a recent interview suggests it sees this humiliation and loss of credibility not as a serious problem, but as a successful application of the “Obama Doctrine.”
Iran’s missile launches violated the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which lifted international sanctions on Iran when it agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regulating its nuclear program. This suggests that the Ayatollahs in Iran have no intention of getting “right with the world” as Obama once suggested, and intend to continue their revolutionary goals. Lest anyone fail to grasp that point, the missiles were inscribed with the words “Israel must be wiped off the Earth,” in Hebrew.
Iran’s ayatollahs have no intention of getting ‘right with the world,’ as Obama once suggested.
Yet the Russians are blocking any attempt to invoke 2231 to sanction Iran on the grounds that its language does not explicitly forbid this behavior. They’re right. Paragraph 3 of Annex A of 2231 states, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology” for a period of up to eight years after the JCPOA goes into effect. Resolution 1929, a previous Iran sanctions resolution, did explicitly forbid it, stating, “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”
This miscarriage of justice being orchestrated against Geert Wilders is merely one aspect of the many prosecutions being carried out under laws less about prevention and punishment of actual crimes, and more about criminalizing dissent against the demographic transformation of Europe.
After terror outrages in the name of Islam, its apologists perform defensive operations that try to render Islamic doctrine immune from scrutiny.
The eagerness with which social media giants, such as Facebook and Twitter, have imposed a policy of enforced silence — in concert with Europe’s leaders — is a further irony that will not be lost on future historians.
If the criminal justice systems of European nations continue to pursue charges against whoever questions or criticizes Islam, what hope is there then for the silent members of the Muslim community who might wish to speak out?
The spread of jihad is irreparably undermining Europe’s post-War reputation as a continent of security and peace.
In addition, free speech seems increasingly regarded by mainstream politicians as dangerous and archaic. Diversity of opinion often appears seen as an obstacle to multiculturalism, the objective of which, ironically, is diversity.
These dual trends are set to come to a head in the Netherlands next year, in elections set to follow the conclusion of the trial of Dutch MP Geert Wilders this November. Wilders is the leader the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV), which currently tops the country’s polls. He faces imprisonment on a charge of hate speech, for saying that the Netherlands could use “fewer Moroccans.”
As Wilders outlined in his opening statement to the court on March 18, the politically-motivated bias against him of one of the judges is a matter of public record. Moreover, despite ample demonstration by Wilders’s defense of the forgery of a group of the criminal complaints that initiated his prosecution, his trial nevertheless continues.
This miscarriage of justice being orchestrated against Wilders is merely one aspect of the many prosecutions being carried out under laws less about prevention and punishment of actual crimes, and more about criminalizing dissent against the demographic transformation of Europe.
Ayatollah Khamenei made clear that he would hold President Rouhani responsible for a failure to produce improvements in Iran’s economy. He implied that if Rouhani fails to adopt a “Resistance Economy” approach, it would negatively impact Rouhani’s aspirations for a second term.
Khamenei’s warning to conserve foreign-currency windfalls that result from the lifting of sanctions is probably a criticism of Rouhani’s recent visit to Europe, where he signed deals to purchase 138 passenger planes.
Rouhani’s management of the economy will be closely monitored by hardliners seeking a return to popularity and the presidency in the 2018 presidential elections.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last month used the Persian New Year holiday (Nowruz) to deliver his most comprehensive plan for Iran’s economy. His address, proclaimed from his hometown of Mashhad, outlined ten principles of the “Resistance Economy.”
From this speech, it is clear that Khamenei’s plan for Iran’s economic recovery is quite different from that of President Hassan Rouhani and his cabinet. Moreover, Khamenei threw down the gauntlet that he would hold Rouhani responsible for a failure to produce promised improvements in Iran’s economy. Left unsaid but implied was the threat that if Rouhani fails to adopt a “Resistance Economy” approach, it would negatively impact the President’s aspirations for a second term.
For a worldview that claims to be all about freedom and choice and “being oneself,” transgenderism sure is tetchy and intolerant. Consider what has just happened to the celebrated British novelist Ian McEwan. Last week, during a speech at the Royal Institution in London, McEwan took a genteel swipe at the politics of identity. He said identity politics is becoming increasingly consumerist, where we now pluck a ready-made “self” from “the shelves of a personal-identity supermarket.” The making up of one’s identity has gone so far that “some men in full possession of a penis are identifying as women and demanding entry to women-only colleges,” he said. Then came his killer line: “Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think of people with penises as men.”
Can you guess what happened next? Yes, McEwan was subjected to a Twitch hunt, to that 21st-century bloodsport in which anyone who expresses an unpopular view or makes a less than PC utterance or simply misspeaks a little will be “called out” (shamed) by the bedroom-bound, Twitter-living, self-styled guardians of correct thinking. Twits went berserk over his apparently perverse linking of penises with maleness. They branded him a bigot, weird, a transphobe. Trans-rights activists put the boot in, too. Stonewall, the LGBT activist group, slammed McEwan for being “uninformed” and said his weird worldview doesn’t only “denigrate the trans experience, it denies its very existence.” Paris Lees, a trans woman and journalist, scolded McEwan, telling him his “ideas about penises are outdated.” He should apologize, the mob said.
And he did. All the virtual tomato-throwing at this heretic who dared to say that people with penises are men had the desired effect. It elicited a public backtrack. In an open letter in the Guardian, McEwan accused some of his critics of being “righteous and cross,” yet he then bowed and scraped before the trans religion. Transgenderism “should be respected,” he said. Then, most strikingly, he obediently expressed the key tenet of the trans ideology: “Biology is not always destiny.” Remarkable. In the space of a few days, he went from raising interesting, awkward questions about trans identity to repeating in a national newspaper the trans mantra that “biology is not destiny.” For those of us who believe in freedom of thought, it was an ugly sight, reminiscent of those poor souls dragged before the Inquisition and set free only when they dutifully bought into their inquisitors’ belief system and publicly declared: “I believe in Jesus Christ.”
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni publishes occasional reports on what college students know. Nearly 10 percent of the college graduates surveyed thought Judith Sheindlin, TV’s “Judge Judy,” is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than 20 percent of the college graduates knew the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation. More than a quarter of the college graduates did not know Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II; one-third did not know he was the president who spearheaded the New Deal. But it is little mystery why so many college students are illiterate, innumerate and resistant to understanding. Let’s look at it.
Student activists at Brown University complained of emotional stress and poor grades after they spent months of protesting for various causes. They blamed the university for insisting that they complete their coursework. One of the objects of their protest was an op-ed in The Brown Daily Herald, the university newspaper, that was deemed racist because it defended the celebration of Columbus Day. Brown University’s faculty recently took care of that and renamed Columbus Day “Indigenous People’s Day.”
Professor Salvador Vidal-Ortiz of American University told his students that capitalism dehumanizes brown people and black people. If his students had one iota of brains, they might ask him why it is that brown and black people all over the world are seeking to flee to countries toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum rather than the communist end. Campus Reform reports that Vidal-Ortiz, during the Q&A of a book talk at the University of Virginia, said he tells his students that though he is light-skinned, he refuses to be called white. “I will not be labeled as something that I know is violent,” he said.
Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiments in Sweden have morphed in recent times into blatant anti-Semitism. In the city of Malmo (known for its violent Arab and Muslim population), a Jewish teacher in a Swedish public school was fired last month for being Jewish. The teacher identified only as A, is an Israeli-Jewish woman who immigrated to Sweden 39 years ago with her native born Swedish husband who served with the UN Observers Force in the region. A claimed that her school principle warned her that the students “hate the Jews,” and added that she would be “abused by both the Swedish and the Arab students.”
A’s experience is not unique in 2016 Sweden, and not just in Malmo. Naomi Lind, another Israeli woman living in a Stockholm suburb, also encountered the same anti-Semitism as a teacher in Swedish public schools. Lind moved to Sweden from Israel in 1982, and taught computer science to adults and youngsters. She recalled that on one occasion a young female student who was upset by a grade Lind gave her, responded with “I hope Hitler would rise from his grave and finish his work.” Lind remembered the difficult situations in her work that compelled her to leave her job. “I always felt that the school administration felt uncomfortable with me because I was an Israeli and a Jew.”
Lind, a daughter of Holocaust survivors, pointed out that her school administration refrained from dealing with the anti-Semitic and hurtful remarks of the girl that invoked Hitler.
Visiting Sweden late last summer, this reporter witnessed the fear and discomfort Jews in Sweden now feel. In discussions with Swedish Jews, I was told of avoidance to wear Jewish identifying symbols such as a kippah or a necklace with a Star of David. Ralph, 29, a veteran of the Swedish army, put it plainly by stating, “There is no place for Jews in Sweden.” He added that he was planning to move to the U.S. Many young Jews have moved to Israel.
A synagogue in central Stockholm had its windows boarded to hide the fact that it was a Jewish place of worship. There was no sign at the entrance to mark it as a synagogue. This was not happening in a remote village but just a few miles from the seat of the Swedish government and its people’s parliament.
For a hard-core segment of travelers to Jerusalem, when the sun sets at the Sabbath, the magic in the air is not just the serene image of a peaceful dusk in an enchanted land. It is the empowering knowledge that the sun still shines on a Jewish State surrounded by fiery military and diplomatic turmoil. Israel remains a nation determined to survive and preserve its sense of magnetic amazement. In the minds of many, a visit to Israel is more than just a vacation. It is a geopolitical destination. Traveling to and enjoying Israel makes a statement to the world and to history. It reflects the steeled determination to be happy and fulfilled in one of the most treasured places on earth, despite a virtual siege around every corner.
When in Israel, especially in Jerusalem, everything about your tourism choices is political—which hotel you select, which taxi driver you hire, which bagel you buy, which restaurant you dine at, what fascination you experience, what memories you return home with. Are you buying a half pound of za’atar in Jerusalem’s teeming Jewish market at Machena Yehuda or at the stone-ensconced spice kiosks that line the time-polished lanes of the Old City? Or do you try both?
Anti-Israel sentiment abounds at the café tables of the Ottoman-era American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem, while fierce loyalty to the Jewish State is detected in every corner of the modern David Citadel Hotel. Visitors book their rooms accordingly and create their own comfort zones in the respective lobbies.
Like everything else in the Jewish State, Israel’s tourism industry—that is, its hotels, restaurants, amusements, and visitor services—has achieved a modern miracle. Despite wars and pressures, the nation has honed its travel experience to rival the best in the world. Elegant, constantly upgrading, hotels combine with a robust service and physical infrastructure attractive to any visitor. Exciting restaurants, where both ethnic and modern cuisines operate at the culinary apex, cater to all tastes and budgets. Breathtaking vistas in close proximity offer magnificent desert mountains, frothing Mediterranean shores and beckoning hills. Everywhere, one feels the irresistible lure of ancient history and religious authenticity.
At a Bernie Sanders event in New York City, a black “community activist” began ranting about “Zionist Jews” running the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. At previous events, Sanders had been quick to condemn what he claimed was bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric by Republicans. But when confronted with the real thing by a left-wing activist at one of his own events, he couldn’t do it.
There was no condemnation of anti-Semitism. Instead after an initial claim that he was proud to be Jewish, he switched to a rambling speech criticizing Israel and distancing himself from Zionism.
Bernie Sanders had suggested at the same event that President Clinton was racist for defending his crime fighting policies to Black Lives Matter protesters, but would not condemn anti-Semitism. Instead of defying left-wing hatred for Jews, he tried to suggest that he wasn’t one of the “bad Zionists”. He was one of the “good Jews” who had a balanced position on Israel and “Palestine”.
It was a sad and shameful display. And this was not the first time that Bernie saw bigotry and blinked.
When NPR’s Diane Rehm accused him of having dual citizenship in Israel, he stumbled through a reply, but never condemned the anti-Semitism inherent in the question. He backed Jesse Jackson despite the Hymietown slur. When asked about it, he did his best to avoid directly condemning anti-Semitism.
Bernie Sanders came out of a political movement rife with anti-Semitism. He encounters it in public on a regular basis. And he is too much of a coward to stand up to it.
After Roseanne Barr ran for president, she stated that during the campaign, “everything I had ever believed about the left was severely shaken” and that she discovered that “many of those I had considered comrades were naked bigots”.
And she did what Bernie Sanders won’t do. She condemned the bigotry.
There’s little doubt that Bernie Sanders has encountered far more anti-Semitism in private than he has in public. And at every turn of the road, he made the decision to fall in line and keep his mouth shut.
In the UK, prominent Jews and non-Jews within Labour have been speaking out against growing anti-Semitism within the party and its political adjuncts. But here there’s a culture of silence about anti-Semitism on the left. And those who speak out pay the price. Consider the response to Phyllis Chesler’s The New Anti-Semitism. And, in contrast, the mainstreaming of Max Blumenthal’s blatant bigotry.
The “gentleman’s agreement” used to be that Jews were expected to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left while claiming that all the bigots were on the right. Bernie Sanders is a product of that system. His refusal to talk about anti-Semitism while accusing the right of bigotry is typical of how it works.
The Sanders event at the Apollo Theater also featured Harry Belafonte, who had claimed that “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich” and Spike Lee who had responded to criticism of anti-Semitic stereotypes in his movies by saying that he “couldn’t make an anti-Semitic film” because Jews run Hollywood. What does it say about Bernie Sanders that these are the ugly views of the people whom his campaign used in order to present him to a black audience?
