Congressional Democrats PAID BY IRANIAN LOBBY to support Obama’s nuke deal

Every senator who accepted money from the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IPAC) should be impeached and removed from office — or at very least, soundly defeated the next time he or she comes up for reelection. But the enemedia, true to form, will cover for them and do everything it can to keep them on the government payroll.

(“Gillibrand and other pro-Dealers got Iran cash,” by Jeff Dunetz, The Jewish Star, September 3, 2015 (thanks to Banafsheh

One of the many unanswered questions about P5+1 agreement with Iran is why so many Congressional Democrats are rallying behind the President on this issue when recent polls show the majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal. Partrt of the reason is obvious: they are supporting a president from their own party, but a not-so-obvious reason may be that there is a “nefarious” lobby trying to control American foreign policy, and for a change the anti-Semites can’t blame the Jews.

Iranian lobbyists are making big campaign donations to Democrats and are funding pro-deal propaganda. Writing in Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield pointed out that many of the Democratic legislators who announced their support for the deal are getting money from the Iran lobby, specifically the Iranian American Political Action Committee, IPAC, which maxed out its contributions to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Al Franken (D-Minn) — each received $5,000 in the 2014 election cycle. “Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the Iran lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues.

he came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who represents the state with the largest Jewish population in America, surprised many with her support of the deal. In addition to IAPAC cash, “Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran lobby’s Hassan Nemazee,” Greenfield reports.

“Nemazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.” Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the deal, also Iran lobby funds.

Getting IPAC cash on the House side were Mike Honda (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Jackie Speier (D-CA). Each of them supports Obama’s P5+1 turkey. But the Iran lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen.

The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran lobby figures had been major donors to both men. “That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to ‘conquer Obama’s heart and mind’ and had described himself as ‘the Iranian lobby in the United States.’

It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee. “A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being ‘financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.’

Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, ‘Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran’. Another part of the Iran lobby pushing the deal is the Ploughshares Fund. Ploughshares is not pushing the deal directly, but it’s financing many of the other groups pushing Congress to vote “yes.”

Michael Rubin exposed the Plowshares money in a recent Commentary piece. According to Rubin, Ploughshares Fund is “a multimillion-dollar group which defines itself as a foundation seeking nuclear disarmament but which has, for several years, taken a consistently apologetic line toward Iran.” Ploughshares has been throwing its weight behind influential organizations such as the National Iranian American Council, the Arms Control Association, and the Atlantic Council, among others, in an attempt to garner support for the deal, Rubin reported.

Ploughshares gave $150,000 to the National Iranian American Council for “advocacy” about the Iran Deal, $210,000 to the Arms Control Association to “influence US policy toward Iran,” and another $25,000 to fund an “expert workshop” and press briefings, according to Rubin.

Per its annual report, Ploughshares also gives money to the anti-Israel group, J Street ($100,000) that has not only fought additional sanctions over recent years but also that has worked to promote the Iran agreement. J Street’s support also comes from the fact that it was President Obama, not the Jewish community who gave the group legitimacy.

“In short, Ploughshares spread millions of dollars around to pro-administration groups to support whatever Iran Deal came out of Vienna. To criticize the Iran Deal would be to risk a significant source of funding—double digits percentages of their total budget in most cases—of these various groups,” Organizations receiving funding from Ploughshares rarely acknowledge they’re being lobbied. They produce biased analysis and host one-sided panel discussions in order to advance the agenda they are being paid to move forward. “Hence, various organizations hosted one-sided panels in the wake of the Iran Deal announcement with multiple Ploughshares grantees without acknowledging their funding from the Ploughshares grantees.”

At various times during the debate about his Iran agreement, President Obama has talked about nefarious lobby money pushing against peace. Something that many have commented was a not-so-veiled reference to the anti-Semitic meme that some hidden “Jewish lobby” controls the government.

The lobby that neither the president nor the congressional supporters of his deal will talk about is the pro-Iranian lobby that, either through campaign cash or directly in support of the deal, are a huge force in trying to give Obama his short-term legacy, the P5+1 agreement. Long-term, that deal may very well be remembered by the ultimate war to end all wars waged by an apocalyptic Iran.

From Investor’s Business Daily, Jan 2012:

Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow
Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 — linchpin of our missile defense — might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."

“In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as “non-binding” and that “my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.”

Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.

Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we’ve deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy’s Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.

The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the “early intercept” phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3’s secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.

The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan’s dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.

Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010912-597158-obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm#ixzz3jXmMbVwY
__________________________________________________________

Mar 2012...

"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.