Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘travel ban’

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Joey Come Lately

A.F. BRANCO on December 1, 2021 |

Biden labeled Trump a xenophobe for his travel ban from China, so is Biden a hypocrite for his ban from Africa?

Biden Travel Ban
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Horowitz: Your governor can’t force you to stay in your state. Period

Reported by  May 5, 2020

Map of the US on US flag

Maksym Kapliuk | Getty Images

Liberals finally support travel bans. No, not when the president uses his lawful power over foreign affairs and commerce to ban foreign nationals from dangerous countries, such as Iran or China, from immigrating here. Liberal governors are now illegally implementing travel bans on their own citizens from state to state. Welcome to the Articles of Confederation government, unless, of course, you’re a foreign national seeking entry to get on welfare. Then a court will defend your “right” to travel and immigrate to the U.S.

Truth be told, even when states were super-sovereigns, during time of the Articles of Confederation, they did not ban Americans from traveling from state to state, because that was recognized as a fundamental liberty interest that even King George didn’t try to stop. Even as states were free to regulate interstate commerce from 1776 to 1789, Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation unambiguously recognized the right of Americans to travel freely from state to state: “The free inhabitants of each of these states … shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state.”

But now, governors like “Lockdown Larry” Hogan of Maryland have illegally barred residents from traveling out of state. You heard that correctly. While these governors and some wayward federal judges opposed a travel ban on foreign nationals from terrorist countries or those who would become a public charge, when there is no right for foreigners to immigrate, they are now implementing a travel ban on their own countrymen.

WBAL TV reports that a spokesman for Governor Hogan said that vacation is not allowed under the governor’s stay-home order, which would bar people from traveling to another state unless they are exempted from the order.

Thus, Hogan has now declared an edict that was never in effect for a single day in the history of the American settlement on this continent, under any governing body. Sadly, and ironically, Maryland was the first state to recognize personal liberty and freedom of movement in an act of the governing body in 1639 – well over 100 years before the Revolution.

The natural right of freedom to travel without restraint that was even enumerated in the Articles of Confederation was codified in Art. IV Sec. 2 of the Constitution, using similar language: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. As Clarence Thomas has eloquently written in numerous cases over the years, the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause granted the federal government authority to enforce this right when states infringe upon it.

As recently as 1999, the Supreme Court said in plain English that the “‘constitutional right to travel from one State to another’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence” (Saenz v. Rose). Citing previous case law, the court ruled that the right to travel freely is “assertable against private interference as well as governmental action … a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

All nine justices agreed that this right is unquestionably protected by the privileges and immunities referenced in Art. IV Sec. 2 and the 14th Amendment. It is the very same language referenced in Maryland’s “Act of the Liberties of the People” of 1639, believed to be the first Bill of Rights.

How far back does this jurisprudence go? In Crandall v. Nevada (1868), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, based on the 1849 Passenger Cases involving state taxes at harbors, that a state couldn’t even inhibit people from traveling outside by taxing them, much less by threat of criminal prosecution, as today’s governors are doing.

“For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed we are one people, with one common country,” wrote Justice Samuel Miller for the unanimous opinion. “We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States. And a tax imposed by a State, for entering its territories or harbors, is inconsistent with the rights which belong to citizens of other States as members of the Union, and with the objects which that Union was intended to attain. Such a power in the States could produce nothing but discord and mutual irritation, and they very clearly do not possess it.’”

What about exceptions to this right? There are none. Justice Robert Jackson made it clear in his concurrence in Edwards v. California (1941), a case involving a California law barring indigent citizens from entering, that unless someone is a fugitive of law, there are no limitations on interstate travel: “It is a privilege of citizenship of the United States, protected from state abridgment, to enter any State of the Union, either for temporary sojourn or for the establishment of permanent residence therein and for gaining resultant citizenship thereof. If national citizenship means less than this, it means nothing.”

Justice Jackson is the one who famously observed that aside from habeas corpus during a rebellion or invasion, the Founders “made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis.” There are no exceptions to the constitutional prohibition on taking fundamental rights without due process.

This principle is firmly established, ironically, in Governor Hogan’s own state constitution, more eloquently and emphatically than in perhaps any other state’s constitution. Art. 44 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights emphatically declares “that the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace.”

Yet it appears Mr. Hogan has swapped our constitution with that of the Weimer Republic, which empowered the government “to suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously disturbed or endangered.” As Justice Jackson warned in the Youngstown case, we all know the rest of that story. He certainly did, because he served as the lead prosecutor unearthing the results of that fatal mistake of giving executives unqualified authority under the guise of “public safety.”

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Back Seat Whiner

Democrats who called Trump a racist and a xenophobe for the China travel ban now say he didn’t act soon enough.
Democrat Monday Morning QuarterbackPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great Rush Limbaugh.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Best Laid Plans

Trump called a Racist for implementing his travel ban but what do Democrats have to offer? Open borders?
Trump Coronavirus PolicyPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

California Puts A Travel Ban On Another State For Refusing To Fund Cosmetic Surgery

Posted by  September 17, 2019

URL of the original posting site:

California has added another state to their ever-growing blacklist. This time it is Iowa. So what is it that Iowa has done to deserve the honor of being reviled by California? Well, they decided that to stop funding cosmetic surgery for people on Medicaid. By cosmetic surgery, I mean gender transition surgery as it is not life-saving and only changes your outward appearance. California, of course, became unhinged over the news.

The announcement by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra means that as of Oct. 4, California will no longer offer taxpayer-funded trips to Iowa for any public employee or student at a state-run university. Becerra’s authority came from a 2016 California law signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown that bars state-funded travel to other states that undercut LGBT rights. The blacklist already included Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi.

Conservatives have called the law ineffective, inconveniencing, possibly unconstitutional and hypocritical. The state’s sports teams have turned to private funding to get around the restrictions, according to The Los Angeles Times.”

The law also prohibits using public resources to send academics and sports teams from California universities to the 10 states, but travel has continued as teams turn to private financing, including donations from boosters and corporate sponsors, to keep their schedules.

When the Cal State Long Beach men’s basketball team was invited in November to play in a tournament in Starkville, Miss., it asked the company that staged the tournament to cover its travel and hotel costs. Track stars were able to participate in the NCAA Track and Field National Championships this year because of private funds raised from supporters, said Andy Fee, the university’s athletic director.

“It’s extra work,” Fee said. “We’ve been lucky that we do have folks who understand the need to fundraise private dollars.”

So refusing to have taxpayers cover cosmetic surgery is discrimination? Seems like making the list is almost like an honor.

Travel Ban Back in Place, SCOTUS Halts Lower Court Injunctions

Reported by Ian Mason | 4 Dec 2017 | Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site:

President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order is once again to largely go back into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States stayed two lower courts’ injunctions Monday.

The orders come in response to filings by the Department of Justice Friday, asking the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunctions in the two main travel ban cases, Hawaii v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump in the Fourth Circuit. These cases have been proceeding up and down the federal court system for months.

The district courts, especially that of Barack Obama-appointed District of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson, have repeatedly ruled that the bans must be blocked from going into effect or must, in the interim, be interpreted in such a way as to have little effect on the list of mostly Muslim majority countries from which travel is prohibited under the orders.

The petitions in the two cases were made to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts respectively. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor declined to sign on to the orders staying the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in statement after the orders were announced.

He continued:

We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the President’s lawful proclamation protecting our country’s national security to go into full effect.  The Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.

With the order, the third – permanent – version of the travel ban, promulgated in September after an interagency review of the dangers posed by the different countries included, will go back into effect while the case on the merits works its way through the court system. The Supreme Court had dismissed the earlier lawsuits based on the earlier, temporary versions of the ban because they had expired.

The government, represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, asked the justices to re-instate the ban based in part on the findings of the review, which provided new security-based justifications for the inclusion of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and, he argues, turns the likelihood of success against the plaintiffs.

The Clarion Project Newsletter for Wednesday October 4, 2017

Opinion: Claiming Las Vegas Is an ISIS Win Whoever Did It  Whether or not ISIS carried out the attack, claiming it spreads terror Read
Opinion: ISIS Claims Vegas: At What Price?  If their claim is untrue, we should exploit the lie  Read
Opinion: Why Not Every Mass Murder Is Terrorism  Terror is a tactic used to promote an ideological or political goal Read
News: Video: Iranian Security Forces Torture Ahwazi Prisoners  Ahwazi Arabs are a frequently persecuted minority group in Iran  Watch
News: Atlanta Terror Games  Emergency services check out their preparedness Read
News: Bomb Found in Upscale Paris Neighborhood  The main suspect has links to radical Islamists Read more
News: Senior Figures Call for UK to Ban Muslim Brotherhood  London is increasingly cutting ties with the Brotherhood  Read
Readers Write
Sarsour Claims Trump Travel Restrictions Are ‘Muslim Ban 3.0’

“[Regarding Sarsour’s use of] smh. Shaking my head, not ‘so much hate.’”


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday September 11, 2017


Trump quietly puts teeth into his ‘extreme vetting’ policy

Reported by

Trump quietly puts teeth into his ‘extreme vetting’ policy | © Getty Images

The Trump administration for months has been quietly beefing up “extreme vetting” procedures for people seeking visas to enter the United States. President Trump signed a little-noticed executive order last week that rescinded an Obama-era goal to speed up visa processing. The brief directive strikes part of a 2012 order signed by former President Obama that instructed the State Department to “ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of receipt of application.”

White House officials frame the decision as an effort to strengthen security. While the change could significantly extend wait times for people seeking to travel to the U.S., they say it doesn’t make sense to rush a visa process that could prevent a terrorist from entering the country.

“This is a very straightforward step that removes an arbitrary requirement and ensures the State Department has the needed discretion to make real-world security determinations,” said White House spokesman Michael Short. “The president expects careful, accurate vetting of visa applicants, not a rushed process to accommodate an arbitrary deadline.”

But the moves have prompted concern among business groups and immigration lawyers that foreign travelers might shy away from visiting the U.S. due to the new rules.

“Especially as we ramp up for summer travel, there will be an increase in demand for travel [visas],” said Patricia Rojas-Ungár, vice president of public affairs at the U.S. Travel Association.

“When you add backlogs, demand is impacted,” she added. “People have options for where they travel. Needless delays hurt the process and it hurts people’s interests.”

The administration’s end to the three-week rule on visa interviews was overshadowed by a more public court battle over Trump’s executive action temporarily banning travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations. The White House won a significant victory on the travel ban this week when the Supreme Court allowed much of Trump’s order to be put into place. 

Even as that high-profile fight played out, the administration was taking other actions that put teeth into Trump’s extreme vetting efforts. Last week’s executive order directs the Departments of State and Homeland Security to develop a new implementation plan for visa processing.

The State Department has instructed embassy and consular officials to toughen security screening of visa applicants by identifying “populations warranting increased scrutiny” and instituting mandatory social media checks of people who have been in territory controlled by the Islamic State in Iraq in Syria.

In a March diplomatic cable first reported by Reuters, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the number of visa interviews conducted by each consular official should be limited to a maximum of 120 per day. Tillerson acknowledged the new rule “may cause interview appointment backlogs to rise.”

An official with the State Department said that the latest executive order provides consular services with additional “flexibility” if they determine the need to perform additional security checks on visa applicants, but stressed that the department has always erred on the side of security.

“If applicants are taking more time if we’re doing more security checks, this will give us the time to do that,” the State Department official said. “We always take as much time as needed to make sure every potential traveler doesn’t present a security risk.”

Neither the State Department nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offered concrete details about the implementation plan for visa processing. Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department.

“Of course, we’re going to review everything carefully,” the State Department official said.

The new restrictions mostly do not apply to residents of more than three dozen countries — including almost all of Europe and other allies such as Japan and Australia — who can easily visit the U.S. under the visa waiver program. But they will affect people from more than 150 other nations.

Stewart Verdery, a former assistant secretary of policy at the DHS during the Bush administration, said Trump’s latest executive order will work in tandem with portions of the travel ban. The ban mandates a worldwide review of vetting procedures and also prevents consulates from waiving visa interviews for repeat applicants.

“[The order] is just one aspect of a much larger playbook now underway,” he said.

Even before the latest executive order, there was already evidence that visa issuances were dropping. As a result of an earlier Trump directive, the State Department is now required to publish monthly statistics on visa issuances. According to that data, the total count of nonimmigrant visas issued dropped from 907,166 in March to 735,004 in April.

“This is a direct result of the March 17 cable on heightened vetting,” said Liam Schwartz, an immigration and consular lawyer based in Tel Aviv, Israel.

If the visa process is further slowed, immigration lawyers anticipate cases where foreign students do not receive their visas on time for the beginning of college semesters in September. They also say delays could prevent foreign workers seeking H-1B visas from entering the country for their scheduled work.

Outside groups also believe Tillerson’s decision to keep a hiring freeze at the State Department has contributed to the drop in visas issued.

The White House says it needs to prioritize security, something Trump emphasized in his campaign.

“We understand those concerns, but at the same time, our job is to keep the country safe,” said Short, the White House spokesman. “Arbitrary timelines seldom serve national security interests.”

But the groups questioned that explanation, saying that consular officials do not even begin to review a visa application until after the interview is scheduled. If an officer needs to conduct additional security checks, it would typically occur on or after the day of an interview.  

The visa issuance process for foreign travelers has generated controversy ever since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks — when all 19 hijackers entered the U.S. on temporary visas. The attacks led the State Department to prioritize security over issuing visas efficiently, experts say, resulting in longer waits for nonimmigrant visas and prompting frustrations among the business community and others.

The Obama EO was a sort of gentle nudge to the State Department” to speed up visa processing, said Edward Alden, an immigration expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “[The new administration has] gone back to the very hard ‘security trumps all’ position.”

–This piece was updated at 9:55 a.m.

Trump’s Travel Ban Reinstated by Supreme Court

Today, the Trump administration reached a partial victory.  The United States Supreme Court announced there will be a review of the lower court injunctions which are blocking the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order to temporarily stop travel from six Islamic countries.

This means the Court is allowing the ban to go into effect.

Any foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States,” will be denied entry if they are from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The court, in a per curiam opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of these six Islamic countries on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.

Such formal relationships include: students accepted to US universities and an employee who has accepted a job with a company in the US.

According to Breitbart: The Court wrote that the lower court injunctions, even accepting the First Amendment arguments against the order as likely to succeed, went too far

[T]he injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.

The opinion also announced the Court will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, respectively. Both cases found the executive unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an attempt to disfavor Islam.

The Court had requested additional briefing from the parties in both cases earlier this month, signalling they would hear arguments on the case despite the Court going out of its regular term this week. Arguments are expected to be heard when the Court reconvenes in October. Attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are expected to face off against a government team now led by acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall.

The government had argued in the new briefing that the injunctions had delayed the start date for the 90-day order. This would allow the ban… to remain valid despite having been issued in March.

A dissent from the per curiam decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in their entirety, allowing the travel ban to go fully into effect immediately.

Will the Trump admin see a full victory in October? Time will tell, but for now we need to be thankful for this small victory.

America just took one step towards the safety of its citizens.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


URL of the original posting site:

Since Trump is being held to his campaign rhetoric, should Ruth Ginsburg be held to hers and recuse herself in the Travel Oder case?

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Judge Sides With Trump Administration, Refuses To Block Travel Ban

Reported by Photo of Alex Pfeiffer Alex Pfeiffer | Reporter | 12:27 PM 03/24/2017

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus Executive Committee at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus Executive Committee at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall. The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.

Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.’”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”

The Associated Press reported that Sarsour’s attorney is expected to appeal the ruling.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flagThe Nutty 9th

9th Circuit rules against Donald Trump’s constitutional travel ban proving once again their liberal bias.

Travel Ban 9th Circuit / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco 2017 Calendar <—- Order Here!


Is The LGBT “Equal” Rights Movement Going to Start Another Civil War?

waving flagBy Michael Ware April 8, 2016

Over one hundred and fifty years ago, there was a movement in certain states that pitted one group of Americas against another. That movement was the Abolitionist Movement. It had its good and bad aspects. This group saw the horror and injustice of the Chattel slavery institution in American. They wanted to abolish this practice from our land. Many agreed with this but wanted to dismantle slavery in a slow process. But many abolitionist wanted it to end immediately.

These two factions, along with those who fought both, divided our nation. Though there was much more pushing North and South apart in the first half of the nineteenth century, there is no doubt that this was, at least, a key political wedge of the time.

Now we are faced with a somewhat similar situation. One used by the political expedient to gain power and remove it from those they wish to silence in this country. This is the “equal” movement of the LGBT.

Many states, unwilling to give these perverse people the legal club with which to beat the church into submission, are now facing the economic and political bullying that has driven this movement from the very beginning.Church under attack

And Mississippi now joins Georgia and North Carolina as the latest victim.

Christian News reports

The Democratic governors of Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, New York and Washington have banned all non-essential government travel to Mississippi over a new religious freedom law that protects pastors, faith-based organizations and business owners who object to being complicit in another’s same-sex ceremony.Militent Radical liberalism socialism

What we have to ask is: is this a replay of the events that led to that bloody conflict fought between Americans from 1861-1865? Is the Unitarian playbook now being used by the Homosexual agenda to finish the destruction they started in the Church? Or is it just coincidence that the same things are being said about the church? Are these people just pouting or are they preparing to devour our rights?

It sure looks as if the same people are again the target of their vile threatening. We must pray for deliverance from such a situation, and from such a beast.AMEN Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Breaking: Iranian Regime Already Breaks Nuclear Deal – Quds Forces Leader Visits Russia

waving flagPosted by

The Iranian regime already broke the the nuclear deal with the West.
iran negotiations

Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani already visited Moscow despite a .
Israeli activist Omri Ceren reported:

muslim-obamaFox News just published an exclusive confirming that Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani just visited Moscow even though he’s under a travel ban and prohibited from leaving Iran by United Nations Security Council sanctions. The article is at the bottom of this email and has details down to the Air Iran flight numbers and times of his arrival and departure.

Evidence of sanctions-busting by Soleimani has the potentially to be politically disastrous for the Obama administration. The Iranian general was originally sanctioned for a wide range of terror activities, including against Americans: U.S. military officials estimate that he has the blood of roughly 500 American soldiers on his hands and that the majority of American causalities during the final two years of Iraq were because of his surrogates [a][b]. The JCPOA lifted many sanctions against Soleimani were lifted under the final JCPOA, generating a flood of criticism and forcing the administration to go into damage control mode.

At first the State Department denied the concession even existed, with Kerry claiming that it was a different Qassem Soleimani who was being delisted [c]. That was false and so the White House quickly had to concede that the general was indeed getting sanctions relief [d].ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART

If his mouth is open he must be lyingAdministration officials then shifted to declaring that the delisting was the best they could do: it would occur 8 years into the deal, after the UN’s sanctions authority lapsed, and would never occur on a domestic level at all. In the meantime they emphasized that both sets of sanctions would be vigorously enforced at the international level.

A senior administration official told reporters on July 14 “IRGC Commander Qassem Soleimani will not be delisted at the United Nations… [until] 8 years into the deal, so sanctions are not being lifted early on Qassem Soleimani… his designation under U.S. sanctions will in no way be impacted by the [JCPOA]. Since secondary sanctions remain in place on the U.S. side, this means that sanctions on Qassam Soleimani will still have an international effect” Kerry made the same point on July 29 to the Senate Armed Services “under the United States’ initiative… [Soleimani] will never be relieved of any sanctions” [g]. The talking point was built into a White House memo titled “The Iran Deal: What You Need to Know About the JCPOA” [e]: culture of deciet

talking point lies

freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: