One Citizen Speaking...

ANTI-SEMITIC OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNHAPPY WITH TRADE BILL PROTECTIONS FOR ISRAEL

Posted: 12 Feb 2016 01:29 AM PST

The Administration has officially indicated its displeasure with the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 because it protects trade with Israel. Not surprising since the Obama Administration appears to disadvantage our staunch ally Israel while seemingly promoting causes related to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015
The President has been clear that our trade agreements must allow our workers and businesses to compete fairly with the rest of the world, and where that is not happening, we have and will continue to take action. We are pleased the Senate passed the bipartisan Customs conference report because it will provide additional tools to help crack down on unfair competition by trading partners and foreign companies that put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. As with any bipartisan compromise legislation, there are provisions in this bill that we do not support, including a provision that contravenes longstanding U.S. policy towards Israel and the occupied territories, including with regard to Israeli settlement activity.
However, the legislation would strengthen trade enforcement at our ports and borders and improve our ability to stop evasion of our trade laws; improve transparency, accountability, and coordination in enforcement efforts; and give us unprecedented new tools to address unfair currency practices. Its passage is an important milestone in our overall trade agenda. The President intends to sign H.R.644 into law to help strengthen enforcement of the rules and level the playing field for American workers and businesses.

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 | whitehouse.gov

The actual legislation concerning Israel …

Excerpts from H.R. 644 Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Engrossed Amendment House - EAH)

TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 908. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL TRADE AND COMMERCIAL ENHANCEMENT.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) Israel is America's dependable, democratic ally in the Middle East--an area of paramount strategic importance to the United States.

(2) The United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement formed the modern foundation of the bilateral commercial relationship between the two countries and was the first such agreement signed by the United States with a foreign country.

(3) The United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement has been instrumental in expanding commerce and the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel.

(4) More than $45 billion in goods and services is traded annually between the two countries in addition to roughly $10 billion in United States foreign direct investment in Israel.

(5) The United States continues to look for and find new opportunities to enhance cooperation with Israel, including through the enactment of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-150) and the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-296).

(6) It has been the policy of the United States Government to combat all elements of the Arab League Boycott of Israel by--

(A) public statements of Administration officials;

(B) enactment of relevant sections of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), including sections to ensure foreign persons comply with applicable reporting requirements relating to the boycott;

(C) enactment of the 1976 Tax Reform Act (Public Law 94-455) that denies certain tax benefits to entities abiding by the boycott;

(D) ensuring through free trade agreements with Bahrain and Oman that such countries no longer participate in the boycott; and

(E) ensuring as a condition of membership in the World Trade Organization that Saudi Arabia no longer enforces the secondary or tertiary elements of the boycott.

(b) Statements of Policy- Congress--

(1) supports the strengthening of United States-Israel economic cooperation and recognizes the tremendous strategic, economic, and technological value of cooperation with Israel;

(2) recognizes the benefit of cooperation with Israel to United States companies, including by improving American competitiveness in global markets;

(3) recognizes the importance of trade and commercial relations to the pursuit and sustainability of peace, and supports efforts to bring together the United States, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and others in enhanced commerce;

(4) opposes politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel such as boycotts, divestment or sanctions;

(5) notes that the boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel by governments, governmental bodies, quasi-governmental bodies, international organizations, and other such entities is contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) principle of non-discrimination;

(6) encourages the inclusion of politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel such as boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions against Israel as a topic of discussion at the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG) and other areas to support the strengthening of the United States-Israel commercial relationship and combat any commercial discrimination against Israel;

(7) supports efforts to prevent investigations or prosecutions by governments or international organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories; and

(8) supports American States examining a company's promotion or compliance with unsanctioned boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions against Israel as part of its consideration in awarding grants and contracts and supports the divestment of State assets from companies that support or promote actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.

(1) COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS- Among the principal trade negotiating objectives of the United States for proposed trade agreements with foreign countries regarding commercial partnerships are the following:

(A) To discourage actions by potential trading partners that directly or indirectly prejudice or otherwise discourage commercial activity solely between the United States and Israel.

(B) To discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel and to seek the elimination of politically motivated non-tariff barriers on Israeli goods, services, or other commerce imposed on the State of Israel.

(C) To seek the elimination of state-sponsored unsanctioned foreign boycotts against Israel or compliance with the Arab League Boycott of Israel by prospective trading partners.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- This subsection takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect to negotiations commenced before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Report on Politically Motivated Acts of Boycott, Divestment From, and Sanctions Against Israel-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel.

(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) A description of the establishment of barriers to trade, including non-tariff barriers, investment, or commerce by foreign countries or international organizations against United States persons operating or doing business in Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories.

(B) A description of specific steps being taken by the United States to encourage foreign countries and international organizations to cease creating such barriers and to dismantle measures already in place and an assessment of the effectiveness of such steps.

(C) A description of specific steps being taken by the United States to prevent investigations or prosecutions by governments or international organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories.

(D) Decisions by foreign persons, including corporate entities and state-affiliated financial institutions, that limit or prohibit economic relations with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli controlled territories.

(e) Certain Foreign Judgments Against United States Persons- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no domestic court shall recognize or enforce any foreign judgment entered against a United States person that conducts business operations in Israel, or any territory controlled by Israel, if the domestic court determines that the foreign judgment is based, in whole or in part, on a determination by a foreign court that the United States person's conducting business operations therein or with Israeli entities constitutes a violation of law.

(f) Definitions- In this section:

(1) BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT FROM, AND SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL- The term `boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel' means actions by states, non-member states of the United Nations, international organizations, or affiliated agencies of international organizations that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.

(2) DOMESTIC COURT- The term `domestic court' means a Federal court of the United States, or a court of any State or territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia.

(3) FOREIGN COURT- The term `foreign court' means a court, an administrative body, or other tribunal of a foreign country.

(4) FOREIGN JUDGMENT- The term `foreign judgment' means a final civil judgment rendered by a foreign court.

(5) FOREIGN PERSON- The term `foreign person' means--

(A) any natural person who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) or who is not a protected individual (as defined in section 274B(a)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)); or

(B) any foreign corporation, business association, partnership, trust, society or any other entity or group that is not incorporated or organized to do business in the United States, as well as any international organization, foreign government and any agency or subdivision of foreign government, including a diplomatic mission.

(6) PERSON-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `person' means--

(i) a natural person;

(ii) a corporation, business association, partnership, society, trust, financial institution, insurer, underwriter, guarantor, and any other business organization, any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group, and any governmental entity operating as a business enterprise; and

(iii) any successor to any entity described in clause (ii).

(B) APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES- The term `person' does not include a government or governmental entity that is not operating as a business enterprise.

(7) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' means--

(A) a natural person who is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))); or

(B) a corporation or other legal entity which is organized under the laws of the United States, any State or territory thereof, or the District of Columbia, if natural persons described in subparagraph (A) own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock or other beneficial interest in such legal entity.

Bottom line …

There is little doubt n my mind that many in the Obama Administration, especially those in the State Department, are anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Muslim and will do anything in their power to disadvantage Israel.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

A REMINDER FROM TEXAS FRED THAT A POLITICIAN MAY BE A POLITICIAN FIRST AND A PATRIOT SECOND

Posted: 11 Feb 2016 01:15 PM PST

From what I had heard, mostly from the Cruz Campaign, Pete Sessions was a standup guy. A patriot that supported constitutional conservatism and all that it implies: limited government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, a strong military, and protection of our sovereignty. Other than that, I knew little or nothing about Pete Sessions.

Now, Texas Fred comes along to remind me that: one, appearances can be deceiving in the political world, and two, human nature often trumps patriotism when it comes to protecting a politicians self-interests.

From our friend in Texas …

My response to Rep. Pete Sessions

Posted on February 11, 2016 by TexasFred

Pete Sessions 2 To preface this story a bit; I got a call from Pete Sessions last Sunday evening, during the last 2 minutes of the Super Bowl, and Pete wanted to talk about a post I had up where I related all the information that one of his Congressional challengers had written up.

Pete was not at all happy with me for writing that post and even though ALL of the information was *sourced* I was very skeptical of a few of the sources, they were to sites that I personally don’t use.

As I said in that story; some information was dead on the money and some was, in my opinion, seriously suspect.

My house was utter chaos at the time Pete called. My youngest daughter was here, her 2 boys, her fiancé was here and a gigantic Great Dane was here and we were having our Super Bowl party, things were, to say the least, quite hectic.

Rep. Sessions wanted me to know that he was NOT a liar, the record spoke for itself and that I could verify his voting record at GOVTRACKS.us.

Pete, what I didn’t tell you is this; I watch every vote you make. I watch closely, I have since you became my Congressman. I would think you knew that.

Now I have to tell you; I am not happy nor unhappy with Pete’s overall voting record, some of it, hell, most of it is right on the money but in MY opinion when you miss you miss by a country mile, but Pete, your voting record on House Bills is NOT my biggest issue.

I rarely try to influence the vote of my Congressman It has been my experience that to do so is simply a waste of time and energy and since I don’t know how much TIME I have left, and since for me energy is greatly lacking, I don’t want to waste either.

I did try to influence Pete Sessions on ONE vote and that was right after the election 2 years ago when I, and MANY others living in TX-32 asked Pete to take a stand against John Boehner, then Speaker of the House, and bigtime buddies with Barack Hussein Obama.

Pete totally ignored the pleas of the people that sent him to Congress and he voted FOR Boehner to remain in the Speakers seat.

Pete Sessions and John Boehner are also great friends.

Pete told me they are friends himself a while back and I accept that, BUT, friends or not, Boehner is a waste of skin, a blubbering ass kisser and did whatever Obama told him to do.

He, Boehner, is also a vindictive SOB.

After the vote for Speaker was taken John Boehner took anyone that voted against him OFF of any committee they were seated on, he removed them from any position of power.

That got me to thinking and wondering about something.

Did Pete Sessions vote FOR Boehner because he thought Boehner was really good at what he did? Because if that is the case then I had to question what MY Congressman called a worthwhile person?

Or, as I more seriously suspect, did Pete Sessions vote for John Boehner because his own chairmanship of the House Rules Committee means more to him than the PEOPLE of TX-32 and because he knew that Boehner would yank the position away from him, friends or not?

In order to avoid a conflict in front of my family I took down the post that Pete Sessions was so offended by, something I have NEVER done before and will not do again.

I present News, Opinion and Commentary on this blog and if I want to call you out on something I am damned sure going to do it, that’s the way the 1st Amendment says it’s going to happen.

Pete, there is nothing that Russ Ramsland or Michael Quinn Sullivan have said or done that influenced me nor turned me against you; it was you, all by yourself, and your way of talking *down* to people and the vote you cast for Boehner that did it for me.

When Katrina Pierson ran against you I fought tooth and nail in YOUR support, to the point of being threatened with legal action by an ignorant slug of humanity for stating an opinion backed by irrefutable facts.

I supported you then, and if you win the primary I will vote for you in the general election if you have a Democratic challenger, but I won’t be endorsing you, I won’t be blogging for you and I damned sure won’t be sticking my neck out for you.

It was YOUR actions that brought this on. I am old fashioned, and as YOU said to me the 1st time we met, at Hubbard’s when you wanted to meet with the movers and shakers of Rowlett, “You sure do expect a lot.”

Yes I do, I expect that YOU are to follow the WILL of the PEOPLE and vote that will, that desire, and if you can’t vote the will of the people make damned sure you explain WHY, don’t just vote for some POS like Boehner and expect people to be happy.

And don’t expect that everyone is going to forgive and forget.

Source: My response to Rep. Pete Sessions | The TexasFred Blog

Bottom line …

It should come as no surprise that Donald Trump is not the only one making deals – only he appears to be more honest about buying politicians for perks, privileges, and political favors. He is, as most politicians, a weathervane that points with the prevailing winds to provide the path of least resistence, and a chameleon who can change his color to suit his background.

We should be very, very careful who we elect to the Presidency, but more importantly to the Congress. A Congress where we provided a majority for the House and they did little or nothing to put the progressive socialist democrats and their leader, Barack Obama, on the spot. A Congress where we provided a majority for the Senate, and they did little or nothing to deal with the unconstitutionality and lawlessness of the Obama Administration.

So consider Texas Fred’s post a warning: not everything is as it appears and perception almost always trumps reality.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

IS TED CRUZ TOO NICE TO WIN?

Posted: 10 Feb 2016 06:43 PM PST

Today received this rather crude e-mail from the Ted Cruz campaign …

Perhaps it is me, but the idea that I am one of Ted Cruz’s friends, let alone “one of my closest and most loyal supporters,” is off-putting since I have never met the man and have never contributed to his campaign. This is little more than one of those faux-friendly messaging attempts to raise money.

But it did get me to thinking. Is Ted Cruz such a nice guy that we will lose another election? Mitt Romney was a nice guy who failed to engage – even when he had the facts on his side. Would a Ted Cruz who tells us that he “will not respond” to Trump’s personal attacks be jeopardizing his chances in the primaries? According to Cruz, Trump could win the primary and then be defeated by Hillary Clinton if not for your donation. But is money alone enough if the message is meek and mild and there is no knockout delivered to The Donald? Is it like winking at a girl in the dark, you know you did it, but she remains oblivious and uninterested?

Here is the e-mail …

Ted Cruz Personal Email – May Include Privileged Communication

Friend,

Do you have a few minutes to read my email?

I hope you will stop what you are doing for just a moment and let me explain...

The results of the first two states are in, and it's clear that we are down to a two person race -- me vs. Donald Trump!

You also know -- the winner will take on Hillary Clinton.

Friend, let me be blunt. I can beat Hillary Clinton. Donald can't.

That is why I am asking you -- one of my closest and most loyal supporters -- will you redouble your support for me today?

I need you now more than ever, and let me tell you why.

When I first announced my campaign, Heidi and I committed that we would run an issues oriented, positive campaign. Unfortunately, my friend, Donald Trump, didn't make that same commitment.

While Donald continues with personal attacks -- and vulgar profanities -- I do not intend to respond, but that won't stop Donald.

He is so rattled by my surge in the polls, our victory in Iowa, and our strong finish in New Hampshire that he has decided to continue his scorched earth campaign in an attempt to burn down everyone and everything in his path.

I can't fault Donald for this...it's the only way he can distract voters from his record:

Support for Hillary-style healthcare;
Support for partial birth abortion;
Support for bank bailouts;
Support for Obama stimulus; and
Enthusiastic embrace of eminent domain.

Friend, will you help me set the record straight?

Without your help, he might get away with it...and if he does, say hello to President Hillary Clinton.

That's why I need your immediate help.

As I write this email to you, I'm being briefed that our Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns have taken a significant toll on my campaign budget. As of today, I'm still $490,700 short of my mid-month budget for February.

With South Carolina voting next in just days -- I can't afford to come up short. That's why I'm turning to you again. Will you help me make up the difference by using one of the secure links below?

MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $5 >>
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $35 >>
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $50 >>
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $250 >>
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $500 >>
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE: I will help with $2700 >>

You can make a HUGE impact on this campaign and help me win this nomination with an IMMEDIATE contribution -- no matter how small.

There is great strength in numbers.

With your personal contribution, you'll also be sending a big message to Donald Trump that tearing others down and misleading voters is not the best way to unite conservatives and make America great again.

Friend, I'll set the record straight on Donald's false attacks, secure the Republican nomination, AND DEFEAT HILLARY, but I can only get there with your continued help.

This is our time!

Together, we will reignite liberty in America.
For liberty,

Ted Cruz

Bottom line …

Trump may be loud and crude, but he is nothing like Hillary’s “B” Team – Brock and Blumenthal – who live in the slime and epitomize dirty political attacks – and who will savage Cruz at every opportunity while keeping the candidate’s hands relatively clean. Cruz is no match for those who will go to the wall for their “Hillary” even if it apparently means committing crimes and lying to federal investigators to cover-up dirty deeds.

Cruz is a great debater. A well-credentialed, well-spoken, and well-experienced candidate. But is he tough enough when the fight leaves the debate state and winds up in the mud – the playground of the Clintons?

Trump has shown ingenuity in getting media attention, even without major campaign expenditures, does Cruz have the same resourcefulness to extend his message when the media turns overtly hostile in the general election?

Is money the only thing that matters as this e-mail implies?

-- steve