Thursday, April 20, 2017

Iran Nuclear Deal Cartoons





Tillerson slams Iran nuclear deal as 'failed approach,' vows 'comprehensive review'


Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ratcheted up criticism Wednesday of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, publicly confirming the Trump administration is conducting a “comprehensive review” and declaring they have “no intention of passing the buck.”
In some of his toughest language yet, Tillerson said at a brief press conference that the Iran deal “fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran,” and only delays it becoming a nuclear state.
He faulted the agreement for “buying off” a foreign power with nuclear ambitions, saying: “We just don’t see that that’s a prudent way to be dealing with Iran.”
The statement comes after he said in a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis, that the administration has undertaken a full review of the agreement to evaluate whether continued sanctions relief is in the best interest of the U.S.
In the same notification, the administration said Iran is complying with the landmark nuclear deal negotiated by former President Obama, and the U.S. has extended sanctions relief to Tehran in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.
But Tillerson noted in his letter, and repeated during his appearance Wednesday, that Iran continues to foment violence around the world.
“Iran spends its treasure and time disrupting peace,” he said Wednesday. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a grave risk to international peace and security.”
While not saying definitively whether the administration is inclined to uphold or scrap the deal, Tillerson said they will meet the challenge of Iran with “clarity and conviction” once the review is done.
“The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran,” he said, claiming the deal represents the “failed approach” of the past.
Tillerson also likened Iran's behavior to that of North Korea. He said an unchecked Iran could pursue the same path as Pyongyang "and take the world along with it."
As a candidate in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was an outspoken critic of the deal but had offered conflicting opinions on whether he would try to scrap it, modify it or keep it in place with more strenuous enforcement. Tuesday's determination suggested that while Trump agreed with findings by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran is keeping to its end of the bargain, he is looking for another way to ratchet up pressure on Tehran.
The nuclear deal was sealed in Vienna in July 2015 after 18 months of negotiations led by former Secretary of State John Kerry and diplomats from the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, China, France and Russia — and Germany. Under its terms, Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program, long suspected of being aimed at developing atomic weapons, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Supreme Court justices show support for church, in Gorsuch's 1st high-profile case


A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term, and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the justices.
The justices are considering whether Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., should be eligible for state funds. The church sued after being denied funding to improve the surface of a playground used by its preschool, by replacing gravel with softer, recycled synthetic rubber.
The state program gives grants to nonprofits seeking a safer recreational environment for children. But Missouri's law -- similar to those in roughly three-dozen other states – prohibits direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.
Republican Gov. Eric Greitens’s unexpected decision last week to change the policy and allow religious institutions to participate in the program raised questions about whether the constitutional fight is now moot -- but no one on the nine-member bench appeared ready to punt the case away.
Instead, an intense hour of oral arguments focused on the merits.
"I'm not sure it's a 'free exercise' [of religion] question," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "No one is asking the church to change its beliefs. The state is just saying it doesn't want to be involved in giving [public] money to the church."
But other members of the court questioned the church's exclusion.
"You're denying one set of actors from competing [for the grant money] because of religion," Justice Elena Kagan said. She called it a "clear burden on a constitutional right."
The Constitution's First Amendment speaks on religion in the public sphere with two important provisions. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from unduly preferring or promoting religion over non-religion, and vice versa. And the Free Exercise Clause protects Americans' rights to practice their faith, absent a "compelling" government interest.
Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, was subdued by comparison to his active involvement during his first two days of arguments. He only asked a couple brief questions of the state's lawyer near the end of arguments.
The Supreme Court accepted the church's petition for review back in January 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia was still the senior conservative. His death a month later kept the case on hold, possibly because the eight justices believed they would ultimately tie. Such splits mean no nationwide precedent is set.
Trinity Lutheran's high-profile case was finally put on the argument schedule for April, just in time for Gorsuch to perhaps cast the deciding vote.
The Christian church operates its Child Learning Center to serve families, incorporating "daily religion and developmentally appropriate activities in a preschool program."
To minimize injuries on its playground, the church applied to the state's "Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant" program, funded by a 50-cent tax on the purchase of new tires. The church says its application ranked fifth out of 44 other nonprofits, but was ultimately denied.
Missouri's constitution says "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion."
The high court has never fully answered whether "free exercise of religion" compels states to provide taxpayer funds to religious institutions, through neutral means that do not promote faith-based beliefs or practices.
Teachers unions, meanwhile, worry a ruling favoring Trinity Lutheran would add nationwide momentum for private school voucher programs, part of the school-choice movement which the Trump administration has promoted. And some organizations fear a sweeping conservative-majority court opinion would lead to discrimination with the backing of government money.
Into the debate jumped Gorsuch, who took heat from Senate Democrats during his confirmation over past cases dealing with religion, while serving as a federal appeals court judge in Denver for over a decade.
Perhaps the 49-year-old justice's highest-profile case was the 2013 concurrence supporting the right of for-profit, secular institutions (and individuals too, he argued) to oppose the Obama's administration mandate to provide contraceptives to their workers. Gorsuch affirmed his past ardent commitment to religious freedom against claims of government "intrusion."
Besides the Trinity case at hand, the Supreme Court in coming days could accept two other religious liberty disputes for future review: Whether a Colorado baker and a Washington state florist can be compelled to do business with same-sex couples, which they say would violate their "sincerely held" religious beliefs.
The current case is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577). A ruling is expected in late June.

How North Korea gets its money


North Korea is a conundrum: seemingly barren and with Third World living conditions, yet it just held a grandiose military parade reminding the world that the country is locked and loaded.
As detached as North Korea appears to be from the rest of the globe, the country is maintaining a stream of revenue from somewhere to finance its impressive slew of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Where does that money come from? A myriad of places.
“North Korea has both an overt and covert economy through which it gains money,” said Bruce Klingner, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who suggests North Korea’s money flow is very diverse.
“The overt economy is predominantly sales of natural resources,” he said. “The covert economy is harder to estimate, but consists of weapons sales, the counterfeiting of U.S. $100 bills . . . production and distribution of illegal narcotics, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, including Viagra, insurance scams, money laundering, and cybercrime.”
According to Klingner, that laundry list of dubious activities extends to “skimming the wages of North Korean workers overseas” and North Korean diplomats “involved in illegal sales of wildlife, rhino horn and ivory.”
It is nearly impossible to have a dialogue about North Korea’s finances without mentioning China.
“Without China, North Korea would be in a state of collapse,” explained Nicholas Eberstadt, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and North Korea expert.
“China is the huge and dominant actor in exports and imports for North Korea. North Korea’s main activities include developing weapons of mass destruction so China supports that, of course.”
Along with illicit activities such as counterfeiting and drug sales, Eberstadt suggested another possible point of supply.
“Other things we don’t follow terribly well are overseas sources of wealth that belong to the Kim family stashed in Macau and other places,” he said.

South Korean presidential candidate concerned about Trump's aircraft carrier story


A presidential candidate from South Korea’s former ruling party said Wednesday that if what President Trump said about the mission of the U.S. aircraft carrier was a lie “South Korea will not trust whatever Trump says” the remainder of his term.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Hong Joon-pyo, the candidate from Park Geun-hye’s party, said in an interview that Trump’s earlier comments about moving the USS Carl Vinson toward North Korea in a show of force was important to South Korea’s security.
The U.S. Navy said on Tuesday that it did not move the USS Carl Vinson toward North Korea despite President Trump’s earlier comments he made on Fox Business that he was sending an “armada” to deter Pyongyang.
"We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier,” Trump told the Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo last week. “We have the best military people on Earth.  And I will say this: he (Kim Jong Un) is doing the wrong thing.”
Military officials said at the time that the Vinson was canceling a previous itinerary and instead was going to head toward the Korean Peninsula. The ship, instead, ended up heading to Australia, the Journal reported. It is expected to reach the peninsula next week.
The White House said it did not mislead allies about the ship’s movements.
“The president said we have an armada going toward the peninsula,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said. “That’s a fact. It happened. It is happening, rather.”
Narushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, told the Journal that regardless of whether the U.S. intended to deceive or the narrative was a miscommunication, it looked bad for the White House.
“At a time of emergency, disinformation could be used as a tactic, but if the U.S. president spreads disinformation in peacetime like now, it would hurt the credibility of the U.S.,” he said.

CartoonsDemsRinos