Hypocrisy of the Press and Media on classified documents

Since the President of the United States has decided to declassify the contents of a FISA warrant the press has all but called the act “criminal”. Claiming it endangers the security of the nation with in its context if released.  I find this strange, as I have witness more blatant security risks by their release of classified secrets in the printed press. 1971 the New York Time released the ‘Pentagon Papers’ by Daniel Ellsberg, these were CLASSIFIED documents dealing with secret information concerning the conduct of the Vietnam War. Wasn’t any condemnation of this act, even though it breached national security. As a matter of fact it was touted by them as the public’s right to know, and presented as an act of patriotism. Then again more recently with Edward Snowden (National Security Agency, 4 laptops with terra bits of CLASSIFIED information) and Chelsea Manning (United States Army, more than 750, 000 CLASSIFIED documents), both hailed as heroes of the people. But which people? Not my hero’s, traitors I call them. Sworn to up hold the laws of the nation to which they betrayed. Yet the press applauded and even awarded them. Academia even bestowed laurels on Snowden, even international awards. Of course most of it came from foreign nations, and why not, it only denuded the United States of their security, not theirs. (P.S. ever notice how all the Russian hacking started after Snowden landed in Russia?)Manning even received a Presidential Commutation of Sentence (January 2017)from Barack Obama, amazing.

But the press or the media did not scream outrage at any of those above, yet praised them in their acts of courage to confront their own government in a dishonorable act. Yet the President which has the authority under the Constitution to make public what information to which he believes is a benefit for the people to know, is ridiculed, berated and slandered. America are you truly that naïve? 

Thank you for taking the time to read this

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Advertisements

The Nolan Act & John Kerry

Since it has come to light than former Secretary of State John Kerry has been meeting with the government of Iran, which seems to be in response to the cancelation of the Iran nuclear agreement that he negotiated during the Obama administration. Some in the Congress have raised the question as to whether he is in violation of the “Nolan Act”. I now present the statute as it is written.

United States Code Title 18; Part 1-Crimes; Chapter 45

 §953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 744 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §5 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §5, 35 Stat. 1088 ; Apr. 22, 1932, ch. 126, 47 Stat. 132 ).
The reference to any citizen or resident within the jurisdiction of the United States not duly authorized “who counsels, advises or assists in such correspondence with such intent” was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of principal in section 2.
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
Minor changes of arrangement and in phraseology were made.
Amendments
1994-Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $5,000” in first par.

§954. False statements influencing foreign government
Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, willfully and knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 744 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on section 231 of title 22, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Foreign Relations and Intercourse (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title VIII, §1, 40 Stat. 226 ; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, §6, 54 Stat. 80 ).
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
Words “department or agency” were added to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definitive section 6 of this title.)
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Amendments
1994-Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $5,000”.

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

SOURCE: (HoR) Office of the Law Revision Council: United States Code
CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

American anarchy in action

After watching the disruptive displays of contempt for the United States Congress and the disregard for the lawful workings of government, I feel compelled to speak. During the Judicial Committees hearings of Bret Kavanaugh for a seat of the Supreme Court for the last two days the attempts to disrupt, influence or just totally discredit the procedures of the government, came to the full light of day. This was not a protest, a protest presents an opposition view in a peaceful orderly and lawful manner, where as an anarchist has contempt for the rule of law or decorum and works to achieve their aims regardless of whose rights they violate in the attempt. The attempts (which in no way was spontaneous, clearly seen as one was led out, another stood, showing me planning and coordination) to prevent the Committee to fulfil it responsibly to the people, not only prolonged the session but did a disservice to the nation as a whole. The radical resistance to the government that the Democratic Party has so passionately embraced in an effort to discredit the current administration has come home to roost, in the fact that the outburst from the visitors show they neither trust nor accept the Congressional procedure.  Notwithstanding of the behavior of the setting Senators at the opening even before the Chairman had outlined the proceedings.

At no point is this acceptably as a rational conduct for either the proceeding or the conduct of the members or visitors. In the attempt to unlawfully prevent a governmental inquiry by vocal or physical actions is an act of anarchy, obviously orchestrated by an organized group with the intent to stall or close the hearings.  They did not consider the rights of the people to hear and evaluate the worth of this candidate for the Supreme Court. This in its self is a violation of ours and his constitutional rights to free speech. The First Amendment not only guarantees the right to speak but also the right to be heard.

Concerning the so called rebuffed hand shake of the father of a gun-violence victim, I find this as a media unfair attempt to de-humanize Mr. Kavanuagh, when in a point of fact considering the atmosphere of the hearings and the fact that he did not know the person involved, I see no rebuff but a self-defense response.  I don’t shake hands with strangers who come up on me unawares; I don’t think those reporting the incident do either. But I see it as another staged act to promote dissention.

Race, sex, murder sells newspapers, or boost ratings. It’s all about the ratings and money. What the media should remember is that during the Tributes parades of the Roman generals there rode a person behind the general on the chariot, while holding the laurels of victory and glory above his head also whispered into his ear “glory is fleeting”. As so many in the media have lately come to find true.

The American people still, I believe hold the fundamental ideas of this nation in high regard, and are not impressed or swayed by the riotous behavior of a few, but the media never address these people. Why, because they don’t sell newspapers, or make sensational story lines.

Thank you for taking the time to read this

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Is ANTIFA more fascist than the fascist?

First of all I suppose the question is just who are these Anti-fascist? No one seems able to address this question, they claim there is no central hierarchy, no unifying central control or origination structure, but without such, how could they plan, plot or execute the protest/riots which ensue.  Impossible, the scenes I have witnessed on television show hundreds perhaps even thousands of participants at these events. This cannot be possible without an in-depth planning and coordinated structure. Otherwise with just local cells of smaller groups taking action we would see far lesser crowds. The apparent global markings of this group speak of a much larger origination.

Second question is what is their agenda? No protest is just a gathering of people marching around without a definite message to promote. Ok, they are against fascism, but is this all? They are the defenders of our personal freedoms, not quite. With this large a following (I admit that some are merely duped into the main theme) there is an underlying result they wish to produce, but it is hidden deeply in the heart of this movement. By being ambiguous this gives it the greatest chances of remaining hidden.

Third question are they any less brutal than those they oppose? No, they use physical violence to disrupt, intimidate, and vandalize private property. By doing this I can’t help recall the tactics of the NAZI SA (Sturmabteilung [Storm troops]) during the 1920’s in German. The SA were the true fascist, and they had zero tolerance to any idea other than NAZI ideology. They disrupted any opposition meetings with beatings; they destroyed Jewish business and burning Synagogues. Smashing business windows; beating pedestrians on the street without any intervention by the police. It seems that the antifa group has adopted the same tactics. This is a sign that they are not the guardians of individual freedoms. They most assuredly do not safe guard the freedom of speech.

Fourth question is there a global conspiracy? Ok, here is the part where everyone does that little head shake and with a hearty chuckle rolls the eyes. But I merely ask out of curiosity. Could there be? If not, then why the use of a unifying name? Why the promotion of a single main theme? Why the seemingly uniform dress code? Why the secrecy?

Reverting to the 4 journalistic W’s: Who are they, What are they about, Where are they, Why are they? I add the fifth W; What do they hope to achieve.

Thank you for taking the time to read this

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

1955 United States – Iran Treaty

The following treaty between the United States and Iran has become the focus of yet another attempt by the Islamic Republic of Iran to extort money from the U. S.. Although this treaty was signed in good faith by the U.S., I for one feel that Iran has violated it on several occasions, in essence making it invalid. First with the over throw of the originator government by revolution, second by the unlawful occupation of the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, and many more overt actions against the U. S.. But the International Courts see it otherwise, allowing another unlawful filing, if there has every been a breech of this treaty, then it was by the current Iranian government. Congress needs to readdress this treaty and with in its powers, revoke it once and for all.

[P.S. Update 3 October 2018 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States no longer considers this treaty valid]

Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights

Treaty signed at Tehran August 15, 1955;

Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;

Ratified by the President of the United States of America

September 14, 1956;

Ratified by Iran April 30, 1957;

Ratifications exchanged at Tehran May 16, 1957;

Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America

June 27, 1957;

Entered into force June 16, 1957.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS a treaty of amity, economic relations, and consular rights between the United States of America and Iran was signed at Tehran on August 15, 1955, the original of which treaty, being in the English and Persian languages, is word for word as follows:

TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS

BETWEEN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AND IRAN

TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IRAN

The United States of America and Iran, desirous of emphasizing the friendly relations which have long prevailed between their peoples, of reaffirming the high principles in the regulation of human affairs to which they are committed, of encouraging mutually beneficial trade and investments and closer economic intercourse generally between their peoples, and of regulating consular relations, have resolved to conclude, on the basis of reciprocal equality of treatment, a Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

The President of the United States of America:

Mr. Selden Chapin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at Tehran;

and

His Imperial Majesty, the Shah of Iran:

His Excellency Mr. Mostafa Samiy, Under Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article I

There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran.

Article II

1. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, upon terms no less favorable than those accorded to nationals of any third country, to enter and remain in the territories of the other High Contracting Party for the purpose of carrying on trade between their own country and the territories of such other High Contracting Party and engaging in related commercial activities, and for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested, or in which they are actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital.

2. Nationals of either High Contracting Party within the territories of the other High Contracting Party shall, either individually or through associations, and so long as their activities are not contrary to public order, safety or morals:

(a) be permitted to travel therein freely and reside at places of their choice;

(b)enjoy freedom of conscience and the right to hold religious services;

(c) be permitted to engage in philanthropic, educational and scientific activities; and

(d) have the right to gather and transmit information for dissemination to the public abroad, and otherwise to communicate with other persons inside and outside such territories. They shall also be permitted to engage in the practice of professions for which they have qualified under the applicable legal provisions governing admission to professions.

3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present Article shall be subject to the right of either High Contracting Party to apply measures which are necessary to maintain public order, and to protect public health, morals and safety, including the right to expel, to exclude or to limit the movement of aliens on the said grounds.

4. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. When any such national is in custody, he shall in every respect receive reasonable and humane treatment; and, on his demand, the diplomatic or consular representative of his country shall without unnecessary delay be notified and accorded full opportunity to safeguard his interests. He shall be promptly informed of the accusations against him, allowed all facilities reasonably necessary to his defense and given a prompt and impartial disposition of his case.

Article III

1. Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that recognition of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies to engage in the activities for which they are organized. As used in the present Treaty, “companies” means corporations, partnerships, companies and other associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary profit.

2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall have freedom of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such other High Contracting Party or of any third country. It is understood that companies not engaged in activities within the country shall enjoy the right of such access without any requirement of registration or domestication.

3. The private settlement of disputes of a civil nature, involving nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party, shall not be discouraged within the territories of the other High Contracting Party; and, in cases of such settlement by arbitration, neither the alienage of the arbitrators nor the foreign situs of the arbitration proceedings shall of themselves be a bar to the enforceability of awards duly resulting therefrom.

Article IV

I. Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, and to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights and interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws.

2. Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party, including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in no case less than that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form and shall represent the full equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof.

3. The dwellings, offices, warehouses, factories and other premises of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party located within the territories of the other High Contracting Party shall not be subject to entry or molestation without just cause.

Official searches and examinations of such premises and their contents, shall be made only according to law and with careful regard for the convenience of the occupants and the conduct of business.

4. Enterprises which nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party are permitted to establish or acquire, within territories of the other High Contracting Party, shall be permitted freely to conduct their activities therein, upon terms no less favorable than other enterprises of whatever nationality engaged in similar activities. Such nationals and companies shall enjoy the right to continued control and management of such enterprises; to engage attorneys, agents, accountants and other technical experts, executive personnel, interpreters and other specialized employees of their choice; and to do all other things necessary or incidental to the effective conduct of their affairs.

Article V

1. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, within the’ territories of the other High Contracting Party:

(a) to lease, for suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or for the conduct of activities pursuant to the present Treaty;

(b) to purchase or otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and

(c) to dispose of property of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in these respects shall in no event be less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of any third country.

2. Upon compliance with the applicable laws and regulations respecting registration and other formalities, nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded within the territories of the other High Contracting Party effective protection in the exclusive use of inventions, trade marks and trade names.

Article VI

1. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, more burdensome than those borne by nationals, residents and companies of any third country. In the case of nationals of either High Contracting Party residing within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, and of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in non-profit activities therein, such payments and requirements shall not be more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other High Contracting Party.

2. Each High Contracting Party, however, reserves the right to:

(a) extend specific tax advantages only on the basis of reciprocity, or pursuant to agreements for the avoidance of double taxation or the mutual protection of revenue; and

(b) apply special requirements as to the exemptions of a personal nature allowed to non-residents in connection with income and inheritance taxes.

3. Companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject, within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, to taxes upon any income, transactions or capital not attributable to the operations and investment thereof within such territories.

Article VII

1. Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its people, or (b) in the case of a member of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically approved by the Fund.

2. If either High Contracting Party applies exchange restrictions, it shall promptly make reasonable provision for the withdrawal, in foreign exchange in the currency of the other High Contracting Party, of:

(a) the compensation referred to in Article IV, paragraph 2, of the present Treaty,

(b) earnings, whether in the form of salaries, interest, dividends, commissions, royalties, payments for technical services, or otherwise, land

(c) amounts for amortization of loans, depreciation of direct investments and capital transfers, giving consideration to special needs for other transactions. If more than one rate of exchange is in force, the rate applicable to such withdrawals shall be a rate which is specifically approved by the International Monetary Fund for such transactions or, in the absence of a rate so approved, an effective rate which, inclusive of any taxes or surcharges on exchange transfers, is just and reasonable.

3. Either High Contracting Party applying exchange restrictions shall in general administer them in a manner not to influence disadvantageously the competitive position of the commerce, transport or investment of capital of the other High Contracting Party in comparison with the commerce, transport or investment of capital of any third country; and shall afford such other High Contracting Party adequate opportunity for consultation at any time regarding the application of the present Article.

Article VIII

1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to products of the other High Contracting Party, from whatever place and by whatever type of carrier arriving, and to products destined for exportation to the territories of such other High Contracting Party, by whatever route and by whatever type of carrier, treatment no less favorable than that accorded like products of or destined for exportation to any third country, in all matters relating to:

(a) duties, other charges, regulations and formalities, on or in connection with importation and exportation; and

(b) internal taxation, sale, distribution, storage and use. The same rule shall apply with respect, to the international transfer of payments for imports and exports.

2. Neither High Contracting Party shall impose restrictions or prohibitions on the importation of any product of the other High Contracting Party or on the exportation of any product to the territories of the other High Contracting Party, unless the importation of the like product of, or the exportation of the like product to, all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.

3. If either High Contracting Party imposes quantitative restrictions on the importation or exportation of any product in which the other High Contracting Party has an important interest:

(a) It shall as a general rule give prior public notice of the total amount of the product, by quantity or value, that may be imported or exported during a specified period, and of any change in such amount or period; and

(b) If it makes allotments to any third country, it shall afford such other High Contracting Party a share proportionate to the amount of the product, by quantity or value, supplied by or to it during a previous representative period, due consideration being given to any special factors affecting the trade in such product.

4. Either High Contracting Party may impose prohibitions or restrictions on sanitary or other customary grounds of a noncommercial nature, or in the interest of preventing deceptive or unfair practices, provided such prohibitions or restrictions do not arbitrarily discriminate against the commerce of the other High Contracting Party.

5. Either High Contracting Party may adopt measures necessary to assure the utilization of accumulated inconvertible currencies or to deal with a stringency of foreign exchange. However, such measures shall deviate no more than necessary from a policy designed to promote the maximum development of nondiscriminatory multilateral trade and to expedite the attainment of a balance-of-payments position which will obviate the necessity of such measures.

6. Each High Contracting Party reserves the right to accord special advantages:

(a) to products of its national fisheries,

(b) to adjacent countries in order to facilitate frontier traffic, or

(c) by virtue of a customs union or free trade area of which either High Contracting Party, after consultation with the other High Contracting Party, may become a member. Each High Contracting Party, moreover, reserves rights and obligations it may have under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and special advantages it may accord pursuant thereto.

Article IX

1. In the administration of its customs regulations and procedures, each High Contracting Party shall:

(a) promptly publish all requirements of general application affecting importation and exportation;

(b) apply such requirements in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;

(c) refrain, as a general practice, from enforcing new or more burdensome requirements until after public notice thereof;

(d) provide an appeals procedure by which prompt and impartial review of administrative action in customs matters can be obtained; and

(e) not impose greater than nominal penalties for infractions resulting from clerical errors or from mistakes made in good faith.

2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, or of any third country, with respect to all matters relating to importation and exportation.

3. Neither High Contracting Party shall impose any measure of a discriminatory nature that hinders or prevents the importer or exporter of products of either country from obtaining marine insurance on such products in companies of either High Contracting Party.

Article X

1. Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.

2. Vessels under the flag of either High Contracting Party, and carrying the papers required by its law in proof of nationality, shall be deemed to be vessels of that High Contracting Party both on the high seas and within the ports, places and waters of the other High Contracting Party.

3. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall have liberty, on equal terms with vessels of the other High Contracting Party and on equal terms with vessels of any third country, to come with their cargoes to all ports, places and waters of such other High Contracting Party open to foreign commerce and navigation.

Such vessels and cargoes shall in all respects be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment within the ports, places and waters of such other High Contracting Party; but each High Contracting Party may reserve exclusive rights and privileges to its own vessels with respect to the coasting trade, inland navigation and national fisheries.

4. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment by the other High Contracting Party with respect to the right to carry all products that may be carried by vessel to or from the territories of such other High Contracting Party; and such products shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded like products carried in vessels of such other High Contracting Party, with respect to: (a) duties and charges of all kinds, (b) the administration of the customs, and (c) bounties, drawbacks and other privileges of this nature.

5. Vessels of either High Contracting Party that are in distress shall be permitted to take refuge in the nearest port or haven of the other High Contracting Party, and shall receive friendly treatment and assistance.

6. The term “vessels”, as used herein, means all types of vessels, whether privately owned or operated, or publicly owned or operated; but this term does not, except with reference to paragraphs 2 and 5 of the present Article, include fishing vessels or vessels of war.

Article XI

1. Each High Contracting Party undertakes

(a) that enterprises owned or controlled by its Government, and that monopolies or agencies granted exclusive or special privileges within its territories, shall make their purchases and sales involving either imports or exports affecting the commerce of the other High Contracting Party solely in accordance with commercial considerations, including price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation and other conditions of purchase or sale; and

(b) that the nationals, companies and commerce of such other High Contracting Party shall be afforded adequate opportunity, in accordance with customary business practice, to compete for participation in such purchases and sales.

2. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to the nationals, companies and commerce of the other High Contracting Party fair and equitable treatment, as compared with that accorded to the nationals, companies and commerce of any third country, with respect to:

(a) the governmental purchase of supplies,

(b) the awarding of government contracts, and

(c) the sale of any service sold by the Government or by any monopoly or agency granted exclusive or special privileges.

3. The High Contracting Parties recognize that conditions of competitive equality should be maintained in situations in which publicly owned or controlled trading or manufacturing enterprises of either High Contracting Party engage in competition, within the territories thereof, with privately owned and controlled enterprises of nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party. Accordingly, such private enterprises shall, in such situations, be entitled to the benefit of any special advantages of an economic nature accorded such public enterprises, whether in the nature of subsidies, tax exemptions or otherwise.

The foregoing rule shall not apply, however, to special advantages given in connection with:

(a) manufacturing goods for government use, or supplying goods and services to the Government for government use; or

(b) supplying at prices substantially below competitive prices, the needs of particular population groups for essential goods and services not otherwise practically obtainable by such groups.

4. No enterprise of either High Contracting Party, including corporations, associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled shall, if it engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.

Article XII

Each High Contracting Party shall have the right to send to the other High Contracting Party consular representatives, who, having presented their credentials and having been recognized in a consular capacity, shall be provided, free of charge, with exequaturs or other authorization.

Article XIII

1. Consular representatives of each High Contracting Party shall be permitted to reside in the territory of the other High Contracting Party at the places where consular officers of any third country are permitted to reside and at other places by consent of the other High Contracting Party. Consular officers and employees shall enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to officers and employees of their rank or status by general international usage and shall be permitted to exercise all functions which are in accordance with such usage; in any event they shall be treated, subject to reciprocity, in a manner no less favorable than similar officers and employees of any third country.

2. The consular offices shall not be entered by the police or other local authorities without the consent of the consular officer, except that in the case of fire or other disaster, or if the local authorities have probable cause to believe that a crime of violence has been or is about to be committed in the consular office, consent to entry shall be presumed. In no case shall they examine or seize the papers there deposited.

Article XIV

1. All furniture, equipment and supplies consigned to or withdrawn from customs custody for a consular or diplomatic office of either High Contracting Party for official use shall be exempt within the territories of the other High Contracting Party from all customs duties and internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.

2. The baggage, effects and other articles imported exclusively for the personal use of consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees and members of their families residing with them, who are nationals of the sending state and are not engaged in any private occupation for gain in the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all customs duties and internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation. Such exemptions shall be granted with respect to the property accompanying the person entitled thereto on first arrival and on subsequent arrivals, and to that consigned to such officers and employees during the period in which they continue in status.

3. It is understood, however, that:

(a) paragraph 2 of the present Article shall apply as to consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees only when their names have been communicated to the appropriate authorities of the receiving state and they have been duly recognized in their official capacity;

(b) in the case of consignments, either High Contracting Party may, as a condition to the granting of exemption, require that a notification of any such consignment be given, in a prescribed manner; and

(c) nothing herein authorizes importations specifically prohibited by law.

Article XV

1. The Government of either High Contracting Party may, in the territory of the other, acquire, own, lease for any period of time, or otherwise hold and occupy, such lands, buildings, and appurtenances as may be necessary and appropriate for governmental, other than military, purposes. If under the local law the permission of the local authorities must be obtained as a prerequisite to any such acquiring or holding, such permission shall be given on request.

2. Lands and buildings situated in the territories of either High Contracting Party, of which the other High Contracting Party is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively for governmental purposes by that owner, shall be exempt from taxation of every kind, national, state, provincial and municipal, other than assessments levied for services or local public improvements by which the premises are benefited.

Article XVI

1. No tax or other similar charge of any kind, whether of a national, state, provincial, or municipal nature, shall be levied or collected within the territories of the receiving state in respect of the official emoluments, salaries, wages or allowances received

(a) by a consular officer of the sending state as compensation for his consular services, or

(b) by a consular employee thereof as compensation for his services at a consulate. Likewise, consular officers and employees, who are permanent employees of the sending state and are not engaged in private occupation for gain within the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all taxes or other similar charges, the legal incidence of which would otherwise fall upon such officers or employees.

2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply in respect of taxes and other similar charges upon:

(a) the ownership or occupation of immovable property situated within the territories of the receiving state;

(b) income derived from sources within such territories (except the compensation mentioned in the preceding paragraph); or

(c) the passing of property at death.

3. The provisions of the present Article shall have like application to diplomatic officers and employees, who shall in addition be accorded all exemptions allowed them under general international usage.

Article XVII

The exemptions provided for in Articles XIV and XVI shall not apply to nationals of the sending state who are also nationals of the receiving state, or to any other person who is a national of the receiving state, nor to persons having immigrant status who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the receiving state.

Article XVIII

Consular officers and employees are not subject to local jurisdiction for acts done in their official character and within the scope of their authority. No consular officer or employee shall be required to present his official files before the courts or to make declaration with respect to their contents.

Article XIX

A consular officer shall have the right within his district to:

(a) interview, communicate with, assist and advise any national of the sending state;

(b) inquire into any incidents which have occurred affecting the interests of any such national; and

(c) assist any such national in proceedings before or in relations with the authorities of the receiving state and, where necessary, arrange for legal assistance to which he is entitled. A national of the sending state shall have the right at all times to communicate with a consular officer of his country and, unless subject to lawful detention, to visit him at the consular office.

Article XX

1. The present Treaty shall not preclude the application of measures:

(a) regulating the importation or exportation of gold or silver;

(b) relating to fissionable materials, the radio-active by-products thereof, or the sources thereof;

(c) regulating the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war, or traffic in other materials carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment; and

(d) necessary to fulfill the obligations of a High Contracting Party for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to protect its essential security interests.

2. The present Treaty does not accord any rights to engage in political activities.

3. The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not extend to advantages accorded by the United States of America or its Territories and possessions, irrespective of any future change in their political status, to one another, to the Republic of Cuba, to the Republic of the Philippines, to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or to the Panama Canal Zone.

4. The provisions of Article II, Paragraph 1, shall be construed as extending to nationals of either High Contracting Party seeking to enter the territories of the other High Contracting Party solely for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in the territories of such other High Contracting Party in which their employer has invested or is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital: provided that such employer is a national or company of the same nationality as the applicant and that the applicant is employed by such national or company in a responsible capacity.

Article XXI

1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding, such representations as the other High Contracting Party may make with respect to any matter affecting the operation of the present Treaty.

2. Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means.

Article XXII

1. The present Treaty shall replace the following agreements between the United States of America and Iran:

(a) the provisional agreement relating to commercial and other relations, concluded at Tehran May 14, 1928, and

(b) the provisional agreement relating to personal status and family law, concluded at Tehran July 11, 1928.

2. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed to supersede any provision of the trade agreement and the supplementary exchange of notes between the United States of America and Iran, concluded at Washington April 8, 1943.

Article XXIII

1. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at Tehran as soon as possible.

2. The present Treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications. It shall remain in force for ten years and shall continue in force thereafter until terminated as provided herein.

3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year’s written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed hereunto their seals.

DONE in duplicate, in the English and Persian languages, both equally authentic, at Tehran this fifteenth day of August one thousand nine hundred fifty-five, corresponding with the twenty-third day of Mordad one thousand three hundred and thirty-four.

SELDEN CHAPIN MOSTAFA SAMIY

[SEAL] [SEAL]

[SEAL] [SEAL]

WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their resolution of July 11, 1956, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said treaty;

WHEREAS the said treaty was ratified by the President of the United States of America on September 14, 1956, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate, and has been duly ratified on the part of Iran;

WHEREAS the respective instruments of ratification of the said treaty were duly exchanged at Tehran on May 16, 1957;

AND WHEREAS it is provided in Article XXIII of the said treaty that the treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make public the said treaty to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith on and after June 16, 1957, one month after the day of exchange of ratifications, by the United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the city of Washington this twenty-seventh day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred [SEAL] -fifty-seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred eighty-first.

DWIGHT D EISENHOWER

By the President:

JOHN FOSTER DULLES

Secretary of State

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

Thank you for taking the time to read this

SOURCE: United States Department of State

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Democracy – Socialism: Not compatible

The words Democratic Socialist do not belong in the same sentence, they are totally at odds with each other. Most people believe that the Russian Revolution of 1917 began as a Communist/Socialist movement, it didn’t. Lenin was in exile in Switzerland at the beginnings of the upheaval and only later appeared (under the covert workings of the German Government) in Petrograd to hijack the Democratic attempts at government.

The original revolt began in Petrograd during February 24 (March 8) involving food riots, forcing the Czar (Nicolas II) to abdicate the throne March 2 (March 15). In this void the Duma (the peoples congress) formed a provisional government, more or less on a democratic format, contested by a rival political group the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Soldiers Deputies. The Provisional Government reorganized 4 times between March – October, on June 3 / June 16 convening the First All-Russian Congress (July Kerensky had been appointed the head) until the Bolsheviks under Lenin in a bloodless coup (October 24-25 / November 6-7) took control of all the government office building in Petrograd, effectively becoming the ruling government. Convening the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets (November 7 thru 9), confirming the enablement of the communist. Kerensky then fled the country, the demise of democracy resulted in a Civil war which for years brought death and destruction on its people.

Socialism under the proletariat stifled freedoms, destroyed industrial grow, produced years of starvation with millions dead, and isolated the state from the rest of the world. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) became the supreme leader of the Soviet Union, as it became to be known. It had one philosophy, enslavement of the people to the state.

Cuba, Venezuela embrace the same ideas, and its doesn’t work, if it did then why would their own people seek to flee those countries. Cuba was an armed revolution in the Russian sense, while Venezuela was a cry for reform in a electoral tradition. But the results of both was the destruction of all democratic freedoms, bankruptcy of the country, and depriving the people of the necessary basics of life. Utopia is; as promoted by the socialist is unattainable, all the free services they promote have to be financed by some one, if you work entirely for the state, by the state, were are the benefits to life, just another worker bee.

The following are few quotes attributed to Lenin:

No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.

The goal of socialism is communism.

 It is necessary to be able to withstand all this, to agree to any and every sacrifice, and even if need be to resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuges in order to penetrate the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs

Literature must become party literature. Down with unpartisan litterateurs! Down with the superman of literature! Literature must become a part of the general cause of the proletariat

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency

His successor (Stalin) followed through with the communist ideology with brutal effect, once started down that road, it takes long years of suffering to overcome, Russia it lasted 70 years, Cuba continues after over 50 years, Venezuela just the beginning.

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Blackmailers are just people too

The question I ask myself while watching the evening news, about the “hush money” pay offs Michael Cohen is alleged to have made. Then watching Lanny Davis (P.S.> I like the fact he has started a gofundme site to get paid, can see where his priorities lay) gleefully boast about his client’s underhanded dealings, about what seems to me to have been a consensual romantic romp. Why aren’t these two women (Karen McDougal & Stormy Daniels) being prosecuted for Blackmail and Extortion? Instead of being promoted as model citizens who’ve been wronged.

BLACKMAIL [(1)the act of forcing somebody to pay money or do something by threatening to reveal shameful or incriminating facts about him or her. (2) unfair threatening or incriminating of somebody, as a way of achieving a result] EXTORTION [ (1) criminal law the crime of obtaining something such as money or information from somebody by using force, threats, or other unacceptable methods (2) the acquisition of something through the use of force or threats]

They surely fit the requirements for either or both charges. But no one seems interested in those facts. The major story is the President, on how despicable he was in the even considering the liaison. Frothing at the mouth; spitting out the word “Impeachment” with spittle spraying everywhere. Never mind the circumstances concerning the original story, never mind the criminality of demanding  money under threats, never mind the fact it has nothing what so ever to do with Russia. Just focus on the fact that this is so un-american, racist, sexist, and promotes fascism, and this is the only president that has befouled the office, no wait, I thought Bill Clinton did that when Monica left a spot on the rug.

So, why hasn’t the charges been filed, I don’t know, unless this has become an accepted way of gaining money for former porn and ex-playboy models. Perhaps it’s because if the opposition party and the mad dog media don’t deem it a crime to blackmail the soon to be president, its only relevant if his attorney pays up, that’s a crime.

It’s bewildering to understand the logic behind that train of thought, where the victim of a criminal act is under investigation while the perpetrator of the act is viewed as the aggrieved party. Even to the point of given celebrity status, talk shows, interviews and (which I am sure were paid appearances) again it’s just an old time shake down. I not only question the justice system for its failure to open an inquiry into this legal issue, but also the news media for allowing the glorification of a criminal act.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Iranians amongst us or don’t sweat the Mueller investigation

While CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the United States are engrossed with the Mueller Russian escapade, just what is the rest of the world doing. Well, according to the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) they are spying on us and little of it is reported by the national news networks, so much for “BREAKING NEWS”. The following is an out take from the BBC article.

[The two, Iranian-US citizen Ahmadreza Mohammadi Doostdar and Majid Ghorbani, an Iranian living in California, were arrested on 9 August.

“Doostdar and Ghorbani are alleged to have acted on behalf of Iran, including by conducting surveillance of political opponents and engaging in other activities that could put Americans at risk,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.

In or around July 2017, Mr Doostdar, 38, travelled to the US from Iran to collect information about organizations Iran sees as enemies, the indictment alleges.(US Justice Department)

These included Jewish and Israeli interests and the opposition Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which Iran calls a terrorist organization bent on overthrowing the government

Mr Doostdar took photographs of the Jewish Rohr Chabad House, including its security features, it is alleged.

Mr Ghorbani, 59, attended an MEK rally in New York in September of last year, the documents say, where he photographed people taking part in a protest against the Iranian leadership.

Three months later, he was paid $2,000 (£1,500) by Mr Doostdar for the photographs, many with notes about the individuals pictured.

The transaction took place in the Los Angeles area after Mr Doostdar returned from a visit to Iran, prosecutors say.

According to the indictment, the pictures and a receipt for $2,000 were found in his luggage at a US airport as he returned to Iran last December.

Mr Ghorbani is said to have made a trip to Iran in March 2018 to give an “in-person briefing” and receive instructions on infiltrating the MEK.

Two months later, he is alleged to have attended an MEK-linked Iran Freedom Convention for Human Rights in Washington.

He is said to have photographed speakers and others attending before discussing with Mr Doostdar how to covertly get the information back to Iran]

I just wonder what other little mischiefs they were up to.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

RESOURSE: British Broadcasting Company (News)

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

John Brennan, the victim, Really?

John Brennan as reported by the Associated Press (2018-08-19) when appearing of NBC’s: Meet the Press, is considering legal action against the President of the United States to forestall any other revoking of government clearances. Really John are you so moronic as to feel the need to embarrass yourself further. “If my clearances and my reputation as I’m being pulled through the mud now, if that’s the price we’re going to pay to prevent Donald Trump from doing this against other people, to me it’s a small price to pay,” Brennan said. “So I am going to do whatever I can personally to try to prevent these abuses in the future. And if it means going to court, I will do that.”  More like the pot calling the kettle black, after all the outrageous comments you have recently made about the President. Perhaps your mental condition should be evaluated?

Is he, in the reference to “others” meaning Hillary Clinton, the avowed “resistance leader”? Or perhaps the former FBI Peter Stolze, who most recently was fired for numerous violations? When they use a generality to describe, it only means they hope someone will jump up and shout “ME! ME!” in support. I say get them all. I exclude ex-presidents only for the simple reason that hopefully they would not wish any harm to their country, for which they were entrusted with its wellbeing.

I see no reason for any person other than the ones being actively employed in a governmental position retaining a clearance of any type, ok maybe a passing pass to get on the lot. It seems anarchy is rampant amongst former government employees, which is deeply disturbing considering the level of insistence for the downfall of the present government. It only shows, to me at least, the political motivation of the supposedly un-biased agencies which Americans have so long accepted as being “neutral”.

Clearances are a sign of trust and privilege for the performance of assigned duties, not a life time right. I can see nowhere, that it is a legally sanctioned entitlement. It appears to be a highly coveted mark of “nobility” amongst former employees, as if to say I was a former manager at McDonalds, in a sense (and I mean no offence to the managers past or present).

I am truly amused at how the news media has portrayed the loss of said clearances as an attack on free speech, if they were truly informed of how clearances work then they would be reporting the opposite. Once you sign a clearance agreement you swear to never divulge any information pertaining to the scope of your work, under penalty of law. You are forbidden to speak even in broad generalities of anything you are privy too. At no point before or after the revoking of a clearance are you hindered from speaking on any topic, other than that you swore not too. I am becoming more and more disillusioned with the news reporting and their attempts to spin a story to place a negative view on all things. That in its self insults my intelligence.

Back to John, all his ballyhoo seems more of an effort to promote himself and that means a bigger paycheck. Perhaps he can get this included into the Mueller investigation, or even better go on a national tour with stormy daniels campaigning for Michael Avenatti. See the comparison; all three are selling their bodies.

With what I’ve see of the justice system of late I have no doubt that he will find a judge with the same demented view of law as himself to try and hinder the due process. To all ex-employees of the government I say, give the clearances up, as a sign of patriotism and love of country.

P.S. John grow up and stop the crybaby tantrum, if you can, I mean

Thank you for taking the time to read this

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Revoking Government Clearance

Why is there a controversy over ex-employees maintaining their government clearances? They are just a citizen, upon leaving government service, and nothing more. How many private citizens are allowed the privilege of continuing their former status once they leave any other employer? How many kept the keys to the office, or company car or whatever else that was afforded them due to employment? The right answer is NONE. I have been employed by the federal government on several occasions, with a level of clearance pertaining to the work I was involved with, and this included electronic data (computers) which required an FBI background check, not once when my work was completed and I was severed from employment did I retain any clearance, no longer had access to the data that I had before. So why does the media have such a fit with the idea of rescinding the clearances for John Brennan, or any other?

Is it that it’s just another dig at the President? Seems so to me; I’d feel better with the idea of ALL former employees having their clearance revoked. What with a Russian [CORRECTION: Chinese] spy working in the office of a U.S. Senator (Sen. Feinstein), a Pakistani spy working in the Democratic National Committee (Imran Awan / Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s), both that were under FBI investigation, it was reported (Awan) left the U.S. for Pakistan with a couple of laptops. Spies have always been embedded in the government (John Antony Walker), would you like to know that one left and took their clearance with them? I wouldn’t.

I applaud those who in their faithful service to the country retired or moved on with honor, but I do not see it fit to maintain their ability to access the secrets that they once safe guarded, upon departure. With the current atmosphere of resistance to the present government from former employees, I see a real danger of there being an opportunity of using said clearance in an obstructive or damaging manner.
At no point should those that have been appointed to a high level government position, and left, be afforded a special access to any sensitive governmental portal without direct supervision. This meaning that if any predecessor should be required to provide information to a present holder of the office or position to which they were involved, should report in person and be in presence of the present office holder. At no point do I accept the fact that an open access be granted. This could be done and still preserve a level of respect. I amazed that those who formerly held such esteemed offices and with understanding the need for security did not call in to question the continuance of such practice. Unless, they have the need to feel indispensable, then they truly are clueless.
Thank you for taking the time to read this

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall