Journalism vs. Espionage

With the arrest of Julian Assange of late it seems that these two words have been confused by the media in an attempt to provide an excuse for stealing state secrets. One is a profession, the other a covert operation to obtain classified information from a secure source in an attempt to cause harm. Assange didn’t report the news, but he published documents to which he had (I presume <- something I seldom do) direct knowledge that they were stolen state secrets and NOT a viable news story. The mentally deranged idiot (Manning) that provided these documents took an oath to protect his/her country, its laws and citizens, he/she betrayed that oath and the faith that the nation placed in him/her. This makes him/her a traitor (somebody who is disloyal or treacherous: Encarta). In both the actions of Manning and Assange, enabled any foreign government to basically endanger or cause harm to the citizens of the United States, even those who in their feebleminded attempts to defend or praise the actions taken. I am truly amazed at the people who condone such disregard for their own country and its citizens, by defending these and those just like them (Snowdon), by masquerading as champions of the freedom of the press, while suppressing the factual truth of what it really is. But Americans have grown accustom to a steady diet of resistance anarchical/ socialist rhetoric from the ‘please everybody I’m pandering too’ politics of today. George Orwell would feel at home in today’s American, and bow his head whispering ‘it was only a novel not a guide book’. Whenever these things come to pass in our society, feel comfort in falling back to the banner of this periodical by A. Lincoln, even though I wonder if I am the only ones who’s ever read it.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Eddy Toorall

Espionage (the use of spying or spies to gather secret information); journalism (1. the profession of gathering, editing, and publishing news reports and related articles for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio; 2. writing or reporting for the media as a literary genre or style) SOURCE: Encarta

Advertisements

Elimination of Fossil fuels a Non-reality

Sounds great, but in reality what does it foretell? Last weekend I filled my combustion engine (4 cylinder) car with fuel (gasoline) for less that $20, mileage indicator informed me that my next fill up would be at 342 miles. So I set the cruise at 70 mph and drove 120 miles on the interstate, ate supper, drove around town took in the sites, got a milkshake and set the cruise drove back home (in the evening) at 70 mph spending about 7-8 hours all told, and still have a tank of almost a 1/2 tank of gasoline. Can you do that in a solar car, I doubt it.

Solar cars, clean and efficient? First lets understand that the solar (sun) power is not a direct power, meaning it has to be stored in a battery, just like every thing else (mobile phones, laptops etc..). What are the life expectances of electric car batteries? When would they need to be replaced, what is the cost of recharging, what is the duration between recharging? Questions that I never hear the politicians address. Why? Because it would destroy their pro-green stance.

While on my weekend journey I encountered a vast number of large semi-trailer trucks (18 wheelers), each of these were not on a pleasure trip as I was, but working to deliver consumer goods over vast distances, so that you and I can enjoy the marvels of the 21st century, the same principles of a solar car apply to them as well. Consider the cost involved and the effects of added time from shipping to delivery point, I doubt that they could transverse the country in a few days, adding in the fact of recharging downtime, and speed reduction (they weigh over 80,000 lbs. in freight). Their retention of a maximum speed of my 70 mph, could not be sustained, as batteries lose charge they reduce their power out put.

Batteries, not really a green idea, as they are an acid filled storage, prone to leakage which could cause a health hazard in it’s self. Just how large a battery would be needed to power those semi-trucks? To pull that the huge loads (80,000 lbs.) would I suppose have to be huge in its self. Instead of pulling in and pumping a tank of gasoline in about 2-3 minutes, how long would it take to charge one of those batteries, 30 minutes an hour? Downtime causing a price hike to compensate the price of transporting. Now, what about the replacement price of the battery? We all know they don’t last forever, and before they are totally useless they lose their ability to hold a prolonged charge (check your laptop see how much time of use it has lost). Replacement cost, I really don’t want to envision this price, the car price includes the battery price, but when it has grown old (6 months-one year), what is the replacement value, $10,000.00 / $20,000.00, who knows, no one wants to point this out. As for buying a used electric car, forget it, I now what I’d do, when it needed a battery replacement, I’d trade it in (pushing to dealership), let some other sucker buy it.

Many more questions on solar/electric power to be answered, but in 12 years the world ends AGAIN.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Eddy Toorall

Congress a sexual play ground

The old saying of  ‘don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house’ should be engraved above the entrance to Congress. It would seem that the asylum is being ran by the inmates. But guess who pays their settlements? Taxpayers, yep, and you thought you were getting your dollars worth of good government.

 

CNN Report: 16 November 2017
“…….Lawmakers and staffers say sexual harassment is “rampant”….with female lawmakers making fresh allegations of sexual harassment against unnamed members who are currently in office….According to a report from the Office of Compliance, more than S17 million has been paid out in settlements over a period of 20 years—1997 to 2017.
According to the OOC data….there have been 268 settlements.

Washington Post: October 27, 2017
Michelle Ye Hee Lee & Elise Viebeck

“ Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.
The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward, according to attorneys who represent them.
Under a law in place since 1995….A special congressional office is charged with trying to resolve the cases out of court.
When settlements do occur, members do not pay them from their own office funds, a requirement in other federal agencies. Instead, the confidential payments come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund.

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®

SOURCES: Cable News Network / Washington Post
CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

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

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

A Study in the Acquisition of Totalitarian Control

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE

 

Foreword: I feel compelled to add a background segment to this article. Although I have drawn from the International War Crimes trial of Nurnberg 1945-46 concerning the NAZI régime and its effect on the world for the information, remember that fascist is only an ideology. If you concentrate on the “labels” instead of the tactics then you will miss the meaning behind the events. This in an informational article only, of steps taken by one such group, determined to achieve the final objective, “seizure of power”. This being said, I point out that as an observer and student of history, there are many groups that employ the very means as noted below to advance their agenda. All I can say is pay attention for as one once said, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. The Bracket numbers at the end of quotes are the official document numbers presented at the trials.

  1. A) First Steps in Acquiring Control of State Machinery

2] The Nazi Conspirators then set up through the Nazi Party to undermine and capture the German Government by “legal” forms supported by terrorism

(b) The Nazi conspirators asserted they only sought power only by legal forms

In September 1931, three officers of the Reichswehr were tried at Leipzig for high treason. At the request of Hans Frank, Hitler was invited to testify at this trial that the NSDAP was striving to attain its goal by purely legal means. He was asked: “How do you imagine the setting up of a Third Reich?” His reply was,” This term only describes the basis of the struggle but not the objective. We will enter the legal organizations and will make our Party a decisive factor in this way. But when we do possess constitutional rights then we will form the State in the manner which we consider to be the right one.” The President then asked: “This too by constitutional means?” Hitler replied: “Yes.” (2512-PS)

(c) The purpose of the Nazi conspirators in participating in elections and in the Reichstag was to undermine the parliamentary system of the Republic and to replace it with a dictatorship of their own.

Wilhelm Frick 1927

“Our participation in the parliament does not indicate a support, but rather an undermining of the parliamentarian system. It does not indicate that we renounce our anti-parliamentarian attitude, but that we are fighting the enemy with his own weapons and that we are fighting for our National Socialist goal from the parliamentary platform.” (2742-PS)

30 April 1928, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his paper “Der Angriff”;

We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become members of the Reichstag in order to paralyze the Weimar sentiment with its own assistance. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and per diem for this “blockade” that is its own affair.”

Later in the same article he continued: “We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.” (2500-PS)

In a pamphlet published in 1935, Joseph Goebbels said:

“When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition.” (2412-PS)

A leading Nazi writer on Constitutional Law, Ernst Rudolf Huber, later wrote of this period:

The parliamentary battle of the NSDAP had the single purpose of destroying the parliamentary system from within through its own methods. It was necessary above all to make formal use of the possibilities of the party-state system but to refuse real cooperation and thereby to render the parliamentary system, which is by nature dependent upon the responsible cooperation of the opposition, incapable of action.” (2633-PS)

The Nazi members of the Reichstag conducted themselves as a storm troop unit. Whenever representatives of the government or the democratic parties spoke, the Nazi members marched out in a body in studied contempt of the speaker, or entered in a body to interrupt the speaker, thus making it physically impossible for the Reichstag President to maintain order. In the case of speakers of opposition parties, the Nazi members constantly interrupted, often resorting to lengthy and spurious parliamentary maneuvers, with the result that the schedule of the session was thrown out of order. The tactics finally culminated in physical attacks by the Nazis upon members of the house as well as upon visitors. (L-83)

(NOTE: the loss of freedom to speak one’s opinions should never be condoned (CP))

(d) The Nazi conspirators supported their “legal” activities by terrorism.

Mastery of the streets was at all times the mission of the SA. (Sturmabteilungen)

Adolph Hitler stated:

What we needed and still need; were and are not a hundred or two hundred reckless conspirators, but a hundred thousand and a second hundred thousand fighters for our philosophy of life. We should not work in secret conventicles, but in mighty mass demonstrations, and it is not by dagger and poison or pistol that the road can be cleared for the movement but by the conquest of the streets. We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism, just as it will someday be the master of the state.” (404-PS)

To quote again from the official SA pamphlet:

“Possession of the streets is the key to power in the state-for this reason the SA marched and fought. The public would have never received knowledge from the agitated speeches of the little Reichstag faction and its propaganda or from the desires and aims of the Party, if the martial tread and battle song of the SA companies had not beat the measure for the truth of a relentless criticism of the state of affairs in the governmental system…….

“The SA conquered for itself a place in public opinion and the leadership of the National Socialist Movement dictated to its opponents the law for quarrels. The SA was already a state within a state; a part of the future in a sad present.”  (2168-PS)

  1. The Nazi conspirators constantly used physical violence and terror to break up meetings of political opponents, and to suppress opposition in their own meetings. The following facts are indicative of the methods constantly used by the Nazi conspirators during this period:

In Berlin, under the leadership of Goebbels, so-called Rollkommandos were organized for the purpose of disrupting political meetings of all non-Nazi groups. These Rollkommandos were charged with interrupting, making noise, and unnerving the speaker. Finally the Nazis broke up meetings by Rollkornmando raids. In many cases, fights resulted, during which furniture was destroyed and a number of persons hurt. The Nazis armed themselves with blackjacks, brass knuckles, rubber truncheons, walking sticks, and beer bottles. After the Reichstag election of 1930, Nazi terrorism became more overt, and from then on scarcely a day went by when the Chief of the Security Police in Berlin did not receive a minimum of five to ten reports, and often more, of riots instigated by Nazis. (2955-PS)

During the campaign for the Reichstag election of 14 September 1930, Nazi conspirators made it a practice to send speakers accompanied by many Storm Troopers to meetings of other political parties, often physically taking over the meetings. On one such occasion a large detachment of Storm Troopers, some of whom were armed with pistols and clubs, attended a meeting called by the Social Democratic Party, succeeded in forcibly excluding everybody not in sympathy with their views, and concluded the meeting as their own. Such violent tactics, repeated many times, were an integral part of the political creed of the Nazi. (L-83)

  1. The Nazi conspirators constantly threatened their opponents with organized reprisals and terror.

In December 1932, Frick, at that time Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Reichstag, stated to a fellow member of that committee: “Don’t worry, when we are in power we shall put all of you guys into concentration camps.”

REFERENCE

TITLE: NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION: Vol I (A Collection of Documentary Evidence and Guide Materials Prepared by the American and British Prosecuting Staffs for presentation before the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany.)

CONTRIBUTOR: Cade Pomeraan

(NOTE: In today’s society  those who call for civil unrest should be aware that not all things are seen as they truly are until it is too late)

News Media and National Policy Making

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE

 

Is it just me or is there a trend in the news media to elevate themselves into being the ultimate verdict of all national policies. That being said, I mean it seems to me that no matter what the issue is; the media has to have a opinioned say, and that say should be considered a golden fact by the uneducated masses. Instead of presenting the issue in a unbiased format to inform the public (which seems to elude the programmers); which is not only in the headlines, but in the delivery of the information slanted as they themselves see it. We are expected to take all this closed lipped and accept their logic. If they approve then we should, if they don’t approve then it should be changed. We are expected to disavow the governmental agencies to wit we are dependent upon for the making of such decisions, and go with the press version. So here is the question I suppose is needed to answered, what gives them the right to decide national policies? They are a news platform which should inform us of the every day goings on in the world, not formulate decision making platforms. Just inform us of the happening and let us make the decisions. OK, OK, I understand you make the mega bucks and your heads are in the clouds and perhaps you do converse with the gods, but give us a break let us decide.

Most News media including the foreign press (not all) seem to have fallen into the American mode of reporting on how they perceive the facts, forgetting their basic ideals of; presenting the facts, presenting the NEWS truthfully as it is and not making a reality programme for the presenters wellbeing , in a ratings effort. From what has been reported in the news of late, in stories pertaining to the news presenters, showed me just how really base they are, no greater than any other human on this earth. Same flaws, same weaknesses as all of us. But to those that walk amongst the clouds, they still don’t get it that they are one of us also.

Thank you for taking the time to read this

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

California Dreaming

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE

I remember that song, it’s about taking a stroll on a summers day, refreshing, relaxing and totally out of sync with todays California. It seems that all the great things that were expected from the California adventure have gone up in smoke, or is it that the “smoke” has reached the “higher” levels of government? If flaunting the laws of the United States aren’t enough, then proposing laws that are unconstitutional and a throw back to a time in history which ultimately led to a global upheaval, starting with a selfish idea of “progressive thinking” and banning books, thoughts and ideas. It seems that a bill AB 2943 (which I have only read articles on and not the bill)  to wit is an addendum to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (what ever that is) would ban certain books which the state deems inflammatory? Goring has to jumping up and down in hell shouting” I told you so”. I wonder if anyone in the California legislature has ever read the constitution? Banning books that a government does not approve of, does that come with a snappy slogan also, Heil Brown? Or would it be Comrade Brown? So confusing at times as how to address those of a lofty station. Perhaps even a little red book of guidance furnished by the state so every one would be toeing the same line. But I suppose that would all come after ” secession”.

Another point of confusion on my part is, just how many states or countries is California attempting to divide into? One country or three states? Just what is the plan concerning the division / divisions? Or is there a plan, or is there any idea from the general populist on what the outcome of secession can be? I heard one commentator say California has the fifth largest economy in the world, little thought he had of the fact it was due to being part of the United States, and so well dressed he was. Those dreams are for the anarchist, here’s a hint, no matter what the state decides there is no provision in the Constitution for leaving the Union, only joining. They might want to read a history book concerning the efforts of states in 1860-65 and it’s out come, OH! wait those books maybe banned there.

From what I have seen posted lately according to twitter, the educational institutes are truly bastions of “higher” learning, and of impeccable moral value. Their learned instructors display all the  finesse of a  Shakespearian dialog when describing their joy at the demise of another human being, and reveille in the presumed fact that they are above reproach or censure. But one has grown a custom to such putrid remarks and actions emanating from the so called progressive thinking beings of a “higher” order. Dear professor you maybe able to mask the indulgences from most, but the eyes tell all.

So perhaps “free speech” has ran it’s course in sunny California along with the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. California values are different than the rest of the nation it was once said, so sad, to progress means advancement not degradation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

The Opinionated Media

THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE

 

I took a Mass Media course long ago, it was simple I just gave the instructor what he wanted in order to achieve credit. It seems that today’s press is in the same mode I was. I think someone once said, sensitization sells newspapers, if not they should have, and it seems to also apply to today’s news casting. Once upon a time in the dim dawning of the news caster, professional reporting of just the facts was the norm of presenting the news, but now it seems they have to add inflections of their own distain of/or import a slight opinion of their view of the subject matter.  

Where have “just the facts” gotten away to? The major news outlets of the cable world seem to enjoy a lime-light of personal gratification by giving a monolog of self-inspired viewpoints; instead of plain and direct information on a given instance. Where once they reported the news they now expound on how they interpret a given topic, of political or personal matter. For hours upon hours they drag experts on to the stage and quiz them in the direction they wish to make a point, and let’s be clear here, no two networks have the same experts which; neither collaborate their findings or points of view. They seemly thrive in being controversial with a proclivity for promoting unsupportive or un-documented viewpoints. Which seem to be followed in a few days or weeks with a retraction of the statement or the story in its entirety, in a low key back page or late night admission.

The field reports somehow remind me of the films I have viewed of the 1950’s “McCarthy Hearings”, as being loud, disrespectful and combative. Shouting the same question over and over until; they provoke a response, and once receiving an answer; which if that answer is not to their liking, repeating the same obnoxious procedure. Then, standing afterward before the audience; and giving a supposedly informative take upon that which had just transpired; but in my view nothing more than a personal gratification of their own bad behavior. But, it would seem again that they think their slant upon current affairs is more important to promote, than the actual facts and allow the informed to conclude their own opinion. Hype once again sells more that fact. In the 1930’s this was called “propaganda”.

Is it no wondered then that a majority of the public has become disillusioned with the way the “news” is presented, of it’s informative quality of being factual? I know I am, but that’s just me. A news programme should not be a “reality show” it should be a presenter of the “truth” and only the “truth”, forgoing all else. Where have the basics gone? When did they forget their tenets? Social media has shown us lately just how easy it is to “misinform” in an attempt to sway the public in a false frenzy of outrage to further agendas contrary to the betterment of mankind.

In parting I leave you this, there is an old saying I heard from childhood “never believe what you read, and only half of what you see”

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall