Mediaboss Marketing

Chawla Hotels CEO Dinesh Chawla speaks as Donald Trump Jr., executive vice president of The Trump Organization, listens June 5, 2017, during an event at Trump Tower in New York.

AP Photo/Kathy Willens

Last Updated Jun 9, 2017 12:06 PM EDT

One of the newest business partners to ink a licensing deal with the Trump Organization says he was beaten up as a child for being Indian-American, voted for President Barack Obama and grew up in "a very liberal Democratic household."

Experienced Mississippi hoteliers Dinesh Chawla and his brother Suresh of Chawla Hotels signed a deal with the Trump Organization to develop a high-end Scion Hotel and three mid-level American Idea hotels in the Mississippi Delta.

CBS News confirmed the deal was vetted by President Trump's ethics team, and unlike other Trump deals, the participants say there will be no foreign investors. Dinesh Chawla says a loan from a local bank for 30 percent of the financing was secured for an earlier version of the hotel a few years ago. He says the rest of the funds will come from his own company, which he describes as a "$100 million mom and pop operation."

Chawla says vetting for the deal included providing "years and years of tax returns" to the Trump Organization. "I think you can probably see the irony in that," he added, referring to how President Trump has yet to share his own tax returns.

Play Video

Former FBI Director James Comey said there is "no doubt" that Russia meddled in the U.S. election. And he told the Senate Intelligence Committee ...

Another proposed Scion hotel deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas was never finalized and fell apart once questions were raised about possible foreign investors.

Chawla and his brother have told the story of how their father, who started their family business, called Mr. Trump in the 1980's when desperate for financing after three years of rejections from banks. But they haven't shared how he ultimately got through to speak to Mr. Trump. Dinesh Chawla says when his father was told that Mr. Trump was not available, the late Dr. V. K. Chawla did not take no for an answer.

"He spent six hours on hold," his son told CBS News, "and in those days if you didn't hang up then they couldn't just disconnect you." Chawla says the secretary told his father 'If you will please release the line then Mr. Trump will call you tomorrow.'"Mr. Trump called back the next day, according to Chawla, declining to make a deal but encouraging the elder Chawla to apply for money from the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Chawla says the conversation gave his father the self-confidence boost he needed and he applied and received the federally financed loan three months later.

Years later, when Mr. Trump was running for President, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant (who Chawla says is a friend) asked the Chawlas if they wanted to meet the candidate at an event. At that time, Chawla says, he and his brother favored candidates like Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio because of his "compelling immigrant story."

Chawla says the meeting with Mr. Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. was positive in part because they were able to share their story of their father's call to Mr. Trump from the 1980's.

Just three months ago, they got a call from the Trump Organization proposing a partnership. "I don't know why they got in touch with us," Chawla says, but he likened it to "being Kelly Clarkson from the middle of nowhere and being selected winner on American Idolit was amazing."

Despite his excitement, he concedes some friends are not so enthusiastic. He said one friend he has known since 5th grade called him asking why he would make a deal with the president's company.

Chawla says he and his brother are not political, despite a recent set of donations by his brother adding up to $30,000 for the re-election campaign of Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi.

Chawla said he didn't vote for anyone in the election but found Bernie Sanders' authenticity the most charming.

"I think Hillary Clinton would have made a great president," he said adding, "and I'm also glad that Donald Trump is president."

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

View post:
Newest Trump business partner voted for Obama - CBS News

When Rand Paul dropped out of the presidential race in February 2016, the self-described "libertarianish" senator from Kentucky vowed: "I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform, for privacy, and your Fourth Amendment rights. I will continue to champion due process over indefinite detention." On Thursday, amid the hullaballoo of former FBI director James Comey's dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill, Paul brought a handful of libertarian reporters inside his Senate office to discuss his recent work on these projects.

Front and center is a new piece of legislation, introduced this week, to once and for all ban indefinite detention. With the working title of "The Sixth Amendment Preservation Act," Paul's bill "prevents any future military force authorization from being used to justify indefinite detention without trial," according to a summary prepared by his office. More from that:

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act unconstitutionally declares that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force allows our Armed Forces to indefinitely detain citizens, legal residents, and foreign nationals who are alleged to have engaged in hostilities against the United States. This means U.S. citizens apprehended within the boundaries of the U.S. could be held indefinitely without trial.

The Sixth Amendment Preservation Act repeals section 1021 making it clear that no military force resolution can legalize indefinite detention without a trial and seeks to restore our constitutional commitment to individual liberty.

Emphasis in original. "You never know who could be in the White House," Paul explained Thursday. "Could someone be there that would actually take away all of our rights and begin arresting us for who we are, what we are, what we think, what we read? And so I consider this to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that we'll put forward."

Also covered in the discussion: the senator's efforts to vote down the recent blockbuster arms sale to Saudi Arabia ("winning a battle like this would send a huge message out there"), the Trump administration's tough-on-crime posture ("I think there's very little of this attorney general, this Department of Justice, doing anything favorable towards criminal justice or towards civil liberties"), criticism of Paul's vote to confirm Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and his reaction to the Comey hearing, which we teased out yesterday.

Produced and edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Krainin and Mark McDaniel.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Read the original post:
Rand Paul on Blocking Indefinite Detention and Saudi Arms Sales ... - Reason

Sometimes it seems we take action in foreign policy without fully understanding the consequences. From the Iraq War, to arming Syrian rebels, this has been shown over and over again.

Recently, the U.S. Senate considered new sanctions against Iran regarding ballistic missiles and the funding of terrorism. These are important matters, and we should discuss them. Iran is certainly part of this problem. But we should also discuss the larger picture. We are currently in the middle of an agreement regarding nuclear power and proliferation with Iran that, so far, both sides say has been kept. The issues in the sanctions bill are not subject to that agreement. So unilateral action outside the current agreement, even for legitimate purposes, must be carefully weighed. What does this action do to the prospects of ensuring compliance with the agreement?

It has been said in the debate so far that we do not care what Tehran thinks, or if they think this is an abrogation of the nuclear agreement. Well, lets consider that statement. If we do not care what they think, why are we trying to influence their behavior? What are sanctions if not a hope to change their way of thinking?

If they react in one way by saying, We are going to get out of the nuclear agreement, that would be a pretty important and dramatic step. I am not saying they will. They might, though, and we ought to have at least thought through that scenario and understand that, while we will not condone or acquiesce to their opinion, we do care about it because that is what we are trying to change. We are trying to change their attitude toward continued expansion of their ballistic missile program.

As I read through these new Iran sanctions, there are several areas that strike me as curious. I find it intriguing that every one of these areas could equally apply to Saudi Arabia. As we look at the ballistic missile section, we recall that Saudi Arabia also has ballistic missiles, the Dong Feng-3s and -21s. Where are they pointed? Tel Aviv and Tehran.

Our CIA inspected the DF-21s and said they are not currently nuclear capable. But are they convertible? Are they nuclear capable? Yeah, they are nuclear capable, and they are pointed at Israel and Iran.

So, if we want to influence the behavior of Iran, we would have to understand that, while we do not have to agree with it, we do have to care about what they think, and we must consider if these sanctions will have an effect.

The sanctions unilateral nature renders them unlikely to succeed. Iran has already stated they will not stop their ballistic missile program. While we think the whole world sees everything through our lens, I think Iran sees what their neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia, think and do as much more important than what we do or what our sanctions say, frankly.

If the whole world invoked these sanctions, they might be effective, as worldwide sanctions did influence their behaviorthat and the carrot of giving them back some of their money. But I do not think these unilateral sanctions will have any effect.

If you really want to get rid of their ballistic-missile program, we should look at who else in the region they perceive as a threat. I do not think they really perceive us as a threat. We have thousands of ballistic missiles, yes, but I think they are primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikhdoms, who already have hundreds of missiles. They also see Israels nuclear weapons as a threat.

So, if you wanted to influence the behavior of Iran, you might consider sanctioning Saudi Arabia in equal fashion. Let us have sanctions on both countries regarding ballistic missiles, and let us say we will remove them when they come to the table to discuss reducing their armaments. Another way of doing it would be to withhold the $350 billion worth of new weapons and missiles to Saudi Arabia until both sides come together to discuss an arms control treaty. Perhaps you could say we are going to withhold that offer until Saudi Arabia agrees to negotiate with Iran.

It is my belief that Iran will never quit developing ballistic missiles unless there is an agreement with Saudi Arabia and/or the rest of the Gulf kingdoms to do the same. And so I think new sanctions are a fools errand, and they will not work.

New sanctions may even have a counterproductive effect if Iran decides they somehow abrogate the nuclear agreement. If Iran pulls out of the agreement, I think we will really regret hastily adding new sanctions.

The second area of the sanctions that struck me regards terrorism. It seems to me this section might equally apply to Saudi Arabia. In assessing Saudi Arabias connection to terrorism, I am reminded of two comments. First is the Hillary Clinton email to John Podesta, where she says, We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Visit link:
Rand Paul: Think Twice Before Sanctioning Iran - The National Interest Online

The Liberty Conservative

Sen. Rand Paul Leads Bipartisan Charge Against Trump's Saudi Weapons Deal The Liberty Conservative Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has assembled an impressive bipartisan coalition in the Senate to block part of President Trump's Saudi weapons deal. Paul is concerned that the deal may cause blowback due to an ongoing Saudi Arabian military conflict with Yemen ...

More:
Sen. Rand Paul Leads Bipartisan Charge Against Trump's Saudi Weapons Deal - The Liberty Conservative

Several senators want to block a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, part of a much larger package of arms sales touted by President Donald Trump.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy hope to vote on whether to approve a package of weapons sales as early as Thursday, Politico reports.

Paul and Murphy argue that selling weapons to Saudi Arabia effectively involves the U.S. in a proxy war in Yemen, where Saudi backed forces have reportedly killed thousands of civilians and fueled the riseISIS and al-Qaida.

The senators expect support from most Democrats and a few Republicans. Paul believesthe general public is with us, according to Politico.

I think, if you were to ask the general public, should we be at war in Yemen or supporting war in Yemen, I think most people would say, where?' Paul said. I think there should be a valid debate on it.

Trumps massive arms deal is less of a deal and more of a collection of signed letters of intent, according to a report from the Brookings Institute. The $100 billion figure includes contracts finalized before Trump was elected.

Former President Barack Obama approved a total of $115 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia during his two terms.(RELATED: Trumps $100 Billion Weapons Sale To Saudi Arabia Would Be Largest In History)

The vote on the arms deal couldbe a lot closer than previous attempts to stall weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. Paul and Murphy pushed the Senate to voteon a $1.15 billion deal September 2016, which allowed the agreement to go through in a71- 27procedural vote. Congress has 30 days to review military sales to non-NATO countries under the Arms Export Control Act.

Paul and Murphy also proposed a resolution prohibiting any weapons sales to Saudi Arabia in May. That bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

The Department of State has notified Congress of several potential military sales to Saudi Arabia in the past few weeks, including training programs for the Saudi Navy and Air Force, and a $662 million for a packageof offensive shells and projectiles and launching equipment.

Follow Thomas Phippen on Twitter

Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Go here to see the original:
Rand Paul Plans To Block Part Of Trump's Saudi Arms Deal - The Daily Caller