Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Ron Fournier’s article on Hillary’s email scandal is titled Hillary Clinton still doesn’t get it. Stealing a line that Charles Krauthammer might say, Mr. Fournier isn’t cynical enough.
A cornered Clinton is a craven Clinton, which is why we should view Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest public relations trick with practiced skepticism. “I want the public to see my email,” she tweeted Wednesday night. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 5, 2015
If she wants us to see her email, why did she create a secret account stored on a dark server registered at her home?
Hillary doesn’t want the public to know what’s in her emails. What’s happening is that Hillary is doing as little as possible. She’s doing that to make it look like she’s being transparent without actually being transparent.
If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public.
Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton’s tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband’s White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It’s a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president, and jarringly inappropriate for these times.
It’s a shameless script that’s being deployed by a shameless person. It’s impossible to shame a Clinton. It’s as possible to shame a Clinton as it is to get a pig to feel guilty for rolling around in mud.
My former employer, The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over years of stonewalling its requests for government documents covering Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The AP has sought her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents, the New York Times, reported. The oldest AP request was made in March 2010.
“We believe it’s critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters,” said AP’s general counsel, Karen Kaiser. “In this instance, we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action.”
I can recite the Clinton script in my sleep. First, they’ll insist that they’re “cooperating fully” with the investigation. Later, they’ll insist that they’ve turned over tens of thousands of documents while essentially arguing that that should be good enough for the investigators. Mixed in along the way will be attempts to intimidate the investigators with smears.
The latest polling measuring President Obama’s national security leadership isn’t the much-needed good news that this administration needs:
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Congressional leaders invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress?
Good thing 56%, bad thing 27%
Do you think the Obama administration is too supportive of Israel, not supportive enough, or are the administration’s policies about right?
Too supportive 14%, not supportive enough 41%, about right 35%
Democrats that complained about Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu are on the wrong side of that fight by a 2:1 margin. That isn’t the bad news from the poll, though. This is definitely worse news for President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats:
Do you think the United States has been too aggressive, not aggressive enough or about right in trying to get Iran to stop building a nuclear weapons program?
Too aggressive 7%, not aggressive enough 57%, about right 27%
Do you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if that were the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Favor 65%, Oppose 28%
When 3 in 5 voters think you aren’t pushing Iran hard enough to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, you’re in a bad position. When 1 in 4 voters thinks you’re being about right, then most voters think you’re a wimp. When two-thirds of people think we should use military force to prevent “Iran from getting nuclear weapons” and you’re an anti-war president, you’re in trouble.
President Obama’s leadership on national security matters, if it can be called that, is pathetic. And yes, President Obama is anti-war. He’s lost 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) thus far. He’s on the path to losing another war to ISIS. His coalition of 60 nations that are fighting ISIS is fiction. His policies towards Russia are helping Putin rebuild the former Soviet empire.
Other than those things, President Obama is a picture in foreign policy leadership.
Alexis Simendinger’s article shows how the Iran-US negotiations have changed thanks to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech. The debate has shifted thanks to Netanyahu’s speech. Here’s an example of how Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech shifted things:
Here are some points that resonated with lawmakers:
Obama is misguided, or wears blinders about Iran’s true ambitions and motivations. Speaking to the GOP-controlled House and Senate, Netanyahu reiterated his warning: “Don’t be fooled.” The prime minister reinforced views among conservatives and some Democrats that Obama’s record of recognizing and responding to brewing threats in the Middle East and elsewhere has been less than stellar. Netanyahu argued the administration is being duped by Iran’s negotiators. He believes pledges of reformed nuclear objectives will not change in Iran, no matter what Tehran may sign to win relief from the international sanctions regime. Netanyahu pointed to North Korea as an example of broken nuclear promises.
There’s no reason to think that President Obama and John Kerry will negotiate a deal that doesn’t sell Israel out. They’re both desperately searching for a legacy item. Without that, neither will be more than a footnote in the history books.
Here’s another game changer from Netanyahu’s speech:
Israel advocated tougher adjustments to any pact hammered out with Iran. Although Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s rhetoric as a debunked script that lacked internal logic, the prime minister did more in Washington than criticize negotiations and warn about Iran’s evil intentions.
The prime minister told Congress that any pact with Iran should “demand” that Tehran halt aggression in the Middle East, cease support for terrorism, and end threats against Israel. An agreement should require the verified destruction of all Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including centrifuges and heavy water reactors; include a longer breakout insurance period than one year; and maintain all sanctions for a decade or longer, or until Iran’s behavior is demonstrably and verifiably altered, the prime minister said. “The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal,” Netanyahu maintained.
President Obama has talked about Iran rejoining the fictional “community of nations” if they simply sign onto this treaty. That’s the rose-colored glasses perspective. Iran isn’t interested in changing. Whether they sign onto this treaty or not, they’ll still want to continue working on getting a nuclear weapon. Whether they sign onto this treaty or not, they’ll still continue supporting terrorist organizations like al-Qa’ida and Hezbollah.
These aren’t transient policy positions than change from administration to administration. They’re long-held positions that haven’t changed since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. When they say they want to push Israel into the sea, that isn’t the mullahs throwing some red meat to the partisans. It’s their ultimate goal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu showed the world the difference between a mature statesman and a young, hip partisan. The difference was a game-changer.
Conn Carroll’s article is frightening. Check this out:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
The thought that President Obama “has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities” on raising taxes without congressional approval is proof that he’s either a scofflaw or he isn’t the constitutional scholar he claims he is. Here’ the text of the heart of Article 1, Section 7:
SECTION. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Article 1 of the Constitution deals exclusively with the Legislative Branch’s authorities and responsibilities. Here’s the only time anyone from the executive branch is mentioned in Article 1:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
If it took President Obama’s team more than 15 minutes to determine “the array of executive authorities that are available to him” for unilaterally raising taxes, then they’re illiterate.
A first-year law student knows that the Executive Branch doesn’t have any authority to raise taxes, especially unilaterally.
The thought that a Democrat US senator sent President Obama a letter “imploring the Obama administration” to raise taxes through executive action is proof that Democrats hate the Constitution. President Obama’s overreaches have repeatedly gotten shot down unanimously by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Democrats have sat quietly on the sidelines without dissenting.
The Democrats’ silence is deafening.
After watching this video, it’s safe to say that John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State that’s delusional:
Here’s a partial transcript of what he said:
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: OK, let’s — let’s move back, then, to Israel and Iran. You’re headed over for further negotiations. While you’re gone, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be addressing Congress. Susan Rice said it was destructive to U.S.-Israeli relations. Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well, look, we’re not — the prime minister of Israel is welcome to speak in the United States, obviously. And we have a closer relationship with Israel right now in terms of security than at any time in history. I was reviewing the record the other day. We have intervened on Israel’s behalf, in the last two years, more than several hundred — a couple of hundred times in over 75 different fora in order to protect Israel.
I talk to the prime minister regularly, including yesterday. We are not — you know, we don’t want to see this turned into some great political football. Obviously, it was odd, if not unique, that we learned of it from the speaker of the House and that an administration was not included in this process. But the administration is not seeking to politicize this. We want to recognize the main goal here is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And on that, Israel and the United States agree. And the testimony, in fact, to the efficiency with which we’ve been able to pursue that is the interim agreement that is in place today.
Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created. The 20 percent enriched uranium has been reduced to 0. We have stopped the centrifuge production. We are inspecting inside of their facilities. We have stopped the Arak plutonium reactor in its tracks. Israel is safer today and that is the standard that we will apply to any agreement going forward. It is to guarantee that we will know that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon under the procedure that we’re putting in place.
Other than the times we’ve threatened to blow Israeli military jets out of the sky, Kerry’s thinking, Israel has never been safer than now. Except when President Reagan let it be understood that the United States wouldn’t tolerate Yassir Arafat’s intifada’s. Except when President George W. Bush sided with Israel in the latest intifada.
Shooting an allies’ planes out of the sky isn’t how we make Israel safer, especially when Israel’s planes were planning on destroying Iran’s centrifuges. Iran isn’t bashful about saying it wants to destroy Israel. How can Israel feel safe when its greatest ally, the United States, is negotiating with its most dangerous enemy to make it easier to wipe Israel off the map?
According to this article, President Obama has turned the US Air Force into a pro-Iranian Air Force:
According to the report, Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff Beni Gants to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.
The sources added that Gants and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.
However, an Israeli minister “who has good ties with the US administration revealed Netanyahu’s plans to Secretary of State John Kerry” and as a result Obama then threatened to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
It’s simply stunning that President Obama would threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they tried destroying Iran’s uranium enrichment plants. Has President Obama gone totally insane? The thought that President Obama would shoot down Israel’s jets to protect Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities is like hearing President Obama lifting protection from Poland to tell Putin he was a trusted ally.
President Obama’s foreign policy has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it. It’s like we’re being told that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west. Nothing about President Obama’s foreign policy makes sense.
Netanyahu had to abort the operation and since then relations between Israel and the United States have been declining, according to the sources quoted in the report.
President Obama is the most anti-Israel president in US history. Whoever’s in second isn’t close. The thought that a US president is willing to protect the biggest state sponsor of terrorism while shooting down our best ally in the region’s planes indicates President Obama’s priorities aren’t America’s priorities.
President Obama is an historic president … for all the wrong reasons.
This NYTimes article is totally farcical. Check this paragraph out:
Asked whether the accord would guarantee that Iran would remain at least a year away from being able to produce enough fuel for a single nuclear weapon, a senior official said that the agreement was still under negotiation and that it was not yet clear how long the accord might last. He noted that some “transparency measures” that might provide insight into the inner workings of Iran’s nuclear activities might be in effect for an “extended period of time.”
The thought that the mullahs’ word is worth anything is utterly laughable. Trusting them is like trusting Bernie Madoff with the password to your retirement account. Nobody in their right mind would trust them. Thinking that President Obama would call out Iran if they violated the treaty is just as laughable.
If this is part of the administration’s ‘prebuttal’ to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress, then they’re a laughingstock. They’ll be ridiculed by serious news organizations.
The officials were also vague about whether, and how quickly, Iran would have to answer a dozen questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency about research it is suspected of carrying out on nuclear designs, what the agency calls the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program. The I.A.E.A., the United Nations’ inspection agency, said again last week that Iran stonewalled inspectors on answering most of its questions, which the Iranians insist are based on fabricated evidence.
The treaty still hasn’t been signed and Iran is already attempting to shroud its nuclear program in secrecy. Israel shouldn’t trust Iran at this or any other point. Israel shouldn’t trust President Obama either. He’s clearly undermined Israel’s ability to protect itself from the existential threat known as Iran.
This is either red flag city or it’s entirely predictable. Saying that “officials were also vague about whether, and how quickly, Iran would have to answer a dozen questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency” is essentially the same as saying that this administration won’t take this part seriously. If this administration was serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, they’d back this provision up with the option of military force and harsh sanctions.
The fact that the Obama administration and other Democrats support this is frightening. The fact that Hillary hasn’t spoken out about this is telling, too. Hillary’s silence is deafening. She’s as dovish as President Obama.
President Obama’s PR campaign isn’t working:
This week, Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress that Mr. Netanyahu was wrong when he predicted that the interim agreement reached with Iran would fail and would result in the collapse of the sanctions regimen against Tehran, and administration officials suggested that his opposition to a comprehensive agreement was also wrongheaded.
But the concerns voiced by Mr. Netanyahu are also shared by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that are regional rivals of Iran. Mr. Kerry plans to meet with King Salman of Saudi Arabia and other Arab officials over the next week to try to reassure them about the agreement.
When the Saudis agree with Israel’s prime minister and disagree with our president, that’s a PR disaster for the Obama administration.
President Obama has no fiercer defender than Rep. Betty McCollum, the Democrat representing Minnesota’s 4th District. That doesn’t mean she’s accomplished much. It just means she’s represented a district that’s as competitive of a district as Nancy Pelosi’s. Rep. McCollum’s op-ed reads like something approved by President Obama himself and possibly written by Susan Rice with the assistance of Ben Rhodes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a heated reelection campaign. Yet he is traveling 5,900 miles to give a speech before a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 — just two weeks before Israelis go to the polls. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), working with Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, a former Republican political operative who renounced his U.S. citizenship, extended the invitation in a clear effort to undermine the president while the United States and its five partners engage in tough negotiations with Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, a national security priority I strongly support.
TRANSLATION: Rep. McCollum hates Israel. What’s worse is that she supports President Obama’s bad faith negotiations with Iran that is aimed at giving Iran the time it needs to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Any statements that President Obama is trying to prevent Iran “from obtaining nuclear weapons” is BS.
Charles Krauthammer’s article blows that myth to smithereens:
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed … development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
That doesn’t sound like President Obama is working tirelessly to prevent the Iranian mullahs from getting a nuclear weapon. That sounds like President Obama has given Iran permission to build nuclear weapons.
Here’s more of Rep. McCollum’s BS:
“To think about going behind the back of a friendly country’s administration and working out this kind of arrangement with the parliament or the Congress — it’s unheard of,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Such an unprecedented lack of respect toward a U.S. president has not gone unnoticed in Israel, either.
Rep. McCollum expects Israel to respect a president who’s handing a nuclear weapon to Iran, still the biggest state sponsor of terrorism? That’s frightening, especially considering this information:
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping, and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy. Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental-ballistic-missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations. Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads.
In other words, Rep. McCollum supports Iran getting the capability to launch ICBMs. She supports Iran having the ability to hit NYC with nuclear weapons.
Basharat concluded his Haaretz column by saying, “Any leader who tried to do to the Americans what Netanyahu has done would be ejected immediately, not from Washington but from office in his home country.” That’s one opinion. I will respectfully leave that choice to Israeli voters. In the meantime, I will respectfully abstain from attending Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign rally.
That’s laughable. After Rep. McCollum does a hatchet job on one of America’s staunchest allies, she then pretends that she doesn’t care who wins the Israeli elections. I believe that like I believe that waving a red cape in a bull’s face won’t provoke an attack. That’s why Minnesotans think Rep. McCollum is a joke.
This ABC article highlights just how much the Obama administration’s disgust with Israel has grown. Relations between Israel and the US have never been this frosty. President Obama apparently intends on giving Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu the cold shoulder treatment when he visits DC:
In what is becoming an increasingly nasty grudge match, the White House is mulling ways to undercut Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming trip to Washington and blunt his message that a potential nuclear deal with Iran is bad for Israel and the world.
There are limits. Administration officials have discarded the idea of President Barack Obama himself giving an Iran-related address to rebut the two speeches Netanyahu is to deliver during his early March visit. But other options remain on the table.
Among them: a presidential interview with a prominent journalist known for coverage of the rift between Obama and Netanyahu, multiple Sunday show television appearances by senior national security aides and a pointed snub of America’s leading pro-Israel lobby, which is holding its annual meeting while Netanyahu is in Washington, according to the officials.
The administration has already ruled out meetings between Netanyahu and Obama, saying it would be inappropriate for the two to meet so close to Israel’s March 17 elections. But the White House is now doubling down on a cold-shoulder strategy, including dispatching Cabinet members out of the country and sending a lower-ranking official than normal to represent the administration at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the officials said.
It’s apparent that President Obama’s disgust with Israel isn’t going away anytime soon. It isn’t surprising that he’s got the chilliest relationship with Israel of all the US presidents since Israel became a nation in 1948.
Vice President Joe Biden will be away, his absence behind Netanyahu conspicuous in coverage of the speech to Congress. Other options were described by officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.
President Obama’s childishness has never been more on display than right now. He’s acting like a petulant little child who’s throwing a hissy fit because he isn’t getting his way.
U.S. officials believe Netanyahu’s trip to Washington is aimed primarily at derailing a nuclear deal with Iran, Obama’s signature foreign policy objective. While Netanyahu has long been skeptical of the negotiations, his opposition has increased over what he sees as Obama’s willingness to make concessions that would leave Iran on the brink of being able to build a nuclear weapon. His opposition has intensified as negotiations go into overdrive with an end-of-March deadline for a framework deal.
It’s frightening that the Obama administration thinks that letting Iran become a nuclear power is an “accomplishment.” I’d consider it a failure of historic proportions. Giving the leading terrorist nation nuclear weapons is stupid. Prime Minister Netanyahu is right in being worried about Iran going nuclear.
A true ally, which the Obama administration and most Democrats aren’t, wouldn’t let Iran get a nuclear weapon. This is just further proof that this administration doesn’t see the world that exists. It sees the world it wants to exist.
This polling says everything in terms of the Democratic Party’s utter disdain for the Constitution and their appreciation for anarchy:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Rasmussen wouldn’t have gotten these results if Scott Walker were president. Democrats, aka the ‘ends-justifies-the-means-when-we’re-in-power-party, only care about the rule of law when a Republican is in the White House.
Imagine what the Democrats’ response would be if President Walker permanently suspended the ACA’s major provisions, starting with the employer and individual mandates, then continuing with the collection of revenues from the medical device manufacturers’ excise tax before finally writing a regulation that eliminates the requirements for the qualified health plans.
I’m betting that less than 10% of Democrats would think that Gov. Walker “should have the right to ignore the courts“ if he tried gutting the ACA. It’s all about whose ox is getting gored, isn’t it? Thinking that the laws apply to others but not to you is as anti-American as it gets. Either the law applies to everyone or there’s chaos and division.
President Obama and his supporters support splitting America. He’s worked on that since his inauguration. His divisiveness showed early. Rather than accepting suggestions from Republicans on his stimulus bill, he shafted them, saying that “I won.” President Obama’s my-way-or-the-highway style of governance took hit after hit in the courts on issues of presidential overreach. No other president has had 13 straight unanimous rulings go against him in the Supreme Court.
Even judges he appointed rejected his arguments in these cases.
Days before his election, President Obama said that he and his supporters were just days away from transforming America. While it’s true he changed the Democratic Party, he, thankfully, failed in changing America. The Democrats went from being the evil party to the party of lawlessness.