If you're seeing this post as a preview, it's worth clicking just to see the tweet I embedded in the top.
A 'Palestinian' terrorist slammed a truck into a crowd of soldiers near Jerusalem's Armon HaNetziv neighborhood today, killing at least 4 and wounding 16.
A truck rammed into a group of soldiers on a
promenade in the Armon Hanatziv neighborhood of Jerusalem, killing at
least four of them, in a vehicle-ramming attack on Sunday afternoon,
police said.
Police chief Roni Alsheich called the incident a vehicular terror attack.
The soldiers were getting off a bus at the
promenade, a popular tourist spot in southern Jerusalem, when a large
flatbed truck ran into them.
At least 16 more people were injured, two of them very seriously, according to Jerusalem hospitals.
The four soldiers — three women and one man — who died were in their 20s, the Magen David Adom rescue service said.
According to police, the terrorist accelerated as he struck the group.
Eyewitnesses said that after the driver hit
the soldiers with his truck, he put the vehicle in reverse and ran over
them a second time.
Footage of the incident taken from a security
camera showed the truck run into the group of soldiers as they stood
next to a bus. The driver then attempts to turn the truck around and run
over the group again as people scramble for cover.
The driver of the vehicle was shot by both soldiers and by a civilian guide, police said. He died of his wounds.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) issued the following statement.
“Today we saw yet another horrific attack by a Palestinian terrorist in
Jerusalem. The United States stands unshakably with our ally Israel, and
with the Israeli Defense Forces soldiers who were the targets of this
attack. IDF soldiers bravely defend the people of Israel, protect them
and keep them safe. The terrorists targeting them are the enemies of
peace, which can never be achieved while terror groups like Hamas incite
violence and the destruction of Israel. Our prayers are with the IDF,
and with the victims of this attack and their families.”
Some of the newspapers in Europe are comparing this to an Islamic State attack. But we've had these kinds of attacks dating long before Islamic State.
On the Senate floor: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) slams Obama's abandonment of Israel in the UN
This one is especially good - it's Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) slamming President Hussein Obama on the Senate floor for what Obama did to Israel in the UN two weeks ago.
Congress to freeze State Department funding until embassy moves to Jerusalem
In yet another slap in the face to President Hussein Obama, the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Republican-controlled Congress is freezing State Department funding until the US Embassy to Israel moves to Jerusalem.
A delegation of Republican senators is moving forward with an effort to
freeze some funding to the State Department until the U.S. embassy in
Israel is formally moved to Jerusalem, according to new legislation.
...
The effort is being spearheaded by Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Marco
Rubio (R., Fla.), and Dean Heller (R., Nev.), all of whom support
efforts by the incoming Trump administration to move the U.S. embassy to
Jerusalem after years of debate.
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Cruz said
in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s vendetta
against the Jewish state has been so vicious that to even utter this
simple truth—let alone the reality that Jerusalem is the appropriate
venue for the American embassy in Israel—is shocking in some circles.”
“But it is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken
promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move
our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel,” Cruz said.
The legislation orders the White House to identify Jerusalem as
Israel’s capital, which the Obama administration has refused to do. The
bill will freeze a significant portion of the State Department’s funding
until it completes the relocation.
In the past, the Obama White House has been caught scrubbing captions
on official photographs that labeled Jerusalem as part of Israel. The
administration also was entangled in a Supreme Court case when it
refused to permit an American family to list its child’s birthplace as
“Jerusalem, Israel.”
Heller said the legislation could help repair America’s relationship
with Israel, which has become strained under the Obama administration.
Mark January 20 on your calendars. That's the date US-Israel relations make a significant change for the better.
“Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state of Israel, and
that's where America's embassy belongs,” Rubio said in a statement.
“It's time for Congress and the President-Elect to eliminate the
loophole that has allowed presidents in both parties to ignore U.S. law
and delay our embassy's rightful relocation to Jerusalem for over two
decades.”
A statement from Heller said that some State Department funds would be withheld until the embassy was relocated.
The GOP measure is in line with President-elect Donald Trump's support for moving the embassy. His pick for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, also supports that pledge.
...
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Ted Cruz
said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration's vendetta
against the Jewish state has been so vicious that to even utter this
simple truth – let alone the reality that Jerusalem is the appropriate
venue for the American embassy in Israel — is shocking in some circles.
And that's the best part: Once this bill makes its way through Congress and lands on the President's desk, the President will be Donald Trump, and not the Jew-hating mamzer who currently occupies the White House.
88 US Senators sign letter to Obama opposing UN-imposed 'solutions' in the Middle East, 2 of Israel's best friends don't sign
Greetings from Boston's Logan Airport where I am having a travel evening. I'm headed to... Chicago.
88 United States Senators have signed an AIPAC-drafted letter urging President Obama to oppose UN attempts to impose a 'solution' to the Israeli-'Palestinian' conflict. Two of Israel's best friends in the Senate - Marco Rubio (R-Fl) and Ted Cruz (R-Tx) did not sign the letter. Here's why. The letter says
The only way to resolve the conflicts between the two is through direct negotiations that lead to a sustainable two-state solution with a future state of Palestine living in peace and security with Israel. This outcome would provide Israel with greater security and strengthen regional stability. We remain optimistic that, under the right circumstances, Israel and Palestinians can successfully resume productive negotiations toward this goal.
My guess is that Rubio and Cruz don't agree with two-state anymore. I wonder why.
Unbelievable: AIPAC apologizes to Obama for Trump speech
You all know I am not a big Donald Trump fan (to put it mildly - I'm backing Ted Cruz now and I believe that Trump's 'neutrality' on Israel is wrong-headed), but this is beyond absurd. The pro-Israel political group AIPAC tearfully apologized for Trump's speech on Monday to a man that they somehow consider 'pro-Israel' - Barack Hussein Obama. That's not just yuge, it's unprecedented.
The prime minister’s video-linked speech
to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's conference was
preceded by the unscheduled introduction of AIPAC President Lillian
Pinkus and four other leaders. Choking back tears, Pinkus apologized for
Monday night's speeches, implying that Donald Trump had violated a
nonpartisan standard.
“From the moment this conference began, until this moment, we have preached a message of unity,” Pinkus said.
“We have said, in every way we can think of: Come together. But last
evening, something occurred which has the potential to drive us apart,
to divide us. We say, unequivocally, that we do not countenance ad
hominem attacks, and we take great offense to those that are levied
against the president of the United States of America from our stage.”
Trump’s speech, which he largely recited from a teleprompter, was
actually notable for its low level of invective. A candidate who has
mocked Marco Rubio’s thirstiness, Rand Paul’s looks, Jeb Bush’s energy
level and Carly Fiorina’s face confined his criticism of Obama to a few
tossed-off insults.
“With President Obama in his final year —
yay!” said Trump, adding an exclamation not in the text and earning huge
applause. Later, diverting from his text again, he called the president
“maybe the worst thing to happen to Israel.”
Calling Obama the worst thing to happen to Israel is at least accurate with the qualifier 'since Jimmy Carter' and it's probably entirely accurate. For AIPAC to deny that and pretend that Obama - who has frozen Netanyahu out of Washington on numerous occasions, including this week - is simply beyond absurd.
Yet while AIPAC invites candidates and leaders from both parties, and
while it discourages protests from the audience, Trump was hardly the
first speaker to criticize a sitting president. He was followed on the
stage by Ted Cruz, who compared the administration’s deal with Iran to
the 1938 Munich agreement that handed Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to
Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Four years earlier, AIPAC allowed Mitt Romney to
address the conference by satellite, and he went on to accuse the
president of “lecturing” Israel and “emboldening” the Palestinians.
And both Cruz and Romney are correct.
But no AIPAC speech had been criticized like Trump’s. Jane Eisner,
the editor in chief of Jewish news source the Forward, wrote that she
was “ashamed that any of my fellow Jews could applaud” Trump.
“I
am ashamed that they would succumb to the pandering lies,” she wrote.
“Donald Trump ought to have been received civilly but silently by AIPAC.
Instead, the applause spoke volumes.”
Chemi Shalev, a
correspondent for Israel’s Haaretz, left the Trump speech in shock and
asked how fellow Jews could have applauded it.
Both the Forward and Haaretz are far Leftist rags. Shalev certainly does not represent mainstream Israelis and Eisner probably doesn't represent mainstream American Jewry.
Shame on AIPAC for refusing to acknowledge reality.
Linda Sarsour is an energetic purveyor of the “Islamophobia” myth, and has hysterically claimed that “Muslim kids” are being “executed” in the United States. She was instrumental in prevailing upon de Blasio
to end legal and necessary surveillance in Muslim communities in New
York. She is also a frequent visitor to the Obama White House, and has
claimed that the jihad underwear bomber was a CIA agent — part of what she claims is a U.S. war against Islam.
She is a practiced exploiter of the “hate” smear against foes of jihad
terror and Islamic supremacism, and has never apologized for using the Islamic honor murder of Shaima Alawadi to spread lies about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims in America.
She is also an enthusiastic supporter of the “Palestinian” jihad
against Israel. Given the general support for that jihad among Leftists,
and the hard-Left tilt of the de Blasio regime in New York, it is not
surprising that her hate-filled endeavors are taxpayer funded. But it is
scandalous nonetheless: a grim sign of the times.
That would explain her disdain for Rubio and Cruz, wouldn't it?
And Trump's failure to repudiate her endorsement has to make you wonder whether he's really as pro-Israel as he says he is.
Marco Rubio (and Ted Cruz) got Barack Obama right, so why won't anyone else say so?
I have now watched the video of Chris Christie 'destroying' Marco Rubio on Saturday night, and I have to tell you that the people commenting on it have missed the boat. If you haven't seen it yet, the video is embedded here.
Yet Rubio also had an important point: Christie’s premise is dead
wrong. Obama has not steered the Titanic into an iceberg because he is
an unprepared, untested amateur. He has done it quite deliberately, at
times masterfully, because Obama believes in the policies that
constitute the iceberg. He is a movement leftist with a transformational
agenda and an Alinskyite’s understanding of the extortionate uses of
power. Authoritarian rule, government-controlled health care, open
borders, runaway spending, Islamist sympathies, crony-capitalist green
energy – these are not initiatives Obama stumbled into because he was
unprepared. Obama has studiously taken the country where he wants it to
go. And he has rolled over the old experienced hands to do it – so much
for amateur hour.
Obama is not the bumpkin of Christie’s portrayal. But Christie is not so
much wrong in this regard as calculated. Progressive-lite types like
Christie want Obama’s failed presidency to be seen as the consequence of
lack of experience rather than as policy-driven because they often
cooperate with Obama Democrats and sympathize with a number of their
policy preferences.
Christie couldn’t get enough of Obama after “Super Storm Sandy” –
regardless of how much it undermined Mitt Romney. At best, Christie has
been ambivalent in his opposition to Obamacare – carefully navigating
between his instinctive support of it and the intense opposition of more
conservative voters whom he knew he’d be courting in the 2016 GOP
primaries. And while Christie is trying to appeal to conservatives as
the adult in the room willing to speak hard truths about entitlements
and debt spending, his record as governor is: Talk a good game but do
essentially nothing about our basket-case state’s structural problems.
That is a big part of why, as Rubio pointed out, Christie’s tenure has
featured multiple credit downgrades.
The Christies of the Republican party insist that the country is in
disastrous shape because Obama was not up to the job. In truth, Obama
used Democratic congressional control when he had it to push through
Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; ever since, having taken the measure of
feckless GOP opposition, he has skillfully (albeit illegally) exploited
executive power to pursue progressive objectives. Obama has been plenty
up to the job as he intended the job to be done.
This reality is not helpful to a Christie, who wants to be seen as a
pragmatic problem-solver willing to “cross the aisle.” The logic of
Christie’s championing of bipartisan cooperation “to get things done”
has necessarily meant working in furtherance of Obama’s agenda (and, in
New Jersey, working closely with Democrats – which is how you get
multiple credit downgrades). No one courting the Republican base can
afford to be seen as complicit in Obama’s program. So, for Christie, if
Obama is to be portrayed as a failure, it’s got to be because Obama
wasn’t prepared to be president, not because of policies Republicans
have supported.
Rush Limbaugh wonders why only Rubio and Ted Cruz are willing to acknowledge that Obama's behavior has been a deliberate attempt to destroy the United States.
And I think... This is what I was talking about earlier when I say, "I
think some of these professional media analysts..." God bless them and
they do hard work, and many of them, they're just fine people. But I
don't know that they have the ability to see these debates the way
people watching the debates on TV see them. Meaning: I don't know how
big a faux pas this was for Rubio. Clearly it was not a positive;
clearly it was not his best. But I don't think it ruined his chances and
wiped him out like some in the media opined.
...
Let's get to the audio sound bites. I want to start with this. It's
the fastest way to get into this. Because this is important, folks.
This is really, really important. There are only two people that I'm
aware of that are making a consistent point of this. Rubio, actually, is
atop of this. Rubio and Cruz are the only two in the entire Republican
field. Carly Fiorina may have said something like this occasionally.
With Rubio, it's a theme. With Cruz, it's close to a theme. And the
real question is: Why do the other Republicans in the field disagree?
Why do they not say it themselves, that Obama is doing what he's
doing on purpose and by design? That is a brilliantly conceived and
flawlessly executed plan to transform America into something it was not
founded to be. This is something crucially important to Republican
voters. To people inside the Beltway, it's kind of a chuckle. "There
they go again, those right wingers!" To people inside the Beltway, to
the elites, to the establishment, Obama's just the latest Democrat to
come along.
He's no different than any other Democrat. "It's just the Democrat
Party, and they have a president." They don't see the country in crisis
in any way. Not because of the economy, not because of immigration,
not because of foreign policy. In no way are we in a crisis. And, as
such, they don't see what Obama's doing as anything except maybe a
young, inexperienced -- this is Christie's point -- incompetent boob.
Well, that's not who Obama is. Rubio's opponents are using it to
disqualify him. "See! Obama doesn't know what he's doing, and Rubio's
the same kind of guy, just a few short years in the Senate running for
president. We can't afford it.
"Meanwhile, the governors! We're the guys. We're the tough guys.
We've had to make tough decisions," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The
governors will not admit who Obama is. The governors will not admit it,
and Trump does not agree that Obama is purposely doing this. Trump
thinks he's a blithering incompetent. This is crucially important.
...
He's one of two people saying it. Now, folks, you go out and talk to
actual Republican primary voters. You go out, outside of Washington,
outside New York, go out to where these primaries and caucuses are being
held, and you will find that this is exactly what has propelled
Republicans to the polls in droves in 2010 and 2014. It's not the
belief, it's not the theory, it is the knowledge that Obama's doing this
on purpose, and there isn't and hasn't been any push-back. And
Republican voters are livid. Obama has said he's doing it on purpose.
He has said his purpose is to transform the nation. Everybody knows
that Obama is an Alinskyite.
The real question is -- and I was talking about this over the weekend
with my good buddy, Andrew McCarthy. The real question is, why are
these other guys not saying it? Why does Chris Christie make fun of
it? Why does Donald Trump pooh-pooh it? Well, Trump I have to leave
out of this, out of this theory. But Trump also, just for the record,
said he thinks Obama's an incompetent boob, doesn't know what he's
doing. Christie's point is Obama's incompetent, he doesn't know what
he's doing because he's inexperienced just like Rubio doesn't know what
he's doing 'cause he's experienced. It's Barack Obama 2 in that Rubio
would be inexperienced senator, elected president, we don't want to do
that again.
Rubio's point, no, no, no, no, no. Obama's not incompetent. He's
not inexperienced. He's doing exactly what he wants to do. And none of
these Republican moderates will go there. You want to know why? You
want to know why? You want to know why they cannot agree that Obama's
doing this on purpose? Very simple. They cannot agree that Obama's
doing it on purpose. They do not dare say that Obama's doing it on
purpose because they have all worked with Barack Obama, in one way or
another, every one of these governors, many of them, and even a lot of
Republicans in the House and Senate have worked with Obama to advance
certain elements of the agenda.
...
I think the real important question here to ask and answer is why
won't anybody but Rubio and Cruz say it? Because that's essentially, if
you had to encapsulate what the Republican primary is, it's about
that. Like they keep harping on, Christie -- or it might have been
Trump, I don't know who it was -- jumped on Rubio, maybe it was a
moderator in the post-debate analysis. Why does he keep campaigning
against Obama? Obama's not on the ballot. Obama's seven years old.
Obama's in his last year. Why does he keep running against Obama?
Because Hillary and Bernie Sanders want to continue what Obama has
started, and it is the transformation of America. The Republican base
is fully aware of it. The Republican primary voters have been begging
the Republican Party to stop this since 2010, since 2009 when Obama took
office.
...
See, the post-debate analysts who are either on sight or in studios,
television studio, I really -- this is not a criticism of them. I don't
want anybody to get the wrong idea. I think when you start making fun
of Rubio for repeating that Obama's doing it on purpose, you don't
understand how important that is to the Republican base, which is what
this primary is all about. It's fundamental. And by the same token,
defining conservatism, being able to, is fundamental. It's what this is
all about. And if you can't do it, if your definition of conservatism
is ignorant or wrong, I guarantee you you're gonna pay for it when it
comes time to vote.
I think Rush got it right. The only candidates for whom the American citizens in Israel will come out to vote are Rubio and Cruz. We all get that they are the only two candidates that will try to undo what Obama has wrought. And one of the things Obama has wrought is trying to set Israel on a path toward destruction (God Forbid).
Here's hoping that New Hampshire voters don't listen to the media tomorrow.
It's official: Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) endorses Marco Rubio
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, the first black Republican Senator in the deep South since reconstruction, has endorsed Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) for the Republican nomination for President. This came to me by email today.
Israel,
Our
nation’s future is on the line this election. We must nominate a strong
conservative leader who will fight at all costs for our country
and put our citizen’s needs before their own.
And Israel, we need the person that can defeat
Hillary Clinton next fall to be our nominee.
That’s why today, three weeks before the
all-important primary in South Carolina, I’m standing up for and endorsing Marco Rubio.
Israel, I spent a lot of time thinking and praying over this decision. This is an
important election, and I did not take this decision lightly.
There
are a number of good
candidates on our side, but I am voting for Marco Rubio as our next
president because he will not only restore our great nation -- he will
take us
into a New American Century.
I’m proud
to stand with Marco as part of the next generation of
conservatives. Marco has a proven conservative record of standing up to
the Washington establishment and pursuing conservative solutions for the
21st
Century. And that’s exactly the type of leader we need in the White
House next year.
Seems like a better idea for a cartoon: Hillary Clinton and her lapdogs. cc: Washington Post The New York Times
Posted by Ted Cruz on Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Seems like a better idea for a cartoon: Hillary Clinton and her lapdogs. cc: Washington Post The New York Times
Posted by Ted Cruz on Wednesday, December 23, 2015
PLO slams Ted Cruz for calling it a terror organization
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
The 'Palestine' Liberation Organization (PLO) has slammed Republican Presidential candidate and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) for calling it a terror organization (Hat Tip: Jack W via Director Blue).
The Palestine Liberation
Organization on Thursday criticized Republican presidential candidate
Ted Cruz over a Senate hearing he oversaw on Palestinian and Iranian
terrorism that it called "biased and inflammatory."
In an unusually harsh statement issued
Thursday, the PLO said the Judiciary subcommittee hearing provided no
Palestinian viewpoint and conflated all Palestinians with terrorists.
The PLO expressed alarm at what it said was a growing trend in the
United States to "dehumanize" Palestinians.
In response, Cruz said, "It is not surprising a
terrorist organization like the PLO is upset with the truths that were
told at our hearing yesterday."
Cruz oversaw the Wednesday hearing titled
"Justice Forsaken: How the Federal Government Fails the American Victims
of Iranian and Palestinian Terrorism," in which several public
witnesses described acts of violence and complained about the Obama
administration, arguing that its Justice Department has failed to
prosecute terrorists who have killed and wounded Americans.
Cruz, the first-term senator from Texas,
opened the hearing with a vivid description of a Palestinian suicide
bomber attack on a Jerusalem street several years ago that killed and
wounded men, women and children.
Cruz spoke of "Americans who have suffered
greatly because of the horrific actions of Iranian and Palestinian
terrorists," and the recent surge of Palestinian terrorist attacks in
Israel.
"As bad as Palestinian terrorism has been, the
Iranian government has more American blood on its hands," said Cruz,
who reiterated his opposition to the recent international deal to curb
Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Among those who testified at the hearing was
Kenneth J. Stethem, whose brother, Robert, was killed by Hezbollah
terrorists during the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847.
"There has been no administration to date that
has supported Iran and the Palestinian terrorist organizations more
than the Obama administration," Stethem said in his prepared testimony.
And the 'Palestinian' response? Blame Israel, of course.
The PLO said the hearing
failed to mention "recent acts of Israeli incitement," including
killings and collective punishment of the Palestinian people.
"If there is a party to be condemned for their actions,
it is Israel, which continues to defy international law with impunity
because of the blind support it receives from people like Senator Cruz
and other senators," the organization said. "It is time for Israel
apologists on the Hill to put U.S. national interests ahead of those of
the current extreme right-wing government in Israel."
Sounds like Obama and Kerry wrote the PLO's statement for it....
13-year old head of Teens for Ted has 36,500 Twitter followers, supports Ted Cruz, shreds Obama
Here's a video well worth seeing. It's by 13-year old CJ Pearson, the head of an organization called Teens for Ted, which supports Ted Cruz (R-Tx) for President of the United States. The video has 1.6 million views since it went up last Wednesday.
Let's go to the videotape.
Much more about CJ and his organization here (Hat Tip: Mrs. Carl).
Well maybe the candidates talked about those things because they are the antithesis of the views of Obama and the current Democratic candidates. That's not pandering to any of those three core Republican groups - it's showing how the Republican candidates are different from the Democrats.
How about Huckabee, Rubio, Kasich etc talk about Israel's sturdy and effective border fence? https://t.co/1WSyFQN0N1
I would be cool with that (although as longtime readers know, I don't think it's anywhere near as effective as it's touted to be). But in that case, wouldn't you ask 'why talk about Israel's border fence when we should be talking about America's?
No, it offends me that so much time was wasted on things all GOPs agree on. https://t.co/3vezaywGMM
Having read an awful lot of comments... I don't think so. It seems that unfortunately, the GOP of my generation and my children's generation still includes a lot of the John Birch Society types that kept my parents (and most Americans to this day) away from the Republican party. Perhaps that's why many of the Republican candidates feel the need to 'pander' (as Coulter insists on calling support for Israel) to Jewish voters.
Sure hope you can't tell Ann Coulter's views by the company she keeps...
As I'm sure most of you have heard, the Iran disapproval resolution died in a cloture vote in the Senate last night, which means that the deal is assured that it can go ahead. Or is it? This is Thomas Lifson.
Speaker Boehner has announced that he may sue. Jake Sherman writes in Politico:
Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he might sue President Barack Obama again.
The
Ohio Republican said Obama has not turned over the entirety of the Iran
agreement for congressional review as mandated by law. Boehner said
legal action is “an option that’s very possible.”
“If
you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty
clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said Thursday during
his weekly news conference. “Because it makes clear that any side
agreements and any other type of an agreement — including those that do
not directly involve us — must be turned over as part of it. I do not
believe that he’s complied.”
The speaker said the agreement is "worse than anything I could’ve ever imagined."
Although
the courts have generally been reluctant to become involved in disputes
between the legislative and executive branches, a recent Obamacare
decision gives some hope.
Northwestern University constitutional law
professor Eugene Kantorovitch explains in the Washington Post:
In
fact, there are at least two paths to invalidating any sanctions relief
implemented by the president – a lawsuit by a House of Congress, or
action involving state sanctions laws.
Yesterday
a D.C. Federal district court issued a landmark ruling in House of
Representatives v. Burwell, upholding the House of Representatives
standing to challenge Executive action under the Affordable Care Act.
The question of institutional legislative standing is a fairly novel
one, and thus this is an important decision.
Whether
it survives on appeal, the decision creates a major and previously
unanticipated opening for a congressional lawsuit challenging the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. The constitutional argument would focus on
the non-transmission of documents required under the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the Corker-Cardin deal), which would seem
to satisfy the standing test established by the district court.
Omri Ceren, in an email, summarizes the complex argument:
It
begins in the usual place: the 60 day review process hasn't started
because the Iran-IAEA side deals haven't been transmitted to Congress.
But the injury isn't just that waiving sanctions is illegal, which is
the way the argument usually proceeds. Instead the Kontorovich argument
is that Congress has been denied its Article I prerogative to exercise
its legislative authority: since binding action on the JCPOA can only
occur between Day 1 and Day 60 of the Corker "period of review," and
since that clock hasn't started so we're not in Day 1, Congress has been
denied the ability to act on the JCPOA. (snip)
White
House spokesperson Earnest was asked about possible Congressional
litigation at today's White House press briefing. His answer: "we've
been clear that the [transmitted] documentation included all the
documentation that was in the possession of the United States
government" [b].
That
answer is unlikely to satisfy Congress and may not pass judicial
scrutiny. The White House appears to have intentionally not called for
the side deals, lest they have to transmit them. Olli Heinonen - a 27
year IAEA veteran who sat atop the agency's verification shop - has
explained that the U.S. could very easily call for the side deals
because the U.S. is a member of the IAEA Board: "According to the IAEA
rules and practices such documents could be made available to the
members of the IAEA Board... If a board member asks it and others resist
the distribution ... this can be overcome by a vote... Simple majority
is enough, and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system."
...
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz recommends two more steps, in addition to noting the lack of complete documentation mentioned above:
Leader
McConnell should schedule a vote on a resolution expressing the sense
of the Senate that, if the agreement had been introduced as a treaty, it
would not be ratified. This will put senators on record and will make
clear that there is insufficient support in the Senate for approving the
agreement as a treaty.
Third,
given President Obama’s regrettable history of lawlessness, it is
reasonable to assume that he will simply ignore the law and declare that
he is lifting sanctions under the agreement anyway. On that assumption,
we should make clear to the CEOs of banks holding frozen Iranian funds
that their misplaced reliance on the president’s lawlessness would not
necessarily excuse them from the obligation to comply with existing
federal sanctions laws. And if they release billions in funds to
Khamenei, they risk billions in civil (and possibly even criminal)
liability once President Obama leaves office. Having spent years
advising major corporations in private practice, I can say that their
general counsels will likely tell them their legal exposure is real,
which could well result in the banks deciding not to release the funds
to Iran, despite the president’s actions.
The
real Rubicon to be crossed in the Iran deal is the release of financial
assets to Iran. Once they are gone, they cannot be gotten back, and
based on statements from Iran as late as yesterday, it is certain they
will be employed in part to rain down death and destruction on Israel,
the United States, and all who do not adhere to the mullahs’ version of
Islam. One can imagine Obama’s fury of banks decline to release funds
based on liability worries.
Iran's engraved invitation to develop nuclear weapons
It was bad enough when we heard that the United States cannot send nuclear inspectors to Iran. At all. It was worse when we heard that Iran had the right to approve any nuclear inspectors who did show up. Now, we're beyond that. It turns out that the IAEA cannot inspect Iran's Parchin site - where it is known to have worked on nuclear weapons - either. With reports already circulating that Iran is sanitizing Parchin in broad daylight, it now turns out that Parchin will have an excessively lenient inspection regime... to be carried out by Iran itself. This is from a Wall Street Journal editorial.
But that spin started to unravel three weeks ago with the discovery
that the Parchin inspections were part of a secret side agreement
between the IAEA and Iran—not between Iran and the six negotiating
countries. Secretary of State John Kerry has said he hasn’t read the side deal, though his negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she “saw the pieces of paper” but couldn’t keep them. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has told Members of the U.S. Congress that he’s bound by secrecy and can’t show them the side deals.
That
secrecy should be unacceptable to Congress—all the more so after the AP
dispatch. The news service says it has seen a document labelled
“separate arrangement II.” The document says Iran will provide the IAEA
with photos and locations that the IAEA says are linked to Iran’s
weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.”
In other
words, the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program
will now be trusted to come clean about those lies. And trusted to such
a degree that it can limit its self-inspections so they don’t raise
“military concerns” in Iran.
Keep in mind that the side deal
already excludes a role for the U.S., and that the IAEA lacks any way to
enforce its side deal since it has no way of imposing penalties for
violations. Iran has also already ruled out any role for American or
Canadian nationals on the inspection teams.
Why not cut out the IAEA middle man and simply let Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, sign a personal affadavit?
The
AP report hadn’t been contradicted by our deadline on Wednesday, and a
White House spokesman told AP merely that the U.S. is “confident in the
agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military
dimensions of Iran’s former program.” That sounds like a confirmation.
The
news raises further doubts about a nuclear pact that is already leaking
credibility. Unfettered access to Parchin is crucial to understanding
Iran’s past nuclear work, which is essential to understanding how close
Iran has come to getting the bomb. Without that knowledge it’s
impossible to know if Iran really is a year or more away from having the
bomb, which is the time period that Mr. Kerry says is built into the
accord and makes it so worth doing.
Earlier this year President
Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which says Congress
must receive all documents related to the deal, including any “entered
into or made between Iran and any other parties.” That has to mean the
IAEA.
Republican Presidential Candidate and Senator Ted Cruz went ballistic over this (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“Enough,” Cruz told TheBlaze in a statement. “Enough of the concessions,
capitulations and backroom deals that make up President Obama’s
catastrophic nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
He continued: “The most recent revelation that Iran will be selecting
its own inspectors to verify the nature of its nuclear program is made
all the more egregious by the fact that as the single largest
contributor to the IAEA (support that is mandated in the JCPOA) United
States taxpayers will be paying for a farce that is a direct threat to
their own security.”
Cruz, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran nuclear deal since
it was announced, argued the agreement is a matter of national
security, not politics.
“This is not a partisan issue. It is not about President Obama’s
political legacy. It is about the future of our country, and that of our
allies,” he told TheBlaze. “We have to stop this disastrous deal.”
President Cruz's first day in office: Bye-bye Iranian sellout
Ted Cruz made a speech at the RedState conference in which he laid out five actions he would take on his first day in office.
During this speech, Cruz laid out five actions that he would take on his first day in office. The Daily Signal reports:
The first action would be to “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.”
Next, he would “instruct the Department of Justice to open an
investigation into Planned Parenthood” and to prosecute any criminal
conduct uncovered.
Then he would instruct the Department of Justice and the Internal
Revenue Service to “cease persecuting” individuals seeking to practice
their faith in their workplace.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, he said, “would receive a letter in
the mail that their case has been dismissed.” He said they would also
receive “an invitation to the White House to tell their story to the
world.”
Then he would “end the catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”
Cruz argued that by lifting economic sanctions on Iran, the Obama
administration had become “the leading global financier of radical
Islamic terrorism.”
Finally, he would “begin the process to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.”
Moving the embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital,” he said, would send “a message to the world that we stand with our allies.”
Unlike promises to stop the oceans from rising and to heal the planet, these promises seem reasonable and in line with Cruz’s campaign message.
Cruz assured the RedState audience, and by extension all of us, that
he’s the one GOP presidential candidate who will keep his word.
I wish he would add to the IRS item that he will order the IRS to cease denying tax exemptions on political grounds.
I also wonder whether he could even find all of Obama's illegal executive orders in just one day.
By an overwhelming 98-1 margin the Senate has passed a bill which purports to give Congress a say on President Hussein Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was the only senator to oppose the bill. He
said in a statement that he objected that the deal was not to be
presented to the Congress as a treaty.
"A nuclear-arms agreement
with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian
regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority
vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.
Cotton is right of course. But I'm afraid he's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
The Senate bill would require a competed deal to be submitted to
Congress, which could then vote to approve or disapprove the nuclear
deal within 30 days. Sanctions on Iran could not be lifted during this
consideration.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.), after the vote, suggested that passage of the bill
allows Congress to take "power back" from President Obama. He also said
it ensures the Congress will play "an appropriate role" in the nuclear
talks.
Passage of the legislation clears
the way for U.S. negotiators to continue to work on a nuclear deal with
Iran ahead of a June 30 deadline with little fear of interference from
Congress. Negotiators reached a framework agreement in April.
A
vote to disapprove a nuclear deal with Iran would not kill it. President
Obama could veto such a measure, and the House and Senate would then
need two-thirds majorities to override his veto.
The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They thought they had set out a procedure that ensured a real balance of powers. Now, the United States has become a dictatorship with Senate approval.
The power play that is behind this bill is nothing short of astounding. And you thought the Israeli Knesset was the only deliberative body in the world that was powerless?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
