Must see: Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl) comments at David Friedman confirmation hearing
Several people have sent me this video and it really is a must see. This is Republican Senator Marco Rubio (Fl) speaking at the confirmation hearings for David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel. He's awesome. This will be the best five minutes you will spend today.
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.
Flashback: When the White House accused AP of 'trutherism' on Iran
In light of Ben Rhodes' revelation over the weekend that he led a White House effort to lie about the Iranian nuclear deal, it is useful to look back at last summer, when the White House attacked the Associated Press and its diplomatic reporter, @APDiplowriter (Matt Lee) for asking too many questions about the deal, particularly about the side agreement that allows the Iranians to 'self-inspect' their weapons production facility at Parchin.
What this story is really about is the
politicization of expertise, and how far things can go when one group of
experts (arms controllers) decides to fight by impugning the expertise
of another group (in this case, reporters) for the sake of public
theater. This is almost entirely a phenomenon of new media and the speed
of the news cycle in the modern era.
The Iran Deal supporters knew
there was no point in trying to rebut the substance of the claim: The
story was out, people had already read it, and politicians had already
reacted. A careful analysis of whether the document said what the AP
headline said it did would take too long, and most people wouldn’t
bother with it.
Instead, the story had to be
discredited and flushed, as soon as possible. There wasn’t time to
explain that “monitor” might mean different things to a lay reader and
to an expert. Better simply to throw an array of charges at the
Associated Press and its reporters and see what sticks.
In
the end, the most disturbing question of all is to ask what would have
happened if an institution of less prominence and reputation had
published this report. The Iran Deal truthers didn’t count on the AP
firing back, and despite Fisher’s testy accusation that reporter Matt
Lee was having a “meltdown,” the entire company stood behind the story.
The backlash-to-the-backlash has begun, and while the IAEA has said the
story is a “misrepresentation,” they haven’t said it’s false, either.
Neither has the White House. So far, the AP and its story are still
here.
The warning shot to other
journalists is clear, however. Reporters with one of the most reputable
news organizations in the world had to fight off odious charges for
doing their job. This is apparently the price to be paid for reporting
anything that challenges support for a deal that has reached, among its
adherents, the status of a dogma that tolerates no heresy.
After Friday's news, it's difficult to rebut the argument that the Iran deal has the status of a dogma that tolerates no heresy in the eyes of its supporters. But that won't stop them from trying. After all, Big Brother knows best what's good for us. And now that the fight is over, we can all read the bill.
Congress didn't 'buy' @rhodes44 lies either - they looked to him for cover
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
In a comment to this post, Nancy B writes, "Quite disturbing that so many in Congress bought this fiction hook, line and sinker!"
They didn't buy it. The Republicans opposed the Iran deal up and down the line. The Democrats were willing to do anything - anything - to avoid voting against their President. They were looking to avoid rocking the boat without risking the destruction of their careers. They were looking for cover for not opposing Obama. Rhodes provided it.
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren sent around an email this afternoon reporting that Congress is looking into whether Obama administration officials lied to Congress in their testimony about the Iran deal last summer, or whether they have just totally bowed to Iran.
Last week reporters confirmed that the
Obama administration has reversed itself on a number of commitments made
to Congress during last summer's push to get support for the Iran deal.
Specifically the AP confirmed that the administration intends to give
Iran indirect access the U.S. financial system and Reuters confirmed
that Washington is no longer labeling Iranian missile launches a
"violation" of the U.N. ban [a][b].
White House, State Department, and Treasury officials testified to
Congress last summer that exactly the opposite would happen. Last Friday
Bloomberg View published a roundup how lawmakers are reacting. It noted
that these were not the first two bait-and-switches the administration
has pulled, and catalogued statements of opposition from both parties in
both chambers. I sent around the article last night with a bunch of
links and background, so let me know if you didn't get it.
Now this morning lawmakers are sharpening the question into: did the administration deliberately mislead lawmakers last summer or is the deal still open
so that the Iranians have been extracting more concessions since then?
The full story from the Washington Free Beacon is pasted below, but the
key quote comes from Rep. Pompeo:
"When multiple officials — including Secretary Kerry, Secretary
Lew, and Ambassador Mull — testify in front of Members of Congress, we
are inclined to believe them," Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) told the
Washington Free Beacon. "However, the gap between their promises on the
Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are
now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the
part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to
the Iranians"
Now the transcripts. In case you're reporting out this story, this is some of the testimony Pompeo was probably referencing:
Sec. Lew testimony on Iran being "denied access to the
world's largest financial and commercial market" due to the
dollarization prohibition:
LEW: But a number of key sanctions will remain in place...
Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York,
hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial
institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.
Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s
largest financial and commercial market. The JCPOA makes only minor
allowances to this broad prohibition. (SFRC, July 23, [c])
Amb. Mull testimony on ballistic missile launches being a "violation":
THE CHAIRMAN: There is some weird language in the UNSCR that this
refers to. It says "they're called upon." Out of curiosity, after the
implementation if they launch these types of missiles, is it or is it
not in violation of the agreement? AMB MULL. It is not in violation of the JCPOA. It is a violation of Security Council resolutions. THE
CHAIRMAN: So the called-upon language from your perspective makes it
clear that going forward it will continue to be a violation? AMB MULL. The calls-upon language, it would violate that part of the U.N. Security Council resolution... (SFRC, Dec 17, [d @ 34:55])
There's other problematic testimony floating around on both of these
issues, as well as on other bait-and-switches such as IAEA access to
military sites, which the Agency was refused when it tried to enter the
Parchin base where Iran conducted tests related to nuclear warheads.
On non-nuclear relief and dollarization, Treasury Undersecretary Szubin
testified to Senate Banking that "no Iranian banks can access the US
financial system; not to open an account, not to purchase a security,
and not even to execute a dollarized transaction where a split second's
worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank" [e]. On missiles,
Sec. Kerry somewhat notoriously insisted to Sen. Menenedez that
old language banning Iranian ballistic missile launches had been
imported unchanged into the new UNSCR [f]. On IAEA access to military
sites, Sec. Kerry told HFAC that failure to provide access would
put Iran "in material breach of the agreement and the sanctions will
snap back" [g]. Etc.
Omri.
IAEA: Iran deal gutted agency's ability to monitor Iran
IAEA Director General Yukio Amano disclosed on Monday that the Obama-Kerry-Sherman sellout to a nuclear Iran effectively gutted his agency's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. Here's an email from The Israel Project's Omri Ceren.
On February 26 the IAEA released its
first report on Iran's nuclear activity since Implementation Day, when
Iran was said to have met all of its nuclear requirements under United
Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231, and the international
community duly began dismantling the sanctions regime in response.
The IAEA report was supposed to confirm
that Iran had indeed met all of its commitments and continued to be in
compliance with the nuclear deal. Instead it had several gaps in places
where the IAEA had - for years and years previously - reported precise
details and numbers.
Nuclear verification experts immediately
and heavily criticized the report. That same day - on February 26 - the
Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) published an
assessment detailing how Iran might be cheating, given what was not
reported by the IAEA [a]. The list is wonkish but includes: production
of parts for advanced centrifuges, chemical conversion of 5% low
enriched uranium (LEU) to put it temporarily beyond use for weapons, and
stockpiling of 20% LEU. Then last Friday Olli Heinonen - a decades-long
IAEA veteran and the former head of the Agency's verification shop -
came out with another assessment of the IAEA report [b]. It listed
additional underreported areas of potential Iranian noncompliance,
including ways Iran might be resisting verification and monitoring
commitments.
This morning IAEA Director General Yukiya
Amano - who was giving a briefing in Vienna - got the question about
the report gaps. He described the criticism as a "clear
misunderstanding." He then declared that the nuclear deal significantly
reduced what the IAEA is supposed to report publicly about Iran:
Question [16:07]:
... After this first report for the JCPOA is released, many
international nuclear verification experts has made analysis and comment
saying that the IAEA, compared to the past report, is not giving enough
details for the international community to follow the process and
review, and I think it'ss not only the JCPOA that the IAEA is
responsible, because much of the money comes from the IAEA and will be
funded in the future for the regulatory budget as well, so for that sake
as well: how do your respond to that criticism that the IAEA this time
did not provide enough information?
...
Amano [17:42]:
Regarding the reporting. There is a clear misunderstanding. The
misunderstanding is that the basis of reporting is different. In the
previous reports the bases were the previous UN Security Council
Resolutions and Board of Governors. But now they are terminated. They
are gone. The bases of our report is the resolution of the United
Nations Security Council 2231 and the Board of Governors resolution
adopted on the 15th of December.
These two resolutions and the other resolutions of the Security Council
and Board are very different. And as the basis is different, the
consequences are different. What we are doing with that? We are
requested by the Resolution 2231 and the Board of Governors resolution
on the 15th of December
to monitor and verify the nuclear related commitments under JCPOA and
report to the Board of Governors and in parallel the Security Council.
So I will continue to report based on these resolutions factually and
objectively and including the details which the agency considers
necessary. (http://iaea-archiv.streaming.at/download/20160307_720p.mp4)
When nuclear negotiations began in late
2013, the administration asked Congress to stand down on pressuring the
Iranians, and promised to force the Iranians to dismantle significant
parts of their nuclear program if Congress gave negotiators space. U.S.
negotiators eventually caved on any demands that would have required the
destruction of Iran's uranium infrastructure, and instead went all-in
on verification and transparency: yes the Iranians would get to keep
what they'd built, and yes their program would eventually be fully
legal, but the international community would have full transparency into
everything from uranium mining to centrifuge production to enriched
stockpiles.
Now Amano has revealed that the nuclear
deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight
into Iran's nuclear activities. In critical areas it's even not clear
that the IAEA has been granted the promised access.
Report: Obama promises Europeans no changes to visa waiver program without their approval
Just a few days ago, the US House of Representatives passed HR 158, which would remove from the US's visa waiver program non-US citizens who visit or hold dual citizenship with countries known for terrorism or connections to ISIS (Syria, Iran, Iraq and Sudan were named). Now, Iran's FARS News is reporting that it won't happen without European approval (Hat Tip: Steve B).
"The Commission is currently examining the
measures announced by the Obama Administration as well as proposals
presented in the Congress to enhance the Visa Waiver Program," the
source told FNA.
Noting that the meetings are taking place at all
appropriate levels in Brussels and Washington DC on the issue, the
source said, "The Commission will continue these discussions with the US
authorities in the days to come and will also contact the EU Member
States."
"We are confident that the US, as a strategic
partner, will decide in consultation with the EU on the way forward,"
the source underlined.
As it currently stands, the Visa Waiver Program
(VWP) allows citizens of 38 countries — namely European states,
Australia, Japan and South Korea — to travel to the United States
without having to obtain a visa. However, the US House of
Representatives passed a bill (H. R. 158) on Dec. 8 that aims to exclude
from this program all dual nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan,
and anyone else who has traveled to those countries in the past five
years.
...
The EU has a history of opposing such measures, which it perceives as
the "politicization of trade," within the framework of the WTO. Indeed,
in 1997, EU countries threatened formal counteraction in this forum over
the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which later resulted in a decision
by the Clinton administration to waive ILSA sanctions on the first
project determined to be in violation.
The European Union expects that the Obama administration will surrender control of the United States' borders to its whims - and it is highly likely that Obama will try to do that.
Irony alert: House passes bill forcing Europeans who visit Iran, Iraq and Syria to get a visa
It's probably the biggest hole in US security and, ironically enough, during the same week that Donald Trump proposed to bar non-US citizen Muslims from entering the United States until the government figures out how to screen them, the House has taken action to close the hole.
There are 38 countries with which the United States has a visa waiver program that allows those countries' citizens to enter the United States without obtaining a visa. Those countries are overwhelmingly European. The US House this week overwhelmingly (407-19 with only Democrats voting against) passed HR 158, a bill that would require Europeans who have visited Iraq and Syria (ISIS hotspots) to obtain a visa before entering the United States. At the last minute, Iran and Sudan (terror sponsoring states) were added to the list of countries that will cause non-Americans to need a visa to enter the US. The Iran lobby in the US is furious.
"Once again they punish Iranians for crimes committed by terrorists
virtually every one of us despise, oppose and are fighting," Ali Abdi, a
prominent Iranian-American human rights activist told BBC Persian.
"In fact we shouldn't punish anyone based on their place of origin."
Narges
Bajoghli, a filmmaker in New York, took to Facebook to encourage her
friends to contact their representative in Congress in opposition to
what she called "singling out a group of people based on their ethnic
background".
Twitter accounts and other Facebook pages dedicated
to organising to protest against the bill have also been created,
including @StopHR158, which references the official number of the bill.
The National Iranian American Council in Washington is lobbying to stop this bill from passing in the United States Senate. "These provisions impacting Iranian Americans were
added in backroom negotiations at the last minute without hearings or
accountability," the group said in a statement.
And the ACLU, one
of the leading civil rights organisations in the country, cautioned
Congress "to avoid passing legislation that would broadly scapegoat
groups based on nationality, and would fan the flames of discriminatory
exclusion, both here and abroad".
On social media many Iranian
Americans expressed shock that such limitations would be imposed on
people who travel to Iran but not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Is this any different from Donald Trump's proposal earlier this week? Not by much.
Others called it a continuation of presidential candidate Donald Trump's
anti-Muslim rhetoric. 'It's so "Trumpesque"' tweeted Shayan, a German
of Iranian background who said he was worried that his trip to US may be
affected.
The Europeans are also said to be 'alarmed.' Apparently Congress was even more 'alarmed' after the Paris massacre was carried out mostly by European citizens who were born in, or children of people who were born in, Muslim countries.
But the truth is that this is probably the largest hole in US security north of the Mexican border. It allows citizens of other countries to enter without screening. That will change if the Senate passes the bill and both houses override what has to be an almost inevitable Obama veto.
Meanwhile, here in Israel, we don't need to worry about visa waivers. We aren't part of the visa waiver program, because our government has denied entry to trouble making Americans for years. And God willing it will stay that way.
Unlike the 'democratic' United States, Iran allowed its parliament to debate and pass the
Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA. The Iranian Majlis took up the JCPOA as a treaty (something that the Obama-Kerry junta would not allow Congress to do), and passed instead a 1000-page bill, which differs markedly from the JCPOA, but which has not yet been fully translated into English.
The Iranian version shows that Iran has not agreed to the same deal to which the United States Senate thought it was agreeing (the House voted the JCPOA down, but a vote in the Senate was blocked by the Democrats). The Iranian version is so different that it is difficult not to notice.
The Iranian parliamentary bill that “approved” the JCPOA reportedly
is 1,000 pages long and has not yet been fully translated into English.
According to Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born veteran Western journalist,
the bill contains these provisions:
The elimination of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Forbids the inspection of any military site and the interviewing of any
officers.
Calls for strengthening Iran’s defenses, especially by developing its
missile arsenal.
Says the redesign of the Arak heavy-water reactor and its conversion to
run on enriched uranium “are conditional to separate deals.” This refers
to a JCPOA provision to alter the design and fueling of the Arak
reactor so it produces less plutonium. This provision is significant
because it implies either that other agreements need to be negotiated to
carry out this part of the JCPOA or that undisclosed side deals
concerning the Arak reactor exist.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) assessed in an October
13, 2015 report that the Iranian parliament ratified “a nonexistent
document,” not the JCPOA, because it called for sanctions against Iran
to be cancelled and not to be reimposed. By contrast, the nuclear deal
calls for sanctions to be suspended and to snap back in the event of
Iranian noncompliance.
MEMRI also reported text in the Iranian parliament bill calling on
the government to handle the rapid expansion of the country’s centrifuge
program so that within two years, Iran’s enriched-uranium output will
reach 190,000 SWUs (separate work units). This would equal about 25 to
28 times the output of the 9,000 centrifuges Iran currently is operating
and contradicts Tehran’s JCPOA commitment to only operate 5,060
centrifuges for 10 years.
According to press reports, Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a letter on
October 21 “endorsing” the JCPOA that actually appears to endorse the
Iranian parliament’s bill. In the letter, Khamenei demanded that the
U.S. and the EU agree in writing that sanctions “are completely
canceled” when Iran meets its obligations under the agreement. Khamenei
also complained about “ambiguities” in the JCPOA and said any new
sanctions against Iran would be a violation of the agreement.
...
So with Obama officials claiming this week that the JCPOA’s
Adoption Day indicated progress and the willingness of all parties to
implement the agreement, the truth is that Iran is already violating it
and has an entirely different view of the deal from what Obama’s
officials have claimed. I am sure Obama’s officials are aware of this,
but they are so desperate for the JCPOA to succeed that they are
ignoring these violations and finding ways to explain them away,
including by contradicting earlier claims that missile sanctions and the
PMD issue were part of the nuclear deal.
The amended version of the JCPOA passed by the Iranian parliament
is a crucial part of this puzzle. At least one organization in
Washington is working to translate this document. Congress must demand
the U.S. Intelligence Community translate it ASAP and post online so
Congress can consider further action on the nuclear deal.
Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said in March 2010 that “we
have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in
it. . . . ” This comment is ironic given how Congress is now learning
what was really agreed to in the JCPOA after it survived a congressional
review last month as well as a January 2014 comment by National
Security staffer Ben Rhodes that the Obama administration viewed the
Iran deal as its second term Obamacare.
The deceptions used to pass Obamacare did severe damage to America’s
health-care system and caused costs to skyrocket. The deceptions used to
sell the nuclear deal with Iran may do far more damage to American
interests by providing cover that Iran likely will use to try to become a
regional hegemon while continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Read the whole thing. Unfortunately, much of the sanctions regime has already fallen apart.
Given the very lax standards to which Iran is apparently not being held, it is not surprising that the Mullahcracy is highly confident that sanctions against it will be officially lifted by the December 15 deadline for doing so. Iran has already started to spend its windfall on its favorite terrorist organizations: Hezbullah and Hamas (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Since the deal was signed, Iran has
significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest
terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas
and Hezbollah. In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling
sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along
with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of
billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a
result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow
to these terror organizations.
This support, for example, has enabled
Hezbollah to obtain highly developed new armaments, including advanced
technologies that many militaries around the world would envy. Al-Rai, a
Kuwaiti newspaper, reported Saturday that Hezbollah has received all
the advanced weaponry that Syria has obtained from the Russians. The
report cited a security source involved in the fighting in Zabadani, on
the Syria-Lebanon border, where Hezbollah is fighting the al-Nusra
Front, the Islamic State, and other groups. It is evidently the growing
Iranian financial support that is enabling the Lebanese Shiite militia
to purchase advanced weapons, including ones that were hitherto outside
of its reach.
The increased Iranian financial support for
Hezbollah in the wake of the deal is not unrelated to other political
developments in the region. The growing sense of security in Iran with
regard to its political status has also been bolstered by a Russian
decision to increase its involvement in Syria, and may be what drove
Iran to send hundreds of members of its Revolutionary Guard Corps to
play an active role in the Syria fighting. Iran, along with Hezbollah
and Moscow, has decided to dispatch sizable forces to the Syrian front
in the past few weeks to prevent the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime.
...
Today, Iran is the main, and likely only,
power attempting to build terror cells to fight Israel on the Syrian
Golan Heights, in areas under Assad’s control. This does not mean that
the Syrian president is aware of these attempts or green-lighted them.
But for Israel, that does not matter. Tehran is investing more effort
and money after the nuclear deal to carry out attacks against Israel
from the Golan, even under Assad’s nose.
As regards the Palestinians, in the past two
months, Iran has sent suitcases of cash – literally – to Hamas’s
military wing in Gaza. Not everyone is happy about this, including some
Hamas officials. Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who was always the man who
controlled the money, has found himself outside the circle of Iranian
funding over the summer. Tehran, which was none too pleased by his visit
to Saudi Arabia and meeting with King Salman, decided to take revenge
on him in an original way. It bypassed Mashaal and has handed over the
suitcases, by way of couriers, directly to the leaders of the group’s
military wing in the Gaza Strip.
As you might recall, Meshaal is not in Gaza - he's in Qatar.
So Israel is facing new and improved terror organizations on both its northern and southern fronts, thanks to the 'most pro-Israel administration evah.' #ThanksObama. And thanks to the Senate Democrats who prevented even a resolution of disapproval from coming to a vote. May you all rot in hell.
Michael Goodwin summarizes President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran - which appropriately took place on September 10 - describing it as worse than Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler, and worrying about the price that America will pay for a deal that is only supported by 21% of Americans (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
On the eve of the 14th anniversary of the worst attack ever against
our nation, President Obama celebrated a nuclear pact with Iran, an
Islamic theocracy whose leader calls the United States “Satan” and joins
crowds in chanting “Death to America.”
A mere 21 percent of the American public supports the deal and a
bipartisan majority of the Senate opposes it. Yet the filibuster rule
blocked the Senate from defeating it, allowing Obama to hail the
“historic step forward.”
His “victory” is a disconnect that will live in infamy.
The deal is essentially a nonaggression pact with Iran, a form of
appeasement that renders unfair any further comparisons to Neville
Chamberlain. At least Hitler promised peace at the 1938 Munich
conference after the British leader engineered a German annexation of
parts of Czechoslovakia.
Iran’s supreme leader doesn’t bother to pretend he wants peace. On
the contrary, he vows that the nuclear agreement will have zero impact
on the policies of the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Ayatollah Khamenei, who repeatedly declares that Israel will be
“eliminated,” wrote just before the Senate vote that, “God willing,
there will be no Zionist regime in 25 years.”
And he made it clear that Iran, which has militias and terror proxies
in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah,
would not be changing its stripes, writing: “During this period, the
spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep you worried every
moment.”
Think of that: We are lifting punitive sanctions not in the aftermath
of victory or as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. We, along
with other so-called great powers, are unilaterally declaring peace
while our adversary repeats its declaration of war against us and
Israel.
Even Iranian “moderates” openly tell their allies that the $100
billion they will get from the deal will help them carry out Khamenei’s
terrorist agenda.
They say these things without fear the truth will scare off Obama or turn Democrats against him.
What most Americans still don't get is that this isn't stupidity. Obama is doing this on purpose out of hatred for the United States and Israel. Someday, historians will marvel at how blind party loyalty to a lame duck President overcame common sense, popular will and the self-preservation instinct.
Think about that over the Rosh HaShana holiday.
I have been having computer problems (it's going to the shop Wednesday morning), and that's why posting has been so light since I returned from the US on Thursday. In case I don't manage to post again before the holiday, I want to wish you all a Shana Tova and a Kthiva va'Chathima Tova, a Happy, Healthy, Sweet, Prosperous and Peaceful New Year.
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.
Cheney: 'I know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of another nation'
Former Vice President Dick Cheney will have some very blunt things to say about the sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday. And they are not about Israel.
The nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and six world powers
earlier this year is "madness" and an "intricately crafted capitulation"
on the part of President Barack Obama's administration, former Vice
President Dick Cheney will say Tuesday during a speech to the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington.
The deal "will give Iran the means to launch a nuclear attack on the
U.S. homeland. I know of no nation in history that has agreed to
guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of
another nation, particularly one that is hostile," Cheney will tell
attendees at the center-right think tank's event, according to excerpts
provided to POLITICO Playbook.
"What President Obama is asking the United States Congress to do is
unique—historically and dangerously unique. The results may be
catastrophic," Cheney will say. "It is not, as President Obama claims,
the only alternative to war. It is madness."
"Charles Krauthammer has written that it took Nazi Germany 7 years to
kill 6 million Jews. It would take a nuclear-armed Iran one day,"
Cheney will say of the possible consequences.
The deal will allow Iran " to modernize and expand its military
capabilities while the United States military suffers from devastating
Obama-era defense cuts and the effects of sequestration," Cheney will
say. As such, he will add, the United States "will be in a far worse
position" to defend its interests and prevent a nuclear Iran when the
deal expires, contrary to statements from Obama and Secretary of State
John Kerry.
Making reference to New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the
second-highest ranking Democrat to come out against the deal, Cheney
will say that his Democratic colleagues would do well to take notice.
"When a former ranking Democrat on Senate Foreign Relations says that
he fears that Iran will gain such a weapon and that he doesn't want his
name on it, his colleagues should pay very close attention. That man is
dealing in reality," Cheney will say.
Too little, too late? How many opponents are not being reported on by the uber-Leftist media?
Barbara Mikulski completes the betrayal of America (and Israel)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md), who will never have to face the consequences of her vote, announced on Wednesday that she will vote for the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran. Her vote gives President Hussein Obama 34 votes - enough to sustain a veto if the sellout ever comes to a vote at all. This is from the first link.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
announced Wednesday she’s supporting the international agreement with
Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. In doing so, the Maryland
Democrat gives the Obama administration a veto override-proof list of 34
Senate supporters, all from the Democratic caucus.
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian
regime,” Mikulski wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have concluded that
this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to
block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote
in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our
commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”
The announcement from the Appropriations ranking member came as the
top Democrat on Foreign Relations, her colleague on “Team Maryland” Benjamin L. Cardin continued to weigh his options. Cardin met Tuesday with college students at Johns Hopkins University.
Regardless what Cardin decides, it is a big victory for the Obama
administration to get the necessary votes locked up before Labor Day
weekend, and it is made all the more significant because Republicans and
outside groups opposed to the agreement have been beating the drum
against it, including on the airwaves. Opponents led by Trump and Cruz
are set to gather outside the Capitol one week from today to warn of
consequences.
...
Mikulski joined the list of supporters one day after two Democratic
senators who had been seen as having among the most significant concerns
made detailed presentations to explain their support.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wrote a 17-page memo to explain his analysis, and Sen. Chris Coons
of Delaware, who has already developed into a key voice at the Foreign
Relations Committee, gave a speech at the University of Delaware and
spoke to reporters about his decision.
For Senate Democrats, party loyalty takes precedence over all other considerations. When will they pay the price?
Unbelievable: Senate may not even vote on Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran
It's come to this: Thanks to Mr. Congeniality, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn), President Hussein Obama's sellout and endorsement of a nuclear armed Iran may never even come to a vote in the Senate. This is Jonathan Tobin.
With only two Senate Democrats announcing their opposition (Chuck
Schumer and Robert Menendez), there now appears to be a chance that the
White House will be able to orchestrate a filibuster of the bill if at
least three more Democrats join a unanimous Republican caucus. That will
make a mockery of the approval process that Congress has been going
through. If it does, the blame will belong to a president who has not
hesitated to use inflammatory rhetoric and heavy-handed tactics to stop
Congress from interfering with a policy of appeasement of Iran. But
Obama didn’t do it alone. He could never have succeeded had he not had
the unwitting help of Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Without Corker’s foolish belief in working
with the White House and pusillanimous unwillingness to push for an
approval process in line with the Constitution’s provisions about
foreign treaties, the administration might never have been able to get
away with sneaking through the most important foreign policy decision in
a generation.
...
The Tennessee Republican didn’t get much cooperation from the
administration. However, he did listen to a lot of his Democratic
colleagues who were unhappy about confronting Obama but wanted to
preserve some sort of Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.
Thus, hoping to maintain the bipartisan consensus on Iran, Corker
shifted the emphasis in the Senate away from a bill that would toughen
sanctions against Iran that had been proposed by Menendez and Illinois
Republican Mark Kirk. Instead, Corker’s attention was focused on
something else: something that would compel the administration to
present any deal with Iran for a Congressional vote.
Thus was born the Corker-Menendez bill that would be renamed
Corker-Cardin after Menendez was forced out as ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee and replaced by Senator Ben Cardin.
Considering that the administration had openly said that it did feel
compelled to present any agreement with Iran for Congressional approval,
some sort of response was required. But the only thing Corker could get
Corker and other Democrats to sign on to was a bill on an Iran nuclear
deal that would provide for a simple up and down vote in both the House
and the Senate.
What was wrong with that? The Constitution explicitly states that
foreign treaties must be presented to the Senate where they must get a
two-thirds vote to be approved. The impetus for this high bar was the
thought that treaties ought to be a matter of national consensus since
they involve the security of the nation and their impact will be felt
beyond the current Congress or the incumbent president.
Corker’s bill turned that approval process upside down. Instead of 67
votes to pass a deal that would give Iran Western approval for becoming
a nuclear threshold state and a nuclear power once the deal expired in
10 to 15 years, all Obama would now need was 34 votes in the Senate or
one-third plus one vote in the House.
It can be argued that Democrats would never have gone along with a
bill that would have designated the Iran deal as a treaty as it should
have been. The administration knows that there is no legal argument for
not designating the deal as a treaty. As Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the only reason they didn’t present it as a treaty is because it is too hard to pass a treaty.
...
Corker is flummoxed by this prospect, telling the New York Times that he cannot imagine that a Senate will do it.
“Ninety-eight senators voted to give themselves the right
to vote on this,” he said. “Surely they are not going to deny
themselves a final vote on the deal.” …
“To block a vote on the deal would be a fascinating turn of events at a minimum,” Mr. Corker said.
Fascinating isn’t quite the word I’d use for such a turn of events. A
better description of what is happening is that a tough-minded
administration has run rings around an inept Corker. Did he really trust
liberal Democrats who promised that they wanted a vote? If so, he is
clearly not smart enough to be left in the position of influence he has
been given. Far from his accommodating attitude rebuilding the consensus
on Iran that Obama has been busy destroying, Corker’s willingness to
bend over backwards has facilitated Obama’s disastrous policy.
A filibuster will enable the president to say that Congress never
defeated his Iran deal. That’s something that he would have been denied
if he had been forced to veto the bill. Even a complete end run by the
administration around congress where no vote at all would have been held
would have been preferable to a successful Iran deal filibuster. Then
opponents would have been able to point to the extra-legal way the
president was sneaking his treaty with Iran through. A failed effort to
designate the deal as a treaty would also at least have set the record
straight about Obama’s disregard for the Constitution. But now Obama can
say the deal was reviewed and in a sense passed. This will strengthen
his efforts to undermine existing sanctions and make it harder for the
deal to overturn it in the future once he leaves office.
For that he can thank Corker.
By the way, if you're wondering how this pea brain became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... the party was looking for an ideological conservative. Maybe the party ought to be looking for some intelligence before worrying about ideology?
On Tuesday, September 1, a mass rally will be held outside Senator Gillibrand's office at 3rd Avenue and 49th Street in Manhattan to urge Senator Gillibrand to vote against a nuclear Iran.
Those of you in the New York area will be hearing this radio ad a lot over the next couple of weeks.
Let's go to the videotape.
I wonder whether a million New Yorkers could convince her to vote against Obama.
Timing of Schumer announcement shocked White House, Senate colleagues now not sure an Obama veto would be sustained
In case you missed it earlier this week, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has serious doubts that the Senate has the votes to override an inevitable veto of a resolution disapproving President Hussein Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran. McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and as such should be the guy leading the fight to override that veto. Forgive me for saying this but if the Senate fails to override the veto, McConnell should be removed as Senate Majority Leader.
It seems that the Senate Democrats and the White House are in a panic over Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announcing his opposition to the sellout. It's not that they didn't expect it - they did. It's the timing that got to them. And the announcement that Schumer will vote to override the Presidential veto. And the hints that Schumer will - despite his calling it a vote of conscience - work to convince his Senate colleagues to vote against Obama.
But the White House and some of Schumer’s Democratic colleagues strongly
urged him not to announce his opposition until late August or early
September. Republican leaders have set a vote in mid-September on a
resolution to disapprove of the deal. Should that resolution pass, Obama
has vowed to veto it. In a move that also surprised his colleagues,
Schumer said that he would vote to override Obama’s veto as well. As
another Senate staff member told me, “It is protocol, if you’re a member
of the leadership who is going to oppose your President on a major
issue like this, that you not do so in a way that is going to undercut
the President and give the President’s opponents fodder to use against
him.” Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, responded in an e-mail,
“Senator Schumer was pressed both on the right and the left on the
timing of his decision, but said from the very beginning that after
careful deliberation, when he made up his mind, he would announce his
decision publicly and explain the reasoning. He finished deliberating on
that Wednesday afternoon, wrote his statement that evening, and
published it soon after.”
...
After Gillibrand’s announcement, pro-deal forces were ebullient. The tide was strong. Some enjoyed imagining a panic at AIPAC.
According to several Senate aides, they believed they were close to
having enough votes to block Republicans on the resolution of
disapproval itself, so that it would never reach the President and he
wouldn’t have to exercise his veto. But hours later Schumer posted his
decision online, in the form of a sixteen-hundred-word essay. “What
Schumer has done now, unfortunately, is that he has made what was within
realistic reach super-difficult,” the first Senate aide said. “By
coming out so early, before recess, it’s been really detrimental to the
cause of the President and other Senate Democrats who want to be in
favor of this deal, because now he’s given a lot of time for senators on
the fence to be hit with political attacks like, ‘Why aren’t you where
Schumer is? He’s leading; why are you so weak?’ ” The aide continued,
“If he wanted to be helpful, as future leader of the caucus, he could
have waited. He personally would have had to withstand pressure back
home, in exchange for helping out his colleagues. Instead, he said, I’m
going to take the pressure off myself and put the pressure on my
colleagues.”
On Saturday, that dynamic played out in a full-page ad in the Times—the
first, but surely not the last. Featuring side-by-side images of
Schumer and Senator Cory Booker, the ad demanded, “Senator Cory Booker:
Will you join Senator Schumer and reject the catastrophic Iran deal?” It
implored Booker to do so “before Iranian nukes kill millions of
Americans.” Among those who funded the ad was the World Values Network,
whose executive director, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, is a longtime close
friend of Booker but, evidently, not loath to exert intense public
pressure. Booker is viewed as undecided.
As of
today, twenty Democratic senators have come out in favor of the deal; a
total of thirty-four are needed to sustain the President’s veto. “It’s
still very much an open question whether we can sustain a veto,” a third
Senate aide said. “It will depend on how hard the deal is whipped
against within the caucus.” Schumer, by nature an aggressive whip, known
for his “full Chuck Schumer” style, is working against Durbin, who
chose not to try to contest Reid’s endorsement of Schumer for leader.
Schumer’s statements on the subject of his whipping, or not, have been
ambiguous. A relentless phone canvasser, he has acknowledged he is
making calls to members. “I will certainly share my view and try to
persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one,” he said, in
what might constitute a definition of whipping, but he added that, in
the Senate, members make up their own minds—“especially in matters of
conscience and great consequence, like this.”
And in case you missed it, no great surprise here but on Tuesday Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the co-sponsor of all the sanctions legislation, came out against the sellout.
Undecided Democrats in the House and Senate will determine the
outcome on the Iran deal. To the chagrin of the White House, they are
nowhere near lining up enough votes to sustain a presidential veto. Sen.
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) will deliver a speech on Tuesday, one that
critics of the deal expect will announce his disapproval and lay out the
arguments against the deal.
What is going to sway fence-sitting Democratic lawmakers?
The
intellectual argument in favor of the deal on the merits has in essence
collapsed. A Swiss cheese inspection regime, a snapback mechanism that
ends Iran’s obligations under the deal, the lifting of the arms and
missile embargoes and leaving Iran with Fordow and the rest of its
nuclear infrastructure are not what the administration was promising as a
“good” deal. The overall structure of the deal — Iran gets sanctions
lifted upfront, inspections are weak and the remedies for violation are
exceptional — makes sense only if you believe Iran has “changed” (not
even President Obama says that), will not use every opportunity to cheat
and will not use sanctions money to aid its quest for regional
hegemony.
So why aren’t Democrats lining up to vote no? As a
preliminary matter, let me say that many may have already decided to
vote no, but seeing the assault on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), they are
going to wait until the end to cast their vote, figuring there is
safety in numbers from White House wrath.
The “this deal or war”
argument is the administration’s last straw, but that makes little
sense. To begin with, this administration is not about to go to war. It
sees Iran as a new regional power, remember. Moreover, the idea that
Iran would dash to make a bomb if Congress votes no (thereby compelling
U.S. or Israeli action) makes no sense, Robert Satloff explains:
While
it’s impossible to predict with certainty how Iranian leaders would
react to congressional disapproval of the agreement, I’d argue chances
are high that they would follow through on their commitments anyway,
because the deal is simply that good for Iran. After Iran fulfills its
early obligations, all United Nations and European Union nuclear-related
sanctions come to an end. They aren’t just suspended like U.S.
sanctions — they are terminated, presenting Iran with the potential for
huge financial and political gain.
The “deal or war” thesis
propounded by supporters of the agreement suggests that Iran, in the
event of U.S. rejection of the deal, would prefer to bypass that
financial and political windfall and instead put its nuclear program
into high gear, risking an Israeli and American military response.
Well, at least an Israeli response, since the risk Obama will act is minimal.
That all sounds as good as can be expected, but truthfully I feel like I need a scorecard to know what's going on - who's committed to what and who is not committed at all - and I'd like to see some proof that the Democrats who are sitting on the sidelines really are going to vote with us when push comes to shove.
Chicago style: The Left's really ugly attack on Chuck Schumer
President Hussein Obama and his minions continue to play Chicago-style take no prisoners against opponents - especially Democratic opponents - to his sellout to a nuclear Iran.
Obama set up the disloyalty argument, and it’s no surprise that it’s
being used against Democrats who don’t support the deal, particularly
Jewish Democrats like Schumer.
The dual loyalty charge is almost exclusively made against Jewish
supporters of Israel. You rarely hear it used against American
Christians who support Israel.
As The Tablet magazine
reports, given the various dog whistles put out by the Obama
administration, it’s no wonder these type of accusations are
resurfacing.
Schumer long has been a target of that charge by the anti-Israel boycott movement and anti-Zionist progressive websites.
Now it is on overdrive.
My friend Professor Jacobson has many more examples here.
'Post-partisan President'? You've got to be kidding.
When Chuck Schumer came out against the Iran sellout on Thursday night, I considered the possibility that he had coordinated with New York's Junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and with the Obama White House, so that Gillibrand would come out in favor so that the White House would have one New York vote, and Schumer could protect his Senate seat by coming out against. I should have known better.
The Obama White House - and the entire Left wing of the Democratic party (the so-called 'progressives') have gone to war against Chuck Schumer. The tweets embedded above are the least of it. For example, the Left-leaning Jewish Tablet Magazine has all but called out the Obama administration for being anti-Semitic(more at Memeorandum).
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out
about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and
retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a
political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator
Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple.
Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal
are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests
of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and
prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights
Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening
new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too
much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and
its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and
“lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a
direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.
It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white
power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten
so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the
administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
Schumer's announcement has also brought Stephen Walt's anti-Semitism out of the woodwork.
Schumer has also said that he will vote to override an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal. That means that Schumer's fallout with the 'progressives' may be permanent.
Credo Action is not alone. Dylan Williams, the political director of J Street, a Jewish group campaigning for the Iran deal, tweeted last night, "Seeing lots of Democratic heavy-hitters noting that, unlike the #IranDeal, there are alternatives to Chuck Schumer."
Steve
Rabinowitz, a Democratic communications consultant who works with
Jewish organizations, told me Friday that Schumer was in a "lose-lose
situation." At the same time, Rabinowitz speculated that Schumer could
turn it into a win-win and retain progressive support to be Democratic
leader in the Senate if he voted against the deal initially but didn't
press his colleagues to do so, and then voted against overriding an
Obama veto of the resolution of disapproval.
"Now we just have to
see if he really whips his colleagues, I hope not, and if there is a
veto override vote, what he does," Rabinowitz told me. "If he doesn't
whip his colleagues, and he votes with the president after a veto, then
he will have a way to have it almost both ways. I am disappointed, but I
get it. I get all these members and Jews going the other way, it bums
me out, but I get it."
Based on what his staff told me Friday,
however, that's not the plan: Schumer will stand against the deal no
matter what. The question now for New York's senior senator is whether
progressive Democrats who support the Iran nuclear agreement will go the
other way on Schumer's candidacy to lead his party in the Senate after
Harry Reid retires.
Schumer may have blown his chance to be party leader in the Senate (even that is doubtful, because the vote will be one of his Senate colleagues and I haven't heard any of them attacking him). But his apparently principled stand will likely mean he will keep his Senate seat.
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
