We the People – A force to turn the Democrats out and turn the Republicans inside out! Showing up for the hard work and to restore America —to the glory God!
Under the language of the Bush originated Homeland Security Law, Obama has been able to militarize portions of 73 Federal agencies. We noticed this trend as far back as 2012 and wrote about it in 2013 noticing the millions of military weaponry and billions of rounds of antipersonnel ammunition. Two years later there is more ammunition and far more effective control. Here in its entirety, with links, is a current post by Michael Greibrok at FreedomWorks Blog:
Currently there are 73 federal agencies that have full-time armed officers with arresting authority. According to a 2008 report by the Department of Justice, there were 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers working for federal agencies and 24 different federal agencies employed at least 250 full-time officers. Federal agencies with at least 250 full-time officers included the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Mint, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Veterans Health Administration.
While speaking before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison said, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” Despite this strong warning from our founders more than 200 years ago, today’s federal government has quietly accrued significant policing powers in a wide array of agencies.
These federal enforcement officers are authorized to carry weapons and make arrests from Section 812 of the 2002 Homeland Security Act. This law authorizes the Offices of the Inspector General within each federal agency, which traditionally look for fraud and waste within the agency, to have officers that carry firearms, seek and execute warrants for arrests and makes arrests without a warrant while engaged in official duties. This section is rarely discussed because the actual language seems somewhat inconsequential. But in practice this law has changed how law enforcement is carried out at the federal level.
While there are federal agencies that should carry weapons and have arresting authority, such as the FBI, Secret Service, DEA and US Marshals, these agencies had this authority before the 2002 Homeland Security Act. They would keep this authority even if the agencies not traditionally involved in law enforcement activities lost their arresting powers. Unfortunately, the expansion of federal enforcement authority has been accompanied by an increase in the abuse of that power. There have been many examples of abuses by different agencies that have not traditionally had law enforcement officers and have been in a rush to use their new authority:
The Department of Education raided the home of Kenneth Wrightlooking for his estranged wife who was accused of misusing federal aid for students. Officers from the Department dragged Mr. Wright out of his house in his boxers at 6 a.m., threw him to the ground and handcuffed him. While this occurred his children — ages 3, 9 and 11 — were left in a patrol car for two hours. His estranged wife no longer lived at the house and was not there at the time of the raid.
Officers in full SWAT gear from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servicestormed the home of Kathy and George Norris. The agents instigated the raid for George’s failure to file the proper paperwork for orchids he imported. Kathy and George were grandparents in their 60s when the raid took place.
The EPA led a joint raidalong with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the guys that predict the weather) and the U.S. Park Service on a mining operation for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.
The Bureau of Land Managementhad a long standoff with Cliven Bundy, a rancher, over his use of federal land to graze his cattle.
The potential for abuse increases as more federal agencies establish armed law enforcement officers. In addition to those already mentioned, agencies with police power include: the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration (which three years ago asked to purchase 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point bullets), Federal Reserve Board, Department of Energy, Office of Personnel Management and the Railroad Retirement Board, among others.
This is not to say that these agencies do not encounter circumstances where armed officers would be prudent, or even necessary, but under such circumstances they should call federal agencies with experience, such as the FBI, or coordinate with local law enforcement.
Like Madison, the rest of our Constitution’s framers would be extremely uncomfortable with federal executive agencies carrying out police raids. Most were students of history and recalled the horrors that a standing militarized police force brought to Europe and ancient Rome. The framers were especially concerned with the British practice of sending troops to the Colonies, and using them as a police force to harass the Colonists. The Third Amendment was as much a response to the use of the military to police the citizenry as it was a response to the forced housing of soldiers.
Last year, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) sponsored the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, which would have removed arresting authority from agencies not traditionally authorized to carry weapons or make arrests.
In a press release announcing the bill, Rep. Stewart said, “When there are genuinely dangerous situations involving federal law, that’s the job of the Department of Justice, not regulatory agencies like the FDA or the Department of Education. Not only is it overkill, but having these highly-armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government.” The president and a majority in both houses of Congress should be able to support this sentiment.
Under the 2002 Homeland Security Act we have seen a massive expansion of police activities carried out by federal agencies. The agents carrying out these activities generally take the form of militarized SWAT teams. This has left Americans wondering why officials from the Department of Education or EPA are barging into their homes and businesses dressed in full SWAT gear.
Our framers faced these same abuses at the hands of the British military during the lead up to the Revolutionary War. They designed the Constitution to protect us from these abuses. We should support a commonsense law, like the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, because it would do much to protect us from these abuses.
While we necessarily focus on President Obama’s Palestinian gambit and his assault on Israel, we must keep A CLOSE eye on his Iran deal shenanigans. He sent a personal Nowruz video message to the Iranian people and leaders Thursday blaming “hard-liners” in Iran and America as well as other countries (read Israel) for lack of an agreement. He spoke almost poetically to the Iranian people about how wonderful their world would be if, with their support, an agreement could be reached. Take a look:
The sweet talk was completely filled with misleading language. The oft repeated declaration that Ayatollah Khamenei had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons is a perfect example. The fatwa didn’t happen and doesn’t exist. One of our favorites, Andy McCarthy wrote Monday:
But the “fatwa” in question does not exist.
The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of Khamenei’s published fatwas. (See here and here, and citations therein.) No such fatwa has ever been published.
In a sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the country’s top sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the U.S. Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.
The Iranian Regime’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei response was predictable. From Iranian Press TV via William A Jacobson AT Legal Insurrection:
“Obama’s Norouz message included dishonest assertions and his claim of friendship for Iranian people was not sincere,” the Leader said, noting that Obama’s claim that there are people in Iran who do not want nuclear case to be resolved through diplomacy is a lie.
What the Iranian nation is resisting against is bullying approach of the United States, Ayatollah Khamenei noted.
“They [the Americans] say [to Iranian negotiators] ‘you come here and listen to what we say and implement them word for word’. But our nation will resist against it and will never accept this.”
The second point, Ayatollah Khamenei said, negotiations with the United States are just about the nuclear case and does not cover regional issues or issues related to Iran’s domestic issues, including defense matters.
“Iran and the US have opposite views on regional issues. We want security and calm in the region, but the Arrogant powers led by the America pursue the policy of sowing insecurity in the region, which is quite the opposite of our goals.”
The third point, as put by the Leader, was removal of anti-Iran sanctions, which should be discussed as a part of nuclear talks, and should not be considered a result of those talks.
Ayatollah Khamenei added, “The America says ‘we sign the agreement and monitor [Iran’s] behavior and then remove the sanctions’. This is erroneous and unacceptable and Iran will never accept this. This is the Americans’ ploy. Removal of sanctions should be part of any agreement.”
The Ayatollah’s sharp blowback doesn’t matter to Obama. The Nowruz message was a head fake to give him room with you, me, our elected leaders and some in the media.
Obama seems almost certain to miss his end of March deadline for an agreement with Iran. He will extend the deadline and make a deal acceptable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. That Obama and Secretary Kerry lie about this as well as other hot spots doesn’t matter. That Khamenei and his leadership team are not fooled and publicly rebuke Obama/Kerry doesn’t matter. That most Americans, specifically the national media, will believe much of what Obama/Kerry say and not know or care what the Iranian response is is what Obama needs. It is critical he does not get it.
It has been well documented that President Obama does not have an international strategy. This is not true. Anything to do with ISIS, for example, is simply extraneous to his strategy.
In his clear and well thought out strategy to reorder the Middle East, a key and enduring tactic was, and is, to put daylight between the United States and Israel. None of us could understand or comprehend his intent included the destruction of Israel. Obama is not slow; we are!
Hours after taking his oath of office, let me repeat—oath of office, January 20, 2009 Obama made his first phone call to a foreign leader, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. He made sure, in the call, Abbas knew he was first.
In six year, Obama has sent Hamas-Palestinian Authority $3.5 billion which more than triples the previous U.S. aid to the PA.
Three years to the day after taking office, Obama called the terror and terrorist supporting Islamist Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his closest friend in the Middle East. Perhaps we should be thankful it wasn’t Mohamed Morsi or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Hassan Rouhani. But, perhaps not. An Obama/UN declared Palestinian state could be as bad as an unrestrained Iran.
The announcement of an intent to, through United Nations, unilaterally declare a Palestinian state complete with its new borders is almost incomprehensible. We need strong leaders in the United States to get squarely in Obama’s way. One, Senator Marco Rubio, forcefully stepped forward on the Senate Floor Friday.
This is a historic and tragic mistake. This is outrageous, it is irresponsible, it is dangerous and it betrays the commitment to the right of the Jewish state to exist in peace.
Here is Senator Rubio’s timely, powerful and essential speech:
If you are like me, you have been shocked by the Obama Regime’s attitude and actions. Actually, unilaterally imposing a peace deal is not new. Obama threatened it in 2010!
Here is a 30 minute summary of Obama’s anti-Israel attitude, strategy and actions in first 3 years in office framed by Peter Berkowitz, Fellow, Hover Institution. “He [Obama) did more in 3 years to delegitimize Israel than any President in American history.”
“We have reached a point where if your Christianity is anything more than a cultural artifice you would be a moron to employ a homosexual or to let one into your circle of friends.”
Three examples:
Let us start with Obama’s military. What, you thought it is the United States Military? No, no. This military’s primary goal and purpose is diversity; specifically inclusiveness of Muslims and LGBT service persons. The policy excludes Christian expression. Obama’s military now has Equal Opportunity officers on its TO&E.
The lead quote above is from a Red State contributing writer pen-named streiff who filed a report, on the dismissal of decorated Lt. Commander Wes Modder for allowing his Christianity to show, last week.
Lt. Commander Wes Modder, was accused of failing “to show tolerance and respect” in private counseling sessions regarding issues pertaining to faith, marriage and sexuality, specifically homosexuality and pre-marital sex, according to Fox News.
Modder, chaplain at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C., was given a “detachment for cause” letter February 17 after the Navy found him unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment.”
The 19-year military veteran has a record full of praise and commendations.
Modder could lose his retirement benefits if the Navy convenes a board of inquiry and officially separates him before he completes 20 years of service, according to the Military Times.
Before he became a Navy chaplain, he served in the Marines, including tours with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Naval Special Warfare Command, where he was the Force Chaplain of the Navy SEALs.”
On December 6 a new assistant and two Equal Opportunity representatives showed up with a five-page complaint on Modder. The grievances focused on Modder’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.”
The junior officer had been working with Modder for just a month, and Modder said the assistant would repeatedly inundate him with questions about homosexuality, while Modder had no idea that he was homosexual and involved in a homosexual “marriage” to another man.
Modder was immediately removed of his duties and told to clean out his office when the complaint was received, with no opportunity to defend himself.
He called the five-page complaint letter “unconscionable.”
“It was insulting and it was devastating,” Modder told the news station. “I felt discriminated against. How could something like this happen at this stage of my career?”
(Modder attorney) Berry suspects the assistant gained access to private counseling files during his time as Modder’s assistant.
“To be clear,” Berry said, “Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin.”
Intimidation in Houston
“Last May, Houston Mayor Annise Parker and two homosexual city council members rammed through a non-discrimination ordinance that gives special rights and protections to homosexuals and lesbians. …
As a result of the mayor’s aggressive homosexual agenda, citizens collected more than 50,000 signatures on a petition to put the issue before Houston voters. Under Parker’s leadership, the city council rejected the petition on a technicality.”
But last fall, Mayor Parker and her city council served “notice of subpoena” on five Houston pastors demanding that sermon notes, emails, videos, and any negative comments about homosexuality or the mayor herself be turned over; threatening possible fines and jail time.
Public outrage in Houston led the mayor to recant and withdraw the subpoena. The special rights ordinance for LGBT (presumably the entire Facebook gender scale of 56) continues in force.
There may be no more highly respected fire chief in America than Kevin Cochran
The city of Atlanta fired its fire chief solely because of his religious beliefs about same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court.
The lawsuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of former fire chief Kelvin Cochran, one of the nation’s most decorated firefighters and a devout Christian.
Cochran was suspended for 30 days last November and was subsequently fired over a men’s devotional book he authored that included a section on biblical sexual morality. …
One of the leaders in the campaign to fire Cochran was city Councilman Alex Wan.
“I respect each individual’s rights to have their own thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, but when you’re a city employee and those thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door,” Wan told the Atlanta Journal Constitution last November.
Until last November, Cochran had a stellar record. He was named Atlanta’s fire chief in 2008. He served there until 2009 when he accepted a position in the Obama Administration as a U.S. fire administrator.
He returned to Atlanta in 2010 after Mayor Reed “begged” him to serve as the city’s fire chief. In 2012, Fire Chief magazine named Cochran the “Fire Chief of the Year.”
So what happened?
In the Fall of 2013 Cochran wrote a book, “Who Told You That You were Naked? Overcoming the Stronghold of Condemnation.” The book is not about sexual morality, but it does address the issue on approximately six pages.
Someone from the Fire Department had shown a few of the passages of the book to Councilman Wan, the lawsuit states. The unnamed person told Wan the passages were opposed to his beliefs on the subject.
Even though an investigation concluded that Cochran had not discriminated against anyone – he was fired.
“To actually lose my childhood dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me.”
“I’ve had a chance to interview Chief Cochran and I have found him to be a good and honorable man. What happened to him should not happen to any other American.
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of being fired because of their beliefs and thoughts,” ADF senior counsel David Cortman said. “The city of Atlanta is not above the Constitution and federal law. In America, a religious or ideological test cannot be used to fire a public servant.” The Story.
We shall see about that. There seems to have been a “fundamental transformation: in Obama’s America. Christians, watch your step.
I agree with Joel B. Pollak, “In fact, [Netanyahu’s] victory is the first brick in the foundations of the post-Obama era.” Before I proceed with my comments on that (you will be shocked), let’s see a little sample of the anti-Semitic hate that rages in the Obama Regime and throughout most Western centers of power.
Deep Wounds and Lingering Questions After Israel’s Bitter Race
JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu was poised to return to power. But there was a cloud over his apparent turnaround, the result of an increasingly shrill campaign that raised questions about his ability to heal Israel’s internal wounds or better its standing in the world.
He said there would be no Palestinian state under his watch.
He railed against Israeli Arabs — because they had gone out to vote.
From the capitals of Europe, to Washington, to the West Bank, to the streets of Israel, even while his critics said Mr. Netanyahu had reaffirmed his reputation as a cynical, calculating politician, it appeared that his approach succeeded in drawing votes from other right-leaning parties.
But along the way he angered the president of the United States with a speech to Congress and infuriated European leaders eager to see the peace process move ahead to create a Palestinian state.
David Axelrod, President Obama’s former senior adviser, said Tuesday evening on Twitter that Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute stand against a Palestinian state might have helped ensure him another victory. “Tightness of exits in Israel suggests Bibi’s shameful 11th-hour demagoguery may have swayed enough votes to save him. But at what cost?” he wrote.
I have never seen such a mindboggling misleading of readers in such few words in my life. Let us be clear, this was not the NYT editorial board (that is coming), we are supposed to accept this as news.
I think I read this above, “Netanyahu mounted an increasingly shrill campaign that raised questions about his ability to better Israel’s standing in the world.” No. Israel’s standing in the world is fueled by three things, jealousy, anti-Semitism and Islamic hatred. I have no idea why Ms Kershner could be jealous but she is obviously a sympathizer of Islamic hate and domination. Obviously right along with President Obama, she is a rabid (Jewish?) anti-Semite.
How could Netanyahu (or anyone) anger President Obama with a speech to Congress? Oh, I know. It had to start some other way than a speech. Golly I remember now, Obama entered office with a hate for Israel and Netanyahu personifies Israel’s best. Then, Israel is in the way as much as Congress, for a President who intends to capitulate to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood so as to establish a new order in the Middle East. Sure enough, although it is not anger, Obama is filled with rage and it didn’t take a speech.
“…European leaders eager to see the peace process move ahead to create a Palestinian state.” Give us all a break. There is no peace process. There is no Palestine interest in a solution other than the elimination of Israel which would please the anti-Semite in the White House and, apparently Ms Kershner.
At what cost, David? Axelrod is not a loose cannon. Obama took a shot very low over Netanyahu’s and Israel’s bow. You and I must continue pressure on the Congress to, in the name of the United States of America, stand with Israel.
Israel’s election has done a lot to reveal the challenges facing the country and the intentions of the men who seek to lead it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his racist rant against Israeli Arab voters on Tuesday showed that he has forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis.
The continuous automatic use of the term “racist” by the left should called what it is—Evil. Prime Minister did not rant. American Liberals, like the Times Editorial Board, do that. Israeli Arabs are the freest Arabs anywhere in the Middle East. That they can vote at all in Israeli elections should earn Israel an international award for courage and trust. The Times Editorial Board and every other Liberal American talker and writer should know that Arabs in Israel belong to political parties clearly self-identified as Arab. Netanyahu was referring to Arab in that context.
There was balanced analysis of this historic election. Here are three that will give you insight as well as clarity. I urge you to read all three.
The Jerusalem Post: If Israelis Voted Their Fears, These Were Not Entirely Irrational Fears, They Were Based on the History of the Region.
For one day I hoped the Israeli election would diminish the ability of Obama to completely destroy the Middle East. Obama can hate and Obama can rage but he and his Regime also act. They are planning a move to create a Palestinian state without Israel and apparently without the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.
I have used tough language for this Regime before. This requires a new a clearer level. Barak Obama and his Regime are evil. Barak Obama and his Regime are lawless. Barak Obama and his Regime are bent on the destruction of Israel, of Western Civilization and the destruction of America herself. If the Congress will not or cannot act, the only hope may be a popular uprising. I have no idea of how that would start or who would lead it. We have been driven to a place we have not been before. I am only clear on one thing concerning this uncharted territory. This Regime is pure evil therefore those who find a place for themselves “on the wall” will be on the side of the God of the universe.
As I write this (10:30 pm March 17 CDT), Prime Minister Netanyahu has turned what looked like a loss as recently as Monday into a huge win. With nearly all votes counted, Netanyahu’s Likud Party has won 30 seats and apparently formed a coalition with at least 61 seats for a majority. Congratulations to the leading voice for freedom in the world.
The anti-Semite American President, Barak Obama, had secretly led a coalition of mostly Jewish very wealthy Americans with $millions and top Democrat campaign specialists to defeat the Prime Minister.
Despite Obama’s interference, V15, missions spent by the State Department and Obama’s Jews at the New Israel Fund and Alisa Doctoroff, Karen Adler, the Carole Zabar, the Bronfman Foundation, David Hochberg, The Jewish Communal Fund, Edith Everett, Rosenzweig Coopersmith Foundation, Max and Andre Leichtag, Geoffrey Biddle, David Eisner, President and CEO of Repair the World, the Leichtag Foundation, the Kathryn Ames Foundation, and so many others — the good triumphed.
But this American interference in Israel’s election is not settled. Netanyahu has tens of thousands of members of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee ready to work on behalf of a free, secure Israel.
The anti-Israeli Obama must be in a rage. We should be concerned about Obama acts of retribution against Israel. Oh wait. Geller reported Monday that Obama has already acted once refusing to renew the 40 year old emergency oil supply agreement with Israel.
The US has not renewed a historic agreement under which it guaranteed a supply of oil to Israel in emergencies, that is, instances in which Israel might be cut off from its regular commercial sources of oil because of war or closure of sea lanes. The agreement expired in November 2014, and since then the US administration has done nothing to renew it, Washington sources told “Globes”.
For the next 22 months we have the reality of America being for international security, freedom, and a strong prosperous and free Israel while led by a Regime set on building a partnership with the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran. With Bibi Netanyahu in office, we Americans will have an effective world leader who speaks with Churchillian clarity.
Did you miss his address to the Congress? Check it out now:
A repost of my march 17, 2012 post, Get Busy—Celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Or, What Did You Call It? Dedicated to Lassie
St Patrick is the most important Saint in Ireland and the most widely known “Saint” in the world. St Patrick’s Day is not an official holiday in America but is noted across the nation by the wearing of the green, sending greeting cards, attending parties and, for many, public drunkenness. It also has long been featured in American public schools along with Halloween and Valentine’s Day.
But, do these days support and promote diversity? No, they do not. It was only a matter of time until some mush-head “educator” would take bold corrective action. You would expect it to occur in California, but, no, Lisa Curtin, principal of the Soule Road School in Wilbraham, MA is the first known to relieve any potential discomfort pupils might feel who are not of Irish decent. Our heroine Lisa renamed the day the “more inclusive and diverse” “O’Green Day.” (I know, go ahead and laugh.) Lisa is on a roll. Just over a month ago, she replaced Valentine’s Day with the improved inclusive and diverse, “Caring and Kindness Day.” You are sure I’m making this up? No, no. this is true.
It is no secret that Barack Obama does not have much use for the United States Constitution. It is a governing plan for a free, self-determining people. Hence, it is littered with roadblocks against schemes to rule the people against their will. When it comes to our imperious president’s scheme to enable our enemy, Iran, to become a nuclear-weapons power — a scheme that falls somewhere between delusional and despicable, depending on your sense of Obama’s good faith — the salient barrier is that only Congress can make real law.
Most lawmakers think it would be a catastrophe to forge a clear path to the world’s most destructive weapons for the world’s worst regime — a regime that brays “Death to America” as its motto; that has killed thousands of Americans since 1979; that remains the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism; that pledges to wipe our ally Israel off the map; and that just three weeks ago, in the midst of negotiations with Obama, conducted a drill in which its armed forces fired ballistic missiles at a replica U.S. aircraft carrier.
This week, 47 perspicuous Republican senators suspected that the subject of congressional power just might have gotten short shrift in Team Obama’s negotiations with the mullahs. So they penned a letter on the subject to the regime in Tehran. The effort was led by Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who, after Harvard Law School, passed up community organizing for the life of a Bronze Star–awarded combat commander. As one might imagine, Cotton and Obama don’t see this Iran thing quite the same way.
There followed, as night does day, risible howls from top Democrats and their media that these 47 patriots were “traitors” for undermining the president’s empowerment of our enemies. Evidently, writing the letter was not as noble as, say, Ted Kennedy’s canoodling with the Soviets, Nancy Pelosi’s dalliance with Assad, the Democratic party’s Bush-deranged jihad against the war in Iraq, or Senator Barack Obama’s own back-channel outreach to Iran during the 2008 campaign. Gone, like a deleted e-mail, were the good old days when dissent was patriotic.
Yet, as John Yoo observes, the Cotton letter was more akin to mailing Ayatollah Khamenei a copy of the Constitution. The senators explained that our Constitution requires congressional assent for international agreements to be legally binding. Thus, any “executive agreement” on nukes that they manage to strike with the appeaser-in-chief is unenforceable and likely to be revoked when he leaves office in 22 months.
For Obama and other global-governance grandees, this is quaint thinking, elevating outmoded notions like national interest over “sustainable” international “stability” — like the way Hitler stabilized the Sudetenland. These “international community” devotees see the Tea Party as the rogue and the mullahs as rational actors.
So, you see, lasting peace — like they have, for example, in Ukraine — is achieved when the world’s sole superpower exhibits endless restraint and forfeits some sovereignty to the United Nations Security Council, where the enlightened altruists from Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels will figure out what’s best for Senator Cotton’s constituents in Arkansas. This will set a luminous example of refinement that Iran will find irresistible when it grows up ten years from now — the time when Obama, who came to office promising the mullahs would not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, would have Iran stamped with the international community seal of approval as a nuclear-weapons state.
Down here on Planet Earth, though, most Americans think this is a bad idea. That, along with an injection of grit from the Arkansas freshman, emboldened the normally supine Senate GOP caucus to read Tehran in on the constitutional fact that the president is powerless to bind the United States unless the people’s representatives cement the arrangement.
Obama, naturally, reacted with his trusty weapon against opposition, demagoguery: hilariously suggesting that while the Alinskyite-in-chief had our country’s best interests at heart, the American war hero and his 46 allies were in league with Iran’s “hardliners.” (Yes, having found Muslim Brotherhood secularists, al-Qaeda moderates, and Hezbollah moderates, rest assured that Obama is courting only the evolved ayatollahs.) When that went about as you’d expect, the administration shifted to a strategy with which it is equally comfortable, lying.
Obama’s minions claimed that, of course, the president understands that any agreement he makes with Iran would merely be his “political commitment,” not “legally binding” on the nation. It’s just that Obama figures it would be nice to have the Security Council “endorse” the deal in a resolution because, well, that would “encourage its full implementation.” Uh-huh.
Inconveniently, the administration’s negotiating counterpart is the chattiest of academics, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Afflicted by the Western-educated Islamist’s incorrigible need to prove he’s the smartest kid in the class — especially a class full of American politicians — Zarif let the cat out of the bag. The senators, he smarmed, “may not fully understand . . . international law.”
According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.” He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw.
This, mind you, from the lead representative of a terrorist regime that is currently, and brazenly, in violation of Security Council resolutions that prohibit its enrichment of uranium.
Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver. Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.
Well, it makes for good theater . . . because that is what international law is. It is a game more of lawyers than of thrones. In essence, it is politics masquerading as a system governed by rules rather than power, as if hanging a sign that says “law” on that system makes it so.
At most, international law creates understandings between and among states. Those understandings, however, are only relevant as diplomatic debating points. When, in defiance of international law, Obama decides to overthrow the Qaddafi regime, Clinton decides to bomb Kosovo, or the ayatollahs decide to enrich uranium, the debating points end up not counting for much.
Even when international understandings are validly created by treaty (which requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate), they are not “self-executing,” as the legal lexicon puts it — meaning they are not judicially enforceable and carry no domestic weight. Whether bilateral or multilateral, treaties do not supersede existing federal law unless implemented by new congressional statutes. And they are powerless to amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in its 2008 Medellin decision (a case I described here, leading to a ruling Ed Whelan outlined here). The justices held that the president cannot usurp the constitutional authority of other government components under the guise of his power to conduct foreign affairs. Moreover, even a properly ratified treaty can be converted into domestic law only by congressional lawmaking, not by unilateral presidential action.
Obama, therefore, has no power to impose an international agreement by fiat — he has to come to Congress. He can make whatever deal he wants to make with Iran, but the Constitution still gives Congress exclusive authority over foreign commerce. Lawmakers can enact sanctions legislation that does not permit a presidential waiver. Obama would not sign it, but the next president will — especially if the Republicans raise it into a major 2016 campaign issue.
Will the Security Council howl? Sure . . . but so what? It has been said that Senator Cotton should have CC’d the Obama administration on his letter since it, too, seems unfamiliar with the Constitution’s division of authority. A less useless exercise might have been to CC the five other countries involved in the talks (the remaining Security Council members, plus Germany). Even better, as I argued earlier this week, would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution: Any nation that relies on an executive agreement that is not approved by the United States Congress under the procedures outlined in the Constitution does so at its peril because this agreement is likely to lapse as early as January 20, 2017. International law is a game that two can play, and there is no point in allowing Germany, Russia, and China to pretend that they relied in good faith on Obama’s word being America’s word.
It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things. Nevertheless, Republicans and all Americans who want to preserve our constitutional order, must stop telling themselves that we have hit a bottom beneath which Obama will not go. This week, 47 senators seemed ready, finally, to fight back. It’s a start.
McCarthy’s warning a week ago was, “Senate Republicans are justifiably incensed over reports that President Obama does not intend to submit for Senate approval the agreement he is trying to strike with Iran over its nuclear program — notwithstanding that the Constitution’s treaty clause requires Senate approval for the agreement to be binding.”
The Senate letter brought rage from Obama and wild charges from his serfs in the media and Democrat Party. It also brought a belated rejection from the Iranian Mullahs. But the letter, in its simplicity, seems to be doing its job.
Here is the complete text:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK
The White House is sticking with Iran. They had a bigger celebration of the Iranian New Year holiday of Nowruz than Christmas. Here is a taste:
Republicans and the committed left media you try again. —No again!
Republicans and the Tea Party is your third guess. —No once more!
Before you move on to Senator John McCain or another Bush hating Republican, it would be the object and the subject of Edward Klein’s book, Blood Feud. The high stakes battle for control—now and into the future—of the Democrat Party between the Clintons and the Obamas has raged and simmered for at least seven years. What really matters to both camps is going forward to 2016 and beyond.
Remember, a full year before we were all—well at least all white citizens—declared racists in February 2009, Bill Clinton declared, “They played the race card on me.” When Mrs. Clinton was offered and accepted the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Regime, the Clintons already knew the Regime would be keeping her at arm’s length. They knew the Regime would dirty her every chance they got.
Emails had to be an immediate concern. The public now knows the Clinton solution was a private server and email accounts. The Regime had to know almost immediately. Yet it’s been two years since Mrs. Clinton left office. The rest of us knew nothing. The New York Times dropped the first shoe on Secretary Clinton Monday, March 2 with this screaming headline:
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
The article immediately made clear the information came from the United States Department of State.
Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
The next day the Washington Post picked the story up and, while quoting Clinton operatives who mounted an ‘everybody does it’ defense, hit the Clintons particularly hard—almost as if they were Republicans:
It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent.
From there the media has been all over Mrs. Clinton like lice on a dog. Since the Obama Regime knew about and worked with Secretary Clinton’s ‘system’ for four years, surely they could come to her aid. This brings us back to Blood Feud. The Regime never cared if there were National Security leaks. There can be no doubt that the revelation to the New York Times was timed perfectly just weeks in advance of Mrs. Clinton’s expected announcement of her run for the Presidency. Forget legal trouble, which may be unavoidable, this is a political nightmare. An example of the disaster is this Breitbart story,
The lead paragraph rolls right at Mrs. Clinton’s troubles:
Revelations that then-Secretary of State Clinton conducted all of her official business on a personal email account have dominated national headlines recently, and Judicial Watch is once again in the center of the storm. I have no doubt that it was Judicial Watch’s focused Freedom of Information lawsuits, the disclosures from which led to the creation of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which led to the uncovering of a scandal that could have criminal ramifications for Mrs. Clinton.
The same day, Wednesday, indicating ‘You’re on your own’ the Regime declared, “it is ‘not particularly interested’ in Hillary Clinton’s personal email, effectively telling the former secretary of state she is on her own in dealing with the growing scandal.”
Do not be mistaken, this Blood Feud isn’t over. If Mrs. Clinton’s is permanently taken down, Bill Clinton will turn from building Mrs. Clinton up to tearing the America hating Obama down. Republicans would be wise to take careful notes.
Update March 15, 2015: The New York Post revealed today the specific Obama operative that engineered the State Department leak was Valerie Jarrett. This is right in line with the Ed Klein Blood Feud. Klein revealed the feud is between five liars. The fifth is Jarrett who is connected at the hip to Michelle Obama and the third most powerful person in the Regime after the Obama’s.
America has been a racist country for six years. Newly sworn in Attorney General Erik Holder declared it so February 19, 2009. When Ferguson, Mo police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed petty thief and bully (child) Michael Brown in self defense, President Obama was presented with a far greater opportunity than just to further exploit his racial division agenda. This was a perfect opening to gain real momentum in his drive for ObamaLaw (federal takeover of state and local police) before he leaves office.
As we know, a couple hundred demonstrators—perhaps a majority are outsiders—continue on the street regularly in Ferguson. This is also important for the promotion of ObamaLaw. As we also know, an assassin shot and just missed killing two police officers Tuesday night in Fergusson. The Official response from the President seemed to be a tweet Wednesday.
If you are going to lie, why not do it on a TV talk show?
Thursday night on Jimmy Kimmel Live the President pushed the narrative with lie after lie.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with the officers and thankfully, as you said, they’re going to be okay…Selma…I think that what been happening in Ferguson was oppressive and objectionable and was worthy of protest. But there was no excuse for criminal acts and whoever fired those shots shouldn’t detract from the issue—they’re criminals and should be arrested—and then what we need to do is to make sure that like minded, good spirited, people on both sides, law enforcement, who have a terrifically tough job, and people who understandably who don’t want to be stopped and harassed just because of their race, that we’re able to work together to come up with some good answers.
“What was happening in Ferguson was you had city government telling the police department ‘stop more people; we need to raise more money. Folks would get stopped and they’d get tickets; then they’d have to wait in line to pay it—take a day off from work. They’d lose their jobs. In some cases they were thrown in jail because they didn’t have enough money for the fine and then they’d get fined for that.
Examples of Presidential lying:
“I think that what been happening in Ferguson was oppressive and objectionable and was worthy of protest.”
No. Oppression was not happening in Ferguson. Michael Brown was certainly not felling oppressed.
“…[W]hat we need to do is to make sure that like minded, good spirited, people on both sides, law enforcement… and people who understandably who don’t want to be stopped and harassed just because of their race…”
People were not being stopped in Ferguson just because of their race. Period. The Justice Department’s statistical lie has been exposed. The President willfully continues the false narrative.
“What was happening in Ferguson was you had city government telling the police department ‘stop more people; we need to raise more money.”
The Justice Department presented no evidence of that.
“Folks would get stopped and they’d get tickets; then they’d have to wait in line to pay it—take a day off from work. They’d lose their jobs.”
Really? Have you ever gotten a ticket? Me too. You just send the ticket and fine in. I’ve never done it another way. Certainly you could find exceptions in Minneapolis or Ferguson.
“In some cases they were thrown in jail because they didn’t have enough money for the fine and then they’d get fined for that.”
Hogwash! All of those cases of jailing are certain to have more than a ticket involved.
To do all I can each day for as long as I can to help ensure that my grandchildren’s children have the same opportunity and Liberty my generation has enjoyed, to the glory of God.
The Patriot's Trumpet 