The Front Page Cover 
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
 .
Featuring:
How and why to kill the deal
Caroline B. Glick
 
 .
"Rise up together as one voice"
"Be careful where you stand"
~~~lll~~~
.
 Continuing Executive Advance on Immigration 
The nObama administration continues its blitzkrieg on executive immigration reform. Sure, there's that pocket of resistance, that suit brought by 26 states, but that's not stopping nObama. "[T]he 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals guidelines remain in place," nObama said in a White House statement. "There are also other important immigration executive actions that continue to move forward." He goes onto list 11 ways he's continuing to tweak the nation's immigration enforcement, and the statement finishes by repeating the tired mantra that only Congress can fix immigration by passing "bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform." Why doesn't nObama just ask for a unicorn? He really doesn't want reform; that's why he's so thoroughly poisoned the well. His department of Homeland Security proposed a rule that would expand the types of people who could stay in U.S. while waiting for legal status. Such a policy would undermine legal immigration, remove the penalties for illegal immigration and encourage fraud, says the Center for Immigration Studies. nObama's executive actions come at a time when Congress is tackling some immigration reform by considering a bill that would curb sanctuary cities after that policy led to the death of Kathryn Steinle. Despite Congress' unique role in deciding the nation's immigration policies, a group of mayors from some of the nation's biggest cities wrote to Congress supporting sanctuary city policies by making a home-rule argument — a bunch of leftists supporting the status quo, including how immigration is being handled politically. 
-The Patriot Post  
.
.
 nObama Stands by Planned Parenthood 
Most Americans are some combination of outraged and sickened at the revelations that Planned Parenthood is selling babies' body parts after successful abortions. Its doctors are on record talking about how to avoid crushing valuable organs and using a “less crunchy technique” in order to harvest organs while sipping wine and joking about wanting a Lamborghini. A thorough investigation and an end to taxpayer funding of the nation's largest abortion mill is in order. So what does Barack nObama think? His press secretary, Josh Earnest, backed Planned Parenthood. "I haven't spoken to the president about the actual videos. I have read the reports and I'm confident that he has, too, raising significant concerns about the way in which those videos were selectively edited to distort the — not just the words of the individual speaking but also the position of Planned Parenthood." Earnest went on to offer some free PR for Planned Parenthood's "highest ethical standards." Perhaps he misheard — they're selling baby parts. How is that remotely ethical? Unsurprisingly, nObama is more upset about the organization taking the videos than the abortionists selling baby livers. This is a man, after all, who has no problem with partial-birth abortion, and who wants unfettered access to abortion and abortion-inducing birth-control for all women — even mandating Catholic nuns carry insurance that covers it. So forgive us if we're skeptical when Attorney General Loretta Lynch says the Justice Department is "going to review all the information and determine what steps, if any, to take at the appropriate time." Note: That's "what steps, if any." Besides, perhaps she means DOJ will investigate the group taking the videos...  -The Patriot Post  
.
.
 More Details Emerge From Chattanooga  
Details continue to come out about the terrorist attack in Chattanooga last week. One Navy officer and a Marine returned fire when a jihadi rammed through the gate and started shooting. According to Navy Times, "Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center's commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage" the assailant. Likewise, one of the slain Marines reportedly had a personal handgun that he used to return fire. But it wasn't only those with guns who acted with bravery. According to reports, some of the fallen Marines essentially sacrificed themselves by drawing fire away from a larger group of Marines. "This could have been a lot worse," an anonymous official said. "It could have been a horrible, horrible massacre — so much worse."
          It was bad enough. Remember the fallen: Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist, Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan, Lance Cpl. Squire K. Wells, and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith.
          Finally, Ed Reinhold, the FBI's special agent in charge in Knoxville, declared during a Wednesday news conference that the perpetrator was a "homegrown violent extremist" and that it was too early to determine whether he had been radicalized. "This is a complex, ongoing investigation, and we're still in the early stages of piecing together exactly what happened and why," Reinhold said. "The FBI has been working almost 400 leads, and has an estimated 250 personnel on the ground in the area, and hundreds more working across the country and around the world on this investigation." We appreciate the deliberate and thorough investigation, but let's call a spade a spade.
          Maybe that failure is why it took Barack nObama five days to call for lowering the flag.  
 -The Patriot Post  
.
.
 Odierno's Parting Shot on the Islamic State  
For four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno was in Iraq, spending more time in the theater than any other military leader. He was a key architect of the successful “surge” that gave Iraq a short-lived bout of stability and relative prosperity. And then Barack nObama came along.
          Now weeks away from retirement after a nearly four-decade career, Odierno barely hides his disgust at the decline in Iraq since nObama withdrew American forces. In the debate before the 2011 withdrawal, Odierno requested a force of 30-35,000 troops be maintained in Iraq. Unfortunately, he was overruled by nObama's narcissistic quest for political expediency in the 2012 campaign. He had promised to "end" (note: not win) the war, and Americans were generally war-weary. Never mind that Iraq was always envisioned as part of a Long War against Islamic extremism.
          “It's frustrating to watch" the rise of the Islamic State, lamented Odierno in his interview with Fox. "I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and we got [Iraq] to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, [and] politics looked like it was heading in the right direction." He added, “If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe [the Islamic State's rise] might have been prevented. I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out we lost that role. ... I think it would have been good for us to stay.”
          Odierno didn't explicitly say so, but he strongly implied that nObama's foolish withdrawal from Iraq is directly responsible for the rise of the Islamic State.   -The Patriot Post  
.
.

.
 Hilly Refuses to Rebuke Questioner Comparing Israel to Apartheid  
{Jeff Dunetz} ~ Just as she did in 1999 when Suha Arafat accused Israel of poisoning the Palestinians, Thursday Hilly Clinton listened to someone slander the Jewish State, and refused to rebuke the charges... Amongst the people who asked questions during Hilly Clinton's appearance Thursday at the Brookland Baptist Church, Columbia South Carolina, was a woman who asked three questions at once.  The first query was about solving poverty, the second was about the three-strike law, and the third: My third question is about Israel, we spend too much money, $6 billion dollars to Israel funding apartheid! There is not the shared values that we are supposed to share with Israel!  As you can see by the video below Ms. Clinton who,  with the exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009; except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hilly Clinton has never been pro-Israel, she dedicated her long-winded 700 word answer to the first two points and said nothing about the anti-Israel apartheid slander.       http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2015/07/like-she-did-with-mrs-arafat...
.
 nObama Intent on Ignoring Congressional Review of His Iran Deal  
{Fred Siegel and Sol Stern} ~ A few months ago, the president guaranteed Congress the right to approve or disapprove any accord reached with Iran. Now, despite his solemn declaration to the contrary, it seems he’s planning to sideline Congress altogether... Fred Siegel and Sol Stern write: Throughout the international negotiations, the White House has essentially served as Iran’s lawyer; now the administration’s rhetoric has created an insuperable dilemma for opponents of the deal. hanoi John Kerry has not so subtly hinted that the administration has no intention of honoring the commitments it made in signing the bill authorizing congressional review. hanoi Kerry’s comments suggest that no matter what happens in Congress, the administration will feel little obligation to carry out the wishes of the people’s representatives on the most important national-security issue of our time.
.
 hanoi Kerry Warns Israel: Strike on Iran Would Be 'Enormous Mistake' 
{Ari Yashar} ~ Less than a day after indicating in a Senate hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would have the US defend Iran from Israel, US Secretary of State hanoi John Kerry warned Israel on Friday that a unilateral strike on Iran's covert nuclear program would be a "huge mistake."... Appearing on the NBC "Today" TV show, hanoi Kerry was asked if the Iran nuclear deal sealed last Tuesday would make it more likely that Israel will either physically strike Iran's nuclear facilities, or else launch a cyber attack against them. "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary," hanoi Kerry answered in an ominous answer. Just on Thursday he was asked in a Senate hearing about a clause in the deal requiring the West to train Iran to block sabotage attempts against its nuclear program. hanoi Kerry refused to directly answer a question in the hearing as to whether the US would have to defend Iran from an Israeli cyber attack. One question that was not ask, what if Iran strike Israel, would the US protect Israel?
.
 Criminal Inquiry Sought Into Hilly’s Scandalous Email Fiasco  
{Dan Spencer} ~ The New York Times reports that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled... in connection with the personal email account Hilly Clinton used as secretary of state. The request for a criminal investigation results from “an assessment” of the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Hilly’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The State Department is still reviewing some 55,000 pages of Hilly’s emails some of which are problematic. It is fascinating that the story originated with New York Times, always a Hilly supporter. The Times already seems to have some second thoughts about its big scoop. According to Politico’s Dylan Byers, The Times altered the story in the dead of night without notification of or explanation:
.
 THE FOOLISHNESS OF FUNDING OUR ENEMIES  
{Shawn Meyer} ~ We decried the foolishness of the nObama administration in loosing up billions of dollars to a state sponsor of terrorism... Every time the Iranian parliament chants “Death to America!” nObama lets go of our cash. Funding the enemy. Where did he get such an idea? Maybe nObama was watching the Christian community. We’re the pros and we’ve been at it for decades. Back in the 1990’s, I informed an elderly Christian that her choice of long distance providers was aggressively promoting homosexuality. She replied, “Well, I don’t know what I could do about that.” Um, switch providers and stop funding their efforts. There now. Simple and sensible.       http://barbwire.com/2015/07/24/1000-the-foolishness-of-funding-our-...
.


 
 Why nObama’s Vision of a Weakened Iran Doesn’t Add Up  

{John Hannah} ~ It’s not clear precisely what underpins nObama’s remarkable certitude in this regard. In the press conference, he hinted at several factors. An effort by Iran to get nuclear weapons in 15 years, he noted, would “still be in violation of this deal and the commitments [Iran] made internationally.”... Specifically, the president said, Iran’s obligation not to develop nuclear weapons “under the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not go away,” while “the Additional Protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal, which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism … stays in place.” Moreover, the president pointed out that in 15 years, the United States will be “much more knowledgeable about what Iran’s capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today” to stop any effort by the mullahs to break out to a bomb. Some of this is not particularly compelling, to say the least. As most Iran experts will tell you, the Islamic Republic does not have a history of taking its international obligations particularly seriously. So the fact that it’s agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, either as part of the JCPOA or its longstanding obligations under the NPT, is hardly reassuring. Indeed, in light of the fact that Iran has been in serial violation of its NPT obligations for most of the past two decades, the president’s argument on this point is just, well, silly. When it comes to the mullahs, it’s a rule of thumb that if you have to start resorting to arguments that “They promised,” you’re already in deep trouble.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/john-hannah-why-obamas-vis...

.

 U.S. State Dept. Bars Christians from Testifying about Persecution  
{Raymond Ibrahim} ~ During theheight of one of the most brutal months oMuslim persecution of Christians, the U.S. State Department exposed its double standards against persecuted Christian minorities... Sister Diana, an influential Iraqi Christian leader, who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012. She was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq -- including Sunni, Shia and Yazidi, among others -- to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every religious leader from this delegation to Washington D.C. was granted a visa -- except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana. After this refusal became public, many Americans protested, some writing to their congressmen. Discussing the nun's visa denial, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said:        http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6141/state-dept-bars-christian-te...
.
 Senate Showdown: Cruz Calls Out McCon-nell  
{Susan Ferrechio} ~ In a stunning floor speech Friday morning, Republican presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz accused Majority Leader Mitch McCon-nell of lying to Senate Republicans... about whether there was a secret agreement to allow a vote on an amendment to extend the Export-Import Bank, which conservatives staunchly oppose. Cruz unleashed his anger at McCon-nell moments after the Senate voted to move ahead on a highway funding bill that will include amendments to extend the Ex-Im Bank and to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The deal doesn't provide Cruz with an equal opportunity to bring up his own amendments, including one that would require Iran to recognize the state of Israel and another that would require members of Congress and the president to enroll in nObamacare.        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-accuses-mcconnell-of-flat-ou...
.
 Lawmaker: hanoi Kerry doesn't know what's in the Iran side deal  
{Charles Hoskinson} ~ Rep. Mike Pompeo said hanoi Kerry told lawmakers that he has not read the side deals, never possessed a copy of them, and approved the nuclear agreement without knowing their details... "These side deals were essential to getting a deal signed in the first place. Iran believed these side deals to be important to an overall agreement, and so should the United States. It is essential for Secretary Kerry to know what's in the deal, and it is essential for the U.S. Congress to know what's in this deal," the Kansas Republican said. The agreement — signed July 14 by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Yukiya Amano and Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran — was announced publicly, but parts of it are secret and there may also be secret annexes as well. Lawmakers are accusing the nObama administration of illegally withholding those documents.
.
 White House: nObama in final stages of plan to close Gitmo  
{Susan Crabtree} ~ The nObama administration is in the final stages of drafting a plan to shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday... Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been openly discussing his talks with the White House about giving him a plan to close the prison that he could try to sell to fellow Republicans in Congress. But this is the first admission by the White House that they are working on such a plan, despite repeated questions about it from theWashington Examiner and other media outlets. What the heck is McCain doing?
.

.
How and why to kill the deal
Caroline B. Glick
.
.
     {jewishworldreview.com} ~ Washington Post columnist David Ignatius -- whose work appears on JWR -- is a reasonable man. After hearing back to back interviews with US Secretary of State hanoi John Kerry and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the nObama administration's pact with Iran's ayatollahs, he tried to balance them out.
.
     Speaking Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, Ignatius equivocated that on the one hand, "My takeaway from hanoi Kerry is that the details of this deal are pretty solid, that it's been carefully negotiated, that it will hold up for 10 years or more."
.
     On the other hand, he said, "Netanyahu is right. Iran is a dangerous destabilizing force in the Middle East. So somehow good policy seems to me to use the deal to cap the nuclear threat that Iran would pose for 10 years but work on that other problem."
.
     Ignatius's remarks serve to justify supporting the deal. After all, if nObama's agreement caps Iran's nuclear program for 10 years, then it's a good thing. As for the other stuff, it can be dealt with separately.
.
      Unfortunately, while eminently reasonable sounding, Ignatius's analysis is incorrect. hanoi Kerry's details of the deal are beside the point. The big picture is the only thing that matters. That picture has two main points.
.
     First, the deal guarantees that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Second, it gives $150 billion to the mullahs.
.
     The details of the deal — the number of centrifuges that keep spinning, the verification mechanisms, the dispute resolution procedures, etc. — are all debatable, and largely irrelevant, at least when compared to the two irrefutable aspects of the big picture.
.
     According to the administration, today Iran needs a year to use the nuclear materials it is known to possess to make a nuclear bomb. Other sources claim that Iran requires several months to accomplish the task.
.
      Since these materials will remain in Iran's possession under the deal, if Iran abandons the agreement, it will need at most a year to build nuclear weapons.
.
     Then there are the unknown aspects of Iran's nuclear program. We must assume that Iran has ongoing covert nuclear operations in unknown installations through which it has acquired unknown capabilities.
.
These capabilities will likely reduce the time Iran requires to make bombs.
.
     Under the deal, the US and its negotiating partners are required to protect Iran's nuclear assets from sabotage and other forms of attack. They are required as well to teach Iran how to develop and use more advanced centrifuges. As a consequence, when the agreement expires, Iran will be able to build nuclear bombs at will.
.
     If Iran remains a threat, the deal bars the US from taking any steps to counter it aside from all-out war.
.
     The agreement ends the international sanctions regime against Iran. With the sanctions goes any prospect of an international coalition joining forces to take military action against Iran, if Iran does walk away from the deal. So sanctions are gone, deterrence is gone. And that leaves only war.
.
     In other words, far from diminishing the chance of war, the deal makes it inevitable that Iran will get the bomb or there will be a full scale war, or both.
.
Then there is the jackpot payback.
.
     Who knows? Maybe the mullahs will use their $150b. to finance new women's universities in Tehran and Mashhad, and a seminary for Islamic liberalism in Qom.
.
     Or maybe the money will be used to fund insurgencies and proxy wars and terror campaigns throughout the region and the world.
.
     The extraordinary thing about the deal is that the only person who gets a say in how that money is spent is Iran's dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And Khamenei has been pretty clear about how he intends to use the cash.
.
     In back to back anti-American rants on Friday and Saturday, Khamenei repeatedly threatened the US and extolled calls for its destruction. Speaking in front of a banner at Friday prayers which declared "We will trample America," Khamenei praised calls for "Death to America."
.
     Saturday he promised to continue to fund and sponsor terrorism and proxy wars. Just as notably, he refused to commit to upholding the nuclear deal with the US and the other five powers.
.
     As far as the nObama administration is concerned, now that the UN Security Council has anchored the agreement in a binding resolution and so given the force of international law to a deal that guarantees Iran will receives the bomb and $150b., the deal is done. It cannot be walked back.
.
     But this is not necessarily true. Congress may have more power than it realizes to kill the deal before Iran gets the money and before its other provisions are implemented.
.
     Over the months leading up to the conclusion of negotiations last Tuesday, nObama refused to acknowledge that he was negotiating a treaty. Rather he said it was nothing more than an executive agreement.
.
     Consequently, he argued, the US Senate's sole authority to ratify treaties by two-thirds majority would be inapplicable to the deal with Iran.
.
     nObama also said he would further sideline Congress by anchoring the deal in a binding UN Security Council resolution. This resolution would force nObama's successor to uphold the deal after he leaves office.
.
     nObama mitigated his position slightly when Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drafted the Corker-Cardin bill with veto-proof majorities in both houses. The bill, which nObama reluctantly signed into law, requires nObama to submit the deal to an up or down vote in both houses. If more than two thirds of Senators and Congressmen oppose it, then the US will not abrogate its unilateral sanctions against Iran.
.
     In other words, nObama agreed that if Congress turned the Constitution on its head by replacing the two-thirds Senate majority required to approve a treaty with a two-thirds bicameral majority necessary to disapprove his executive agreement — then he wouldn't go to the Security Council until after Congress voted.
.
     When nObama betrayed his pledge and went to the Security Council on Monday, he gave Congress an opening to reconsider its position, ditch the restrictive Corker-Cardin law and reassert the Senate's treaty approving authority.
.
     As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argued in National Review last week, by among other things canceling the weapons and missile embargoes on Iran, the six-power deal with Iran went well beyond the scope of the Corker-Cardin law, which dealt only with nuclear sanctions relief. As a consequence, Congress can claim that there is no reason to invoke it.
.
     Rather than invoke Corker-Cardin, Congress can pass a joint resolution determining that the deal with Iran is a treaty and announce that pursuant to the US Constitution, the Senate will schedule a vote on it within 30 days. Alternatively, Congress can condition the Iran deal's legal stature on the passage of enabling legislation — that requires simple majorities in both houses.
.
     Dan Darling, foreign policy adviser to Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul wrote Monday that senators can use Senate procedure to force the Foreign Relations Committee to act in this manner. Darling argued that House Speaker backstabber John Boehner can either refuse to consider the deal since it is a treaty, or insist on passing enabling legislation under normal legislative procedures.
.
     Monday Netanyahu explained that by keeping US sanctions in force, Congress can limit Iran's capacity to move beyond the current sanctions regime even after it is canceled. Every state and firm considering business opportunities with Tehran will have to weigh them against the opportunity cost of being barred from doing business with the US.
.
     Iran for its part may walk away from the deal entirely if Congress acts in this manner. If it does, then the US will not be obligated by any of the deal's requirements. The continued viability of the Security Council resolution will be something for the lawyers to argue over.
.
     The devil in nObama's deal with Iran is not in the mind-numbing details, but in the big picture. The deal guarantees Iran will get the bomb. It gives the Iranian regime $150b.
.
To secure these concessions, nObama has trampled congressional authority.
.
     If the American people think this doesn't advance their national interest, they should encourage their congressional representatives to ditch Corker-Cardin and use their full authority, as a co-equal branch of the government, to scupper it.
.

Views: 28

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service