02/2/16

Conservatives Oppose Mass Criminal Release

With the presidential race the focus of most of the media attention, a major division among Senate Republicans over so-called “criminal justice reform” has gotten little attention. But the liberal media are now beginning to notice that conservatives are mounting a campaign to stop a piece of legislation that has been advertised as a major part of President Obama’s left-wing legacy.

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123) would release thousands of criminals back on the streets at a time of rising crime rates, in the name of reducing what liberals call “mass incarceration.”

In a major story on the new developments, The New York Times noted that the effort to pass the bill “has been driven by an unusual right-left alliance that includes the conservatives Charles G. and David H. Koch and the American Civil Liberties Union,” but that Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) has now taken a strong leadership role against the bill.

In fact, the Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives.

Cotton told the Times, “I don’t believe we should allow thousands of violent felons to be released early from prison, nor do I believe we should reduce sentences for violent offenders in the future.”

A key development has been a triple murder committed by a convicted crack cocaine dealer who was back on the streets because his prison sentence on drug charges had already been reduced twice. The crimes were committed in Columbus, Ohio, and are now starting to get national media attention.

The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) reports that Wendell L. Callahan, who is charged with killing his ex-girlfriend and two of her children, twice benefited from changes in federal sentencing guidelines, which reduced his sentence by a total of more than four years. His ex-girlfriend, Erveena Hammonds, 32, and her daughters, Breya Hammonds, 7, and Anaesia Green, 10, were viciously stabbed to death.

The publication Politico cited the triple murder case as a major complicating factor in the effort to pass the bill.

A conservative organization called Americans for Limited Government is leading opposition to the bill, taking issue with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) for working with Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to pass the controversial legislation.

The Times said, “Some analysts have suggested that it could help Republicans by broadening their appeal to independents, Democrats and minorities who believe that the criminal justice system is unfairly tilted.”

Cornyn seemed to accept this, telling the paper that Republicans should support the legislation to show that they care about people in prison and want to give them a second chance. “It doesn’t hurt to show that you actually care,” he said. “This is a statement that is not just symbolic, but actually shows that you care about people. It doesn’t hurt to show some empathy.”

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning countered, “Senator John Cornyn, whose sense of empathy must have developed at Washington, D.C. cocktail parties, should prove he truly cares for people whose neighborhoods have been ravaged by drugs and violent crimes by moving to one of those neighborhoods so he can see for himself the impact of releasing early thousands of hardened drug kingpins and violent criminals back on to the streets of America. Senator Cornyn’s ‘empathetic’ conscience needs to meet the reality of the street, where a 77 percent recidivism rate amongst released prisoners is the norm, with 25 percent of those crimes being violent in nature.”

The alleged killer in the Columbus case was released early from prison because Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced sentences for those in prison for dealing crack cocaine and directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend federal sentencing guidelines to let drug dealers out of prison at an earlier date.

President Obama supports the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act legislation, as do many in the liberal media anxious to see a piece of “bipartisan” legislation pass and become a part of the Obama legacy.

In addition to Senators Cornyn and Lee pushing the Senate bill, Politico had previously reported that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) wanted the GOP to pass “criminal justice reform” in early 2016, and that he had said, “I think criminal justice reform is probably the biggest [issue] we can make a difference on… There’s a real way forward on that.”

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning called Ryan’s plan a “risky mass criminal release scheme” that comes at a time when “police are overwhelmed with record murders in cities like Baltimore and Chicago.”

There were 342 murders in Baltimore in 2015, an all-time high. There were 468 murders in Chicago, compared to 416 in 2014.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission had announced in July of 2014 that it was launching a plan to release 46,290 drug offenders from federal prisons.

Obama is already in the process of releasing 6,000 drug dealers from prison in what The New York Times calls “one of the largest discharges of inmates from federal prisons in American history.” Last December he issued 95 commutations, mostly to drug offenders.

On the Columbus Dispatch Facebook page, one citizen commented, “For all of you who thought Prez O [Obama] was so compassionate when he pushed for letting drug dealers out of prison early, well what do you think of Prez Hope and Change now?”

The Columbus Dispatch said that the alleged killer “likely would have been deep into a 12 1/2-year federal prison sentence if sentencing guidelines for convicted crack dealers had remained unchanged.” It added that “The changes to his federal sentence came as part of retroactive attempts by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to rectify sentencing disparities between dealers who sold crack and those who dealt powdered cocaine.”

A local citizen wrote to the paper to note, “Hammonds and her daughters should be living examples of how harsh sentences against drug dealers and violent criminals protect our welfare. Instead, they’ll be laid to rest as examples of a broken system.”

Despite the murders, liberal pressure groups are demanding that the Senate Republican majority pass S. 2123. In a release headlined, “Civil and Human Rights Coalition Urges Senate Republicans to Stay the Course on Sentencing Reform in 2016,” Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, referred to “recent reports” about divisions among Senate Republicans and urged the Senate GOP conference “to stay the course on passing a sentencing reform package in 2016.” The Senate Republican Conference is the organization of Republican members in the U.S. Senate and is chaired by Senator John Thune of South Dakota. Thune has been quoted as saying that criminal justice reform has a “better than 50/50” shot of passing Congress and reaching Obama’s desk.

“The window of opportunity is here,” said Henderson. He claimed passage of the “bipartisan bill” and Obama’s willingness to sign it into law “is a rare chance to show the country that Washington can both reduce the size of government and protect its citizens all at once.”

The phrase “reducing the size of government” means cutting the cost of prisons. But the idea of “protecting” people by releasing criminals doesn’t make a lot of sense to law-and-order conservatives and the public at-large.

04/13/15

Conservative Writer: Liberalism Is ‘Totalitarianism Masquerading As Tolerance’ [VIDEO]

By: Ginni Thomas
The Daily Caller

With millennial support for President Obama dropping from 58 percent in 2009 to 34 percent last December, Benjamin Weingarten, 26, demonstrates confidence as a foe of secular progressives.

Weingarten prides himself for studying those who don’t value our founding principles while studying at Columbia University and living in New York and New Jersey. Nineteen months ago, he left a promising career on Wall Street to join Glenn Beck’s The Blaze to influence the cultural and political debates of our time.

By interviewing authors of provocative books, doing podcasts and appearing on Beck’s programming, Weingarten is engaging the culture to reclaim traditional American ideals. In New York and New Jersey, he admits he basically “gets push back every time he opens his mouth.”

In this wide-ranging video interview with The Daily Caller, Weingarten discusses the troubling phenomenon of “totalitarianism masquerading as tolerance.” He finds it curious that the secular left refuses to defend the free speech of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — who left her Muslim faith after horrendous personal harm and at great risk. Weingarten says, the “left is tolerant of people who take their viewpoint. And, no matter what your identity, if you disagree with their viewpoint, you are the enemy.”

On the Iran deal, Weingarten said “if there were ever a case where the devil was in the details, this would be it.” Surveying international reactions, Weingarten commented, “If the French are taking a harder line against the Iranians than America, then something is seriously rotten in our national security establishment and in the Executive Branch.”

As for the administration’s allies calling Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues “traitorous” for merely reminding Iran that the Senate must ratify any binding treaty, Weingarten says, “when it serves their interest, the left would like to have nothing to do with Congress.”

Progressives, he mentions, push their agenda by any means necessary. After November’s elections, Obama, Weingarten says, is “un-tethered from constitutional authority,” “brazen,” “audacious” and “dangerous.”

The Obama foreign policy doctrine, driven by the progressive worldview, is, he says, “to spit in the face of our allies and coddle our enemies.”

Our adversaries, according to Weingarten, are Russia, China, Islamic extremists and Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood allies in America who now advise the Obama national security team, we have “foxes guarding the henhouse.” He thinks “we are willfully blind” and seem overdue for another catastrophic act from terrorists.

As for the record of House and Senate Republicans, Weingarten is underwhelmed, calling them “derelict.”

Weingarten lays out criteria — such as amnesty, common core, and liberty — to judge the growing field of nominees posturing to run for president in 2016. Two vulnerabilities for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, according to Weingarten, are the calamitous and mistaken Russian reset, and the entire Libyan debacle. Clinton’s toppling of the Libyan leader with its horrendous consequences should be something she is held responsible for, Weingarten believes.

WATCH:

For more on Benjamin Weingarten and his work at Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze Books, see his author page and his personal Twitter account, as well as TheBlaze Books podcast, and TheBlaze Books page, Twitter and Facebook.

04/1/15

Mark Levin: Obama must not complete a disastrous deal with Iran

President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran

03/23/15

Overwrought

Arlene from Israel

That’s been the overriding climate here in Israel for several days now – whether it is a mood of anguish or of euphoria, it has all been rather frenetic.

In the days leading up to the election, I observed (and experienced) a mood akin to grief, at the prospect that Buji Herzog might win; this then morphed into jubilation at the subsequent electoral victory of Bibi.

But in some quarters on the right, there was an over-reaction. Bibi was hailed as the leader of the free world (there is a case for this, as he’s the only one who has spoken out on Iran with courage), and it was assumed that he would now have the latitude to move forward in significant ways. There was even an assumption voiced that he would now be able to annex Judea and Samaria.

Because he garnered 30 mandates? He still has to face down the world, and form his coalition. Ain’t gonna happen now, no how, however fervent the desire that it should.

~~~~~~~~~~

What Bibi had said in the course of the last days of the campaign was that there would be no Palestinian state established on his watch as prime minister. The day before the election, in an interview, he declared:

“Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel. This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years.” (Emphasis added)

Those on the left, who say otherwise, are “sticking their head in the sand, time and time again.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/16/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-palestinian-state/

~~~~~~~~~~

Bibi was only stating an obvious truth that anyone with a minimal grasp of the situation can see. His statement is not radical. It could have (we might have said, should have) gone further: No state, because it’s our land. But he didn’t say this.

~~~~~~~~~~

After the election, the Obama administration came out swinging at Bibi. The American government, it was announced, was going to be re-evaluating its relationship with Israel and might opt to change its policy regarding standing with us in the UN.

Again, enormous anxiety: What if the Security Council voted to demand that we move back to the ‘67 line, or created a full Palestinian state?

My own feeling on this was that there was a certain amount of grandstanding in this statement of “re-evaluation.” It was, quite simply, a threat: You don’t want to move with me in my desire to achieve a two-state solution? (Which solution is impossible anyway, but never mind that.) This is what you have to look forward to.

I believe that Obama will do whatever he can to damage us, that there is an irrational hatred at work with regard to how he responds to us. For example, he has just allowed a forty-year agreement guaranteeing that Israel would be able to purchase oil to lapse. A maliced act:

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/obama-let-40-year-old-oil-supply-guarantee-to-israel-expire-in-november-2014/2015/03/17/0/

He should never, ever be trusted.

But at the same time, I believe he retains sufficient rationality to do what he perceives as being most prudent or in his own best interest – in terms of achieving his own goals, looking good, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~

My first thought on learning about the “re-evaluation” was that the possible scenarios in the UN that were being projected carried within them their own stumbling blocks: It was very likely not as simple as was being suggested. The UN, according to international law, cannot “create” a state; and to vote for Israel to move back to the ‘67 lines conflicts with Security Council Resolution 242, which said this was not required.

Israel, it seemed to me, had to consult with the finest of international lawyers, military advisors and diplomats and respond offensively. It might be pointed out, for example, that a UN resolution demanding that we move back to the ‘67 lines would render Oslo – which requires negotiations to determine a border – deader than dead. Deader than it already is now. We might let US officials know that if this were the case, there would be absolutely no cooperation with the Palestinian Authority at all from the day the vote was taken. No tax collection, no security provisions, no electricity or water, no cooperation in marketing of produce (all of these things spelled out in Oslo). Obama might think twice about this, and the repercussions that would follow.

~~~~~~~~~~

As it is, Netanyahu took the step of “explaining” what he meant. In an interview early on Thursday, he said:

“I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4638988,00.html

In other words, don’t point a finger at me – my commitment has stayed the same. It’s the situation that is different.

Bibi was then accused here in Israel of backtracking on his pre-election position of no Palestinian state. But if you look carefully, it’s not quite so – although his emphasis has certainly shifted. Painful as it is to hear him reiterate commitment to a “two state solution,” he did say there would be no Palestinian state because of a changed situation; he never actually said that he had changed his mind on two-states, in principle.

~~~~~~~~~~

My first impulse was Oi! Did he have to say this? He backed off – or gave the appearance of backing off – in the face of Obama’s threats. This can come across as weakness and encourage even more threats.

But I’ve since re-thought the matter. The situation Bibi is facing on several fronts is horrendous. I think it behooves us to cut him a bit of slack here, if he has decided that minimizing the tensions with the US administration is in Israel’s best interest right now.

What must be watched carefully are the decisions he makes once there is a government. He has said that there will be no more releasing of prisoners as a “gesture.” If the PA should demand this, and Obama push for it, we must see that it does not happen. This, or similar other “gestures.”

~~~~~~~~~~

The big question is whether Bibi means it when he speaks of a “two-state solution,” whether he meant it when he gave his Bar Ilan speech. My guessing is that this is not his ideology, but his MO – which involves “playing the game” at some level, rather than being confrontational. If he says he is for two-states, but then refuses to move forward in real terms because of the security risks implicit, he will be holding the line for the short term. (We’ll get to the long term when there is recognition at the highest levels of government that we have legal rights in Judea and Samaria, and all of Jerusalem.)

~~~~~~~~~~

At first, Obama declared himself suspicious of the sincerity of Bibi’s statement. But by later on Thursday, he had called our prime minister to offer congratulations. Reports are that it was a “tough” conversation, but what was made public was that the two leaders had agreed to move forward on ways to find peace (whatever that means).

US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, said today that there was no choice but to examine Netanyahu’s “confusing” statements. But he also indicated that at the moment there are no changes in policy.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-comments-confusing-but-no-changes-yet-says-us-envoy/

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the things that I believe made Obama think twice regarding his attack on Netanyahu has been the response of several members of Congress.

Take the stunning speech by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdMWbqZsyuM&feature=youtu.be

Or that of Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), which is even stronger:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=426721624156045

These distinguished gentleman forthrightly call Obama on his irrational antipathy to Netanyahu.

It is said that this very autocratic/non-democratic president does as he pleases. But this is not quite so. Congress can cut funding for programs that Obama wants to see sustained, and can use its leverage to make things difficult for a president who chooses to make matters difficult for Israel.

Senator Cotton has now said he will support legislation to cut US funding to the UN, if it takes action against Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

And this morning Senator John McCain (R-AZ) severely criticized Obama on CNN:

Noting that Israel had a “free and fair” democratic election – “the only nation in the region that will have such a thing,” he said it’s time for Obama to “get over it,” if he doesn’t like the results.

“Get over your temper tantrum, Mr. President. It’s time that we work together with our Israeli friends and try to stem this tide of ISIS and Iranian movement throughout the region which is threatening the very fabric of the region. The least of your problems is what Bibi Netanyahu said during a reelection campaign.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/22/mccain-obama-needs-to-get-over-his-temper-tantrum-about-netanyahus-reelection/

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to briefly comment on one accusation that is being made against Netanyahu: It is being said that he made “racist” remarks against Israeli Arabs during the election, pointing out that they were coming to vote in large numbers, which required the right wing to come out in large numbers as well.

That is not quite accurate. Netanyahu’s concern was with the fact that US money had been utilized to promote the left in the campaign, and it was believed that US money was paying for the buses to bring the Arabs to the polls. This is clearly not as it should be, and he was calling for a strong response against it.

One very interesting news item helps put lie to the accusation that Netanyahu is racist: In one Bedouin village in the north of Israel, over 76% of the votes were cast for Netanyahu and Likud:

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/03/19/bedouin-village-gave-76-of-its-votes-to-netanyahu/

~~~~~~~~~~

As to the election, the early stages of coalition building are in process now. I will write about this when next I post. It is not a pretty picture, not as I write tonight, at any rate.

~~~~~~~~~~

I cannot close without a mention of the vile/hateful/destructive and totally perverse positions of Obama, whatever his motivations (do NOT write to tell me what they are, please – this is rhetorical). Right after the elections here, the PLO moved to increase its connection with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in order to establish a “unity government.” I’ve lost count of how many times they’ve moved towards a unity government. But the point is that there can be no “negotiations” for a “two-state solution” if the PA is in bed with Hamas. And yet, from the Obama administration I’ve seen not a single word of criticism about this being “counterproductive” to peace – never mind threats to re-evaluate the US support for the PA.

~~~~~~~~~~

But then again, what can we expect:

“An annual security report submitted recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorism threats to the United States for the first time in years.” (emphasis added)

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/17579-us-removes-iran-and-hezbollah-from-list-of-terror-threats

~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of Iran…

There are officials here in Jerusalem who believe that Obama’s attack on Netanyahu was designed to deflect attention from the nuclear negotiations, which should be coming to a close within days. Obama may be seeking ways to “discourage” Netanyahu from speaking out on what is taking place.

http://www.pressreader.com/israel/jerusalem-post/textview

~~~~~~~~~~

No wonder the climate here is overwrought. The situation to be coped with is insane. Not least is a pogrom that took place in London last night. A terrifying harbinger of things to come?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Attackers-yelling-we-will-kill-you-storm-synagogue-in-London-suburb-leave-worshipers-bloody-394684

There is no room for complacency or apathy now. And support for Israel and her rights is essential. What happens to the Jews of the world depends in good part upon the Jewish state.

03/19/15

Sen. Tom Cotton joins Sean Hannity

03/16/15

Four Reasons Why the Left Loathes Senator Cotton’s Letter to Iran

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

That a short letter penned by an Iraq War veteran and signed by 46 of his colleagues in the Senate would earn the ridicule, scorn and derision of the left, while generating wobbliness among the more politically craven members of the right, is a testament to its virtue.

The primarily pedagogic letter’s detractors have invoked the Logan Act, signing a petition calling for the prosecution of the letter’s signatories on grounds of treason. But little could be further from treasonous than publicly opposing a policy that legitimizes and empowers a mortal enemy of America and her interests.

This Aug. 21, 2014, file photo shows Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he speaks during a news conference in North Little Rock, Ark. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File)

Worse still, legislators who in actuality undermined American interests by negotiating with our enemies are mentioned in the same light. This list of shame includes: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi among others.

The truth of the matter is that Sen. Cotton’s letter sticks in the craw of the left, causing it’s partisans to resort to ad hominem and absurd attacks. They do so primarily for four reasons:

1. Sen. Cotton’s letter forces the left to defend the indefensible

Whether addressing the congressional speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the letter authored by Sen. Tom Cotton, the left rarely attacks on substance because it realizes the content of its opponents’ message is credible, and the character of the messengers is widely seen as unimpeachable.

The same cannot be said however of the deal that President Barack Obama seeks to consummate, and the parties sitting at the negotiating table.

Across the political spectrum Iran is seen as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.

Iran and her proxies have drawn the blood of America and her allies for decades.

Iran has been forthright in stating its desire to destroy Israel.

Iran has demonstrated — and continues to demonstrate – its willingness to lie, deceive and cheat with respect to the size and nature of its nuclear program.

It is further unquestioned that a nuclear-armed Iran will have grave consequences including acceleration and expansion of the Middle East’s arms race.

It is also crystal clear that the Obama administration does not have the will or desire to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and is rumored to have stymied Israel’s own plans to conduct such an operation.

Finally, the Obama administration has opposed at every turn efforts to implement tougher sanctions that would aim to economically cripple, and politically undermine its mullahs.

To date, the president has instead chosen to ease sanctions on Iran, facilitating the flow of billions of dollars back into its ailing economy, and tacitly supported its elite forces in their fight against the Islamic State. Further, the president has sought to portray Iran as a pillar of Middle East stability and perhaps America’s top ally in the region over Israel. He has done so while concurrently negotiating a deal that by published accounts will allow Iran to enrich uranium and ultimately develop a nuclear bomb — even if Iran is fully compliant with the terms of the accord. These actions have served to legitimize and empower Tehran, while at the same time increasing the threat to the United States and her allies.

One could make the case that regardless of the outcome of negotiations, Iran has already won. Its leaders have already declared victory through triumphant word and deed.

For these reasons, any actions that challenge the president’s negotiations shine a spotlight on a disastrous policy, forcing the left into the uncomfortable spot of defending the self-evidently indefensible.

2. Sen. Cotton’s letter represents a direct challenge to President Obama

There is little that unites the left more than attacks on the policies of President Obama, which it reflexively spins as attacks on the president himself.

This is most clearly evidenced by pundits such as Chris Matthews, who implied Sen. Cotton and his colleagues are racists for signing a letter that is singularly factual and aimed at questions of policy.

In the eyes of the left, the least-vetted, least-challenged president in the modern era must never be touched.

Should anyone have the temerity to do so, the left closes ranks and pillories the offender.

Even the few members of the left who brazenly challenge the Iran policy of President Obama face the administration’s wrath.

3. Sen. Cotton had the gall to actually invoke the Constitution in defense of his action

Back in October 2009, then-Speaker Pelosi was famously asked what part of the Constitution authorized Obamacare’s individual mandate. Her response? “Are you serious?”

Give the Congresswoman credit for her candor.

In that moment she perfectly crystallized the modern left’s view of the Constitution – it is an afterthought, a powerless piece of parchment should it stand as an impediment to Democrat designs.

Does anyone honestly believe that the left is upset at Sen. Cotton’s actions because he did not follow some sort of protocol to which the left has never subjected itself, and which the Constitution does not require? Does the left honestly believe either in letter or spirit that Cotton and his colleagues actually violated the Logan Act?

Rarely have the Democrats during the Obama reign argued for the sanctity of protocol, let alone the rule of law – except when it comes to others voicing opinions they find inconsistent with their narrative and/or harmful to their agenda (e.g., Netanyahu’s speech before Congress).

Senator Cotton is not violating either the Constitution or the Logan Act by writing a letter that informs Iran as to the Senate’s prerogative on foreign policy, and illustrates the weakness of an unratified agreement in the first place. If anything, he is pointing out to the Iranian leadership how the US Government was set-up to work – checks and balances of which some in the Obama administration and on the left seem sorely unaware.

4. Sen. Cotton’s letter contains painful truths

If the negotiations that President Obama was unilaterally conducting with a genocidal jihadist regime were in the best interest of the United States, a letter such as Sen. Cotton’s would be dismissed out of hand and simply ignored.

At most, Democrats would welcome it as discrediting of Republicans.

Yet the left has not attacked the letter on either of these bases.

To the contrary, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and Secretary of State John Kerry have both been forced to acknowledge that Sen. Cotton and his colleagues are correct in noting that any nuclear deal is nonbinding on the next president, should it not be placed before the US Senate and have at least 67 senators agree to ratify it.

This is a hard pill to swallow for the left in general and President Obama in particular, given that from the beginning of his presidency, he has made unconditional negotiations with Iran a central part of his foreign policy.

An Iran deal may indeed serve as President Obama’s only foreign policy legacy in light of the Arab Spring turning to winter, and the increasingly bellicose and unrestrained postures of Russia and China looming large.

Given what we know about Iran, one can only hope that history does not afford Mr. Obama this “legacy.”

03/15/15

The Faustian Pact Between Obama And Iran

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

As the Democrats scream “Traitor!” and are off on another black is white, up is down tirade after the letter signed by 47 US Senators, all Republicans, was sent to Iran pointing out the minor detail that any agreement made between Obama and Iran without approval by the Senate is unconstitutional, Obama readies a deal nevertheless that he claims he will explain to America after it has been reached. How very dictatorial. How very suicidal for America and Israel.

Let’s get this straight… the traitors here are Barack Obama and any on the Marxist Left who cut a deal with Iran for nuclear capabilities without Congressional approval, by skirting constitutional law and by seeking UN intervention. You don’t get to redefine ‘treason’ as you see fit. I think you have the words ‘patriot’ and ‘traitor’ confused. The first rule of treason is to call the other guy a traitor. You see the true treasonous responses in President Obama’s own reply to the letter which encouraged all this loose talk about treason. “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran,” he told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.” And what would be an act of treachery without the Queen of Transparency, Hillary Clinton, who held a press conference ostensibly to explain why she hid her work product at the State Department and then made similar statements. Although no one asked her about the GOP letter, she gave her opinion: “Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians, or harmful to commander-in-chief in the middle of high stakes international diplomacy.” Typical Leftist bull crap – blaming those who are trying to save the Republic as being in cahoots with the Iranians when it is so blatantly the other way around. Spoken with a true forked tongue. The Marxists even stooped to calling Tom Cotton, “Tehran Tom.” How very Orwellian to brand someone with that moniker who went to Harvard Law School and enlisted in the US Army to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then you have John Kerry chiming in. His reaction was one of “utter disbelief” that these rogue Senators would go behind Obama’s back during talks with Iran. And the chorus of “treason” was shrilled even louder after Kerry’s proclamation. They seem to have forgotten that some of their own (including Kerry, as a junior Senator) have met with enemy foreign leaders in defiance of a president of the other party on many occasions, as Kenneth Timmerman points out. In an exchange with Marco Rubio, Kerry said he had shared details of the negotiations with the Saudis and other Sunni allies, but that he wouldn’t do the same with Congress. So, our leaders are to be kept fully in the dark until the deal is set, but they’ll gladly share info with foreign, and some would say ‘enemy’, states. How comforting.

The White House on Saturday wrote a letter warning US senators to withhold legislation that would “likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, the Huffington Post reported.