This is a lot like the protest in front of the White House, also ignored by the media. Too bad Obama is more concerned with helping out his homies in the Muslim Brotherhood with their neighborhood caliphate project.
The Obama administration once against reiterated how it will rigorously pursue it’s political agenda with complete disregard to Congressional power by saying it would veto any bill that would force him to submit an Iran nuke bill to Congress for approval before signing it.
President Obama on Saturday threatened to veto a bipartisan bill that would allow Congress to weigh in on any nuclear deal the administration reached with Iran.
“The President has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran,” National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement to The Hill.
“If this bill is sent to the President, he will veto it. We are in the final weeks of an international negotiation. We should give our negotiators the best chance of success, rather than complicating their efforts,” she added.
The threat comes after a handful of lawmakers introduced a measure requiring Obama to submit text of an agreement with Iran to Congress. It would also prohibit the White House from lifting Iranian sanctions for two months while Congress debated the deal.
Whether Obama needs Congressional approval for such a treaty is debatable. As Jim Geraghty points out, the Constitution seems pretty clear that Congress needs to weigh in on treaties, but on the other hand the kind of treaty being made may traditionally within the sphere of the power of the Executive, as explained here:
In general, I think the President has broad discretion under U.S. statutes to impose or lift sanctions on Iran, and although I haven’t looked at the Iran sanctions in detail, I bet the President has broad powers to waive sanctions without going back to Congress. The White House is certainly acting like that’s the case, although the devil is in the details.
The more interesting question to me is whether any agreement with Iran must take the form of an Article II treaty requiring 2/3 of the U.S. Senate’s approval. David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue in the WSJ here that Congress should demand that the Iran agreement take the form of a treaty. There is some precedent for the Senate demanding, and getting, the White House to use the treaty process. In 2002, President Bush submitted his Moscow nuclear arms deal with Russia to the Senate despite earlier statements suggesting he wouldn’t bother.
But the deal with Iran is not an arms control treaty, which has almost always been sent to the Senate. It is an agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think there is the same kind of Article II tradition in this area. The closest analogy I can come up with off the top of my head is the normalization of relations with China in 1979, which lifted sanctions, but did not involve a comprehensive Article II treaty.
On the other hand, the sanctions regime for Iran is enormously complex and much more extensive than the pre-1979 China sanctions. Many of the Iran sanctions may not be waiveable by the President, and the new sanctions bill will certainly make most of the sanctions mandatory.
It seems to me perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring the President to submit his Iran agreement for Congress’ approval, either as a treaty or as an executive agreement, as a condition for lifting those non-waivable sanctions on Iran. This seems a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress’ foreign commerce power and is consistent with constitutional practice in the trade arena. But until such a law passes, it is far from clear the President has to submit the Iran agreement to Congress.
Whatever the case is, if Americans rose up and demanded lawmakers face the Iranian threat, Congress could reach the two-thirds vote threshold to overturn Obama’s veto. But we’re too busy being obsessed with Bruce Jenner’s sex change.
Finally, for all you conspiracy nuts, let’s tie Obama’s mad obsession with trying to get the Iranians Nukes with Hillary Clinton negotiating away the anti-missile defense system in Poland and other Eastern European countries. Makes you wonder what country they’re actually representing, America or Iran.
It’s always a good day when a conservative blogger manages to show up professional “journalists,” especially when they’re using their ignorance to try to smear Republicans. This time it was my homie @DrawAndStrike who single-handedly destroyed an attempted smear on Scott Walker.
Here’s how it went down.
A degenerate bottom-feeder at the fetid gutter known as Jezebel first “discovered” that Walker has supposedly tried to expand the power of the Patriarchy (blessed be its name) on college campuses and went crazy:
The proposal to delete the annual reports to the state Department of Justice is among dozens of requirements that would be removed as part of Walker’s plan to decouple the university from most state laws and state oversight. Though the budget proposal came out earlier this month, the sex assault request was explained in a summary released Thursday by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
UW System spokesman Alex Hummel said Friday that the university requested the change because information given to the state is duplicative of data required to be reported to the U.S. Department of Education under federal law. The university also posts the information on its website.
But that didn’t keep another dumb ass from the Daily Beast to propagate the false story:
How low can Scott Walker get?! He’s so anti-education that he’s encouraging America’s youth to skip out on school (just like he did when he dropped out of college!) so that they can go get indoctrinated at CPAC!! Here’s the proof!
Again at #CPAC2015 the younguns ruled the day. Met a 9 year old that got an excuse for school from @GovWalker
How cool is that!!
I’m joking of course, but if the left gets a hold of this tweet, you know they’ll write hundreds of mouth-foaming blogs dedicated to blaming Scott Walker for the destruction of education! On the other hand, I would LOVE to find out what the teacher’s reaction will be to this kid handing them an excuse signed by Walker! LOL!
The Obama strategy for doing away with scandals is fairly obvious – they just deflect and lie until the story is so old nobody cares that they lied. That’s why it’s taken so long to get IRS officials to admit they withheld documents that would have led to more Lois Lerner emails being discovered.
The IRS belatedly told Congress it may have lost some of Ms. Lerner’s emails after her computer crashed, and asserted that the backup tapes didn’t exist.
But under questioning from Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Camus said it took him only two weeks to track down the backup tapes, and when he asked the IRS depository for them, the workers there said they’d never been contacted by the agency itself.
Republicans said that was stunning because IRS Commissioner John Koskinen repeatedly assured Congress the emails were irretrievably lost.
“I think they have misled or lied to the committee,” said Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican.
Mr. Camus said they were clued in to the 424 new tapes they just found a couple of weeks ago after realizing the IRS hadn’t given over a key document. They demanded that document, and realized it showed hundreds of other tapes existed.
It took investigators just two weeks to recover 424 #IRS backup tapes #Koskinen said were unretrievable. Will he be charge w/obstruction?
A prominent Bangladeshi-American blogger known for speaking out against religious extremism was hacked to death as he walked through Bangladesh’s capital with his wife, police said Friday.
The attack Thursday night on Avijit Roy, a Bangladesh-born U.S. citizen, occurred on a crowded sidewalk as he and his wife, Rafida Ahmed, were returning from a book fair at Dhaka University. Ahmed, who is also a blogger, was seriously injured. It was the latest in a series of attacks on secular writers in Bangladesh in recent years.
A previously unknown militant group, Ansar Bangla 7, claimed responsibility for the attack, Assistant Police Commissioner S.M. Shibly Noman told the Prothom Alo newspaper.
Roy “was the target because of his crime against Islam,” the group said on Twitter.
Roy was a prominent voice against religious intolerance, and his family and friends say he had been threatened for his writings.
About 8:45 p.m. Thursday, a group of men ambushed the couple as they walked toward a roadside tea stall, with at least two of the attackers hitting them with meat cleavers, police Chief Sirajul Islam said. The attackers then ran away, disappearing into the crowds.
Two blood-stained cleavers were found after the attack, he said.
Several hundred people joined a rally Friday near the site of the attack carrying banners reading, “We want justice” and “Down with fundamentalism.”
Here are some very graphic photos from the terrible attack:
This week we’re visited by @SouthernKeeks who brings her special gringa magic to the podcast, and I guess @SaintRPH brings his fetid rotting gringo Louisianan weirdness to the show as well. We talk Scott Walker and give up trying to figure out net neutrality. WOw! All for free!!
By the way, the FTR version may contain more explicit language, but the iTunes podcast will be squeaky clean!! Also, the FTR version is limited to 56 minutes but the podcast version will often EXTEND to more insanity! Wow! For free!!
Please comment, *like*, and tweet our podcast if you like it, or even if you don’t.
The media is all in a tizzy over trying to indoctrinate the American public into thinking that Republicans are being unreasonable in their opposition to Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty by executive action. But if you have someone trying to debate with you that it’s actually constitutional, it might help to show them this video of Obama himself saying it’s illegal for him to do what he did!
There’s a reason that he said it was unconstitutional 21 times – he knew then and he knows now that the Executive branch isn’t supposed to write law, it’s supposed to enforce it. And that’s exactly the reasoning that is being used in the lawsuit led by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, which actually uses Obama’s own words to argue their case.
But President Buzzfeed doesn’t let a little thing like the Constitution or his own words keep him from pandering to illegal aliens.
ISIS militant ‘Jihadi John’ is just the latest example to prove the poverty theory of terrorism wrong again despite Obama’s insistence we just need to get them jobs. In fact he had a middle class background in Britain and had a degree in computer science.
Far from assuring Americans that the border will be secure and that illegals will be deported, President Buzzfeed went out of his way to reassure scared illegal aliens that border security officials will face disciplinary consequences if they don’t enforce his amnesty order.
President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.
According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn’t be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.
“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.
“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”
“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”
Isn’t it nice to know Obama is looking out for illegals more than he’s looking out for American citizens?
Conservative Hugh Hewitt is one of the best interviewers out there, and his radio fight with liberal David Corn on his attacks on Bill O’Reilly is another great feather in his cap.
It’s a long one at 47 mins, but it’s worthwhile, listen below:
This is a great study in how to interview someone in order to build an argument. It’s amazing how angry and bitter David Corn gets under very simple questioning by Hewitt.
Before getting to the main argument, Hugh Hewitt establishes how Corn is either historically ignorant, or sympathetic to communists because Alger Hiss was established to be a Soviet spy and Corn is unable to respond whether he was or not. Amazingly, many of Hewitt’s liberal guests fail this test, and Corn’s refusal to answer and his weird anger at being asked is just another example.
Hewitt simply tries to establish details of Corn’s own resume from 30 years ago that he might not have remembered to compare to Bill O’Reilly’s admissions. He gets pretty angry about that.
He tries to account for why Corn might be motivated to strike against Fox News and have some bias attached to his actions smearing O’Reilly.
Hewitt also tries to establish how David Corn defines the words “combat,” “protest,” and “riot,” in order to show how one might be confused with another, or there might be a spectrum of hostilities.
David Corn childishly refuses to answer very simple questions and calls Hewitt’s questioning “word games,” showing just how weak his reporting must be.
Here’s how you endear yourself with the American public – tell them they’re just too stupid to understand your subtle foreign policy of letting terrorists take over the world!
Here’s a transcript of the comments before she insulted everyone:
WB: You said that the U.S. cannot kill our way out of this war, that the U.S. needs to go after the root causes that lead these young men, mostly men, some women, to go and join ISIS or Al Qaeda or Al Shabaab or these terrorist groups.
MH: I’m not the first person to say something like this. Military commanders that we’ve had throughout many years here fighting this war on terrorism have said the exact same thing, that in the short term when there’s a threat like ISIL, we’ll take direct military action against these terrorists. We have done that. We are doing that in Iraq and Syria. But longer term, we have to look at how we combat the conditions that can lead people to turn to extremism. If you think about, you know, if there’s a radical jihadi on the internet who is putting out hateful videos, that’s powerful and dangerous, right? But if there are 10,000 men in a country willing to blow themselves up because of what it says on the internet, that’s much more dangerous. So how do you get these 10,000 it people not to pick up the ak-47 and do something positive in their life? Looking at the long-term problem, not just the short-term one.
WB: So you suggest that maybe if you find these young men jobs, they might not become terrorists?
MH: I think that’s a gross oversimplification. There’s things like good governance and if there is not good governance, it creates a space for people to get to the root of their cause. We’ve seen that in Libya. Where there’s a lack of governance, you’ve see young men attracted to this cause. We’ve seen this around the Middle East and around the world. How do you get at that root cause? That’s really the bigger point.
WB: But you know, of course, some of the best-known terrorists out there came from wealth and privileged, higher education, degrees, Bin Laden himself.
MH: Asolutely. It takes on a variety of different ways that you can do that here. Part of it is military. Absolutely. We’re taking direct action against ISIL in Iraq. But look, if we look around the world and say longer term we cannot kill every terrorist around the world nor should we try, how do you get at the root causes of this? It might be too nuanced of an argument for some like I’ve seen some of the commentary out there in the last 24 hours but it’s the smart way that the Republicans, Democrats, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat it.
This is just stupid thinking. We can’t catch every murderer – should we just stop trying? We can’t catch every rapist, should we just stop trying? This is typical of the Obama kind of debate – you don’t engage with what people say, but with strawmen representations that will make you sound smart. In this case, it failed on both accounts.