Twelve different IRS units nationwide targeted conservatives
Twelve different groups within the IRS targeted conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, according to the attorneys representing tea party plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
against the IRS.The revelation disproves the suggestion by a top congressional Democrat that only one IRS group was responsible for scrutinizing tea party and conservative applications
.Group 7821, Group 7822, Group 7823, Group 7824, Group 7827, Group 7828, Group 7829, Group 7830, Group 7838, EOG-7887, and EOG-7888, and the Tax Exempt
and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. all targeted
conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, according to documentation
compiled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has
filed a class-action suit against the IRS.Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee investigating the IRS targeting scandal, previously
suggested that tea party applications were sent only to Group 7822 for
scrutiny. Cummings released transcripts of an interview
his staff conducted with John Shafer, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS
office, who claimed that he sent tea party applications specifically to
Group 7822.“Based upon everything I’ve seen the case is solved,” Cummings said on CNN during a June 9 interview.
The ACLJ disagrees.
“[John] Shafer was just one individual describing his experience interacting with one group [Group 7822]. If he was only interacting with one group then his involvement in this process was minimal,” ACLJ senior counsel David French told The Daily Caller.
“Group 7822 was pinpointed because of the release from Rep. Cummings, which created the impression that there were one or two agents that referred to a single group,” French said. “In fact we are dealing with multiple IRS offices across the nation that were targeting conservative groups, and eleven different IRS groups beside Group 7822, including the Tax
Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington. Each of these groups was working on tea party and conservative cases.”“After Rep. Cummings’ statement, the media
fixated on Group 7822 as the patient zero of the outbreak when the
reality is it was many groups, so the IRS hierarchy is much more
implicated,” French said.Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS sent letters to tea party applicants across the country demanding more information before their tax-exempt applications could be approved. On the upper left-hand corner of these letters, the IRS identified the working group within the agency requesting the information. Twelve different groups appeared on these letters, according to French.
The El Monte, California IRS office
,
for instance, sent a letter requesting additional information to
Oklahoma City Patriots in Action, dated February 9, 2012, which listed
the IRS group EOG-7887 in the upper left-hand corner.“We’re going to find out the differences between these IRS groups in litigation,” French said. “Which personnel were in each group? Was there overlap in personnel?”
It remains unclear whether these IRS groups existed prior to the targeting. It is also unclear whether these groups each had their own physical locations, according to French.
Despite claims by IRS officials that the targeting occurred only in the agency’s Cincinnati office, the ACLJ compiled letters proving that IRS offices
in Washington, D.C. and the California cities of El Monte and Laguna
Niguel also targeted conservatives. The Daily Caller has also reported
that the agency’s Baltimore and Chicago offices engaged in the improper targeting.Cincinnati-based IRS employee Elizabeth Hofacre told congressional investigators that Washington-based IRS lawyer Carter Hull oversaw her office’s targeting, and even instructed her on how to demand additional information from tea party groups. “I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” Hofacre said.
“We know that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. was involved, and that’s where Carter Hull and Lois Lerner were working. We have 14 letters directly from Lois Lerner,” French said. “When Lois Lerner said on May 10 that this was just a few agents in Cincinnati, we were literally holding in our hands 14 letters that she wrote to conservative groups.”
The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment.
Werfel's chaff obscures tea party targeting
The IRS wants the public to think that they also targeted progressives. It's just chaff. When the Luftwaffe lost so many aircraft to British-developed radar, they developed the countermeasure of spreading clouds of aluminum strips that offered multiple targets or obscured the area.An analogous countermeasure has just been deployed. Eliana Johnson of NRO:
Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous "Be On The Lookout" list was far broader than originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general's report. News accounts in outlets such as the Associated Press andBloomberg News supported Werfel's claim, indicating that terms on the list ran the gamut, politically speaking, from "tea party" to "progressive" and "occupy," and even to groups whose applications included the word "Israel."
See? We weren't really targeting conservatives and the tea party!
AP put out a story ("Documents show IRS also screened liberal groups") consistent with this narrative:
While investigators have said that agency screening for those groups had stopped in May 2012, Monday's revelations made it clear that screening for other kinds of organizations continued until earlier this month, when the agency's new chief, Danny Werfel, says he discovered it and ordered it halted.
This makes it look like the tea party got better treatment than progressives. From AP to every major media outlet to widely accepted presumption. That's the way the game works.
But it is chaff, as the British called it. I kind of like the Germans' term for their invention: düppel, because the first syllable is "dupe."
Eliana Johnson explains the phoniness:
...screeners were instructed to treat progressive groups differently from tea-party groups. Whereas they were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status "may not be appropriate" for progressive groups - 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activity - they were told to send applications from tea-party groups off to IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.
That means the applications of progressive organizations could be approved by line agents on the spot, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were "currently being coordinated with EOT" - Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive organizations were not.
So this "broader, more inclusive" list is just düppel. The problem is that explaining the issue requires more attention than most people are willing to expend. However, more hearings lie ahead for Werfel, and he should be forced to explain the facts Johnson presents.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/werfels_chaff_obscures_tea_party_targeting.html#ixzz2XEytLo3j
Think NSA Spying Is Bad? Here Comes ObamaCare Hub
The Health and Human Services Department earlier this year exposed just how vast the government's data collection efforts will be on millions of Americans as a result of ObamaCare.Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., asked HHS to provide "a complete list of agencies that will interact with the Federal Data Services Hub." The Hub is a central feature of ObamaCare, since it will be used by the new insurance exchanges to determine eligibility for benefits, exemptions from the federal mandate, and how much to grant in federal insurance subsidies.
In response, the HHS said the ObamaCare data hub will "interact" with seven other federal agencies: Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense and — believe it or not — the Peace Corps. Plus the Hub will plug into state Medicaid databases.
And what sort of data will be "routed through" the Hub? Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, and enrollment status in other health plans, according to the HHS.
"The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic," noted Stephen Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor.
Not to worry, says the Obama administration. "The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information," it claimed in an online fact sheet .
But a regulatory notice filed by the administration in February tells a different story.
That filing describes a new "system of records" that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as "tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources."
They will also store data from businesses buying coverage through an exchange, including a "list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers," and keep it all on file for 10 years.
In addition, the filing says the federal government can disclose this information "without the consent of the individual" to a wide range of people, including "agency contractors, consultants, or grantees" who "need to have access to the records" to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to "investigate potential fraud."
Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., complained that just months before ObamaCare officially starts, the Obama administration still hasn't answered "even the most basic questions about the Data Hub," such as who will have access to what information, or what training and clearances will be required.
Beyond these concerns is the government's rather sorry record in protecting confidential information.
Late last year, for example, a hacker was able to gain access to a South Carolina database that contained Social Security numbers and bank account data on 3.6 million people.
A Government Accountability Office report found that weaknesses in IRS security systems "continue to jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the financial and sensitive taxpayer information."
A separate inspector general audit found that the IRS inadvertently disclosed information on thousands of taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. In 2011, the Social Security Administration accidentally released names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of Americans.
If these government agencies can't protect data kept on their own servers, how much more vulnerable will these databases be when they're constantly getting tapped by the ObamaCare Data Hub?
In any case, creating even richer and more comprehensive databases on Americans will create a powerful incentive to abuse them among those looking to score political points by revealing private information or criminals who want to steal identities.
A recent CNN poll found that 62% of Americans say "government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans."
What will the public think once ObamaCare and its vast data machine is in full force?
The Immigration Bill (Or Is It the Corker-Hoeven Amendment?): Everything That Is Wrong with Washington
I was just watching Senator Ted Cruz’s floor speech in opposition to the atrocious immigration bill and took note of a remarkable exchange between Senators Cruz and Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and mastermind of the legislation. The short YouTube video is worth your time (Schumer interrupts about a minute in). Cruz pointed out that the hefy 1,200-page Corker-Hoeven Amendment was dropped like a stealth bomb late Friday with supporters now pushing for an immediate vote when it is perfectly obvious that no one could possibly have read, studied and analyzed the proposal. As if it were a defense, Schumer insisted that of the 1,200 pages “only” 100 pages are new, and that certainly a senator should be able to read “only” 100 pages of “important legislation” over a weekend.
Let’s pretend Schumer is correct — and he’s not: Senator Corker says it is actually 119 new pages. When a bill is amended in a sneaky manner, as this one has been, no responsible senator could just read 100 new pages. The amendments are interspersed thoughout the bill — it’s not like you could sit and read them as a unit, even if you had the time. Since the proponents are clearly trying to pull a fast one, prudence, as Senator Cruz pointed out, would dictate rereading every line of text, old and new, to search for insertions — and, indeed, news reports indicate that numerous new buy-offs and pot-sweeteners have been inserted.
But there is a larger point: no “important legislation” should be 100 pages long, much less 1,200 (or the even more mind-boggling girth of monstrosities like Obamacare). The United States Constitution is about 4,500 words long — outfits like Cato and Heritage publish it in small pamphlets that can be read in a few minutes. Nowadays, not only are the bills so gargantuan that no one could conceivably master them and predict their consequences; each page produces even more pages of regulations. They can’t even be lifted, much less digested.
You cannot have a functioning democratic republic when the laws are so voluminous no one can know what the law is. And that is especially the case when (a) the rationale for passing new laws — according to “reform” proponents like Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Paul Ryan — is that we don’t enforce the laws currently on the books; (b) key parts of legislation consist of commitments to do what previously enacted law already commands; and (c) the president, notwithstanding his oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, claims the power to refrain from enforcing whatever laws he disapproves of. Washington has made a farce of the legislative process and of the once proud boast that we are ”a nation of laws not men.”
In his excellent little book A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia recalls that the emperor Nero would post edicts high up on the pillars — it was a pretense of having the rule of law that barely camouflaged the reality of arbitrary and tyrranical enforcement. That is what we have now. It is what happens when a government gets so big no one any longer recognizes either the limits or why it is essential to have limits.
Whatever the merits of the legislation (and who can say with confidence what they are?), the senate process alone is reason enough to vote against it. World’t greatest deliberative body? It is astounding that any lawmaker could vote for this beast and still call himself a conservative supporter of limited government.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351916/immigration-bill-or-it-corker-hoeven-amendment-everything-wrong-washington-andrew-c
As the White House criticized the Chinese government for allowing
fugitive National Security Agency leaker Ed Snowden to leave Hong Kong
on Monday, the Senate plans to take up legislation that would grant
special visa privileges to residents of the Chinese city.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) authored that provision, which grants Hong Kong residents access to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The VWP expedites business and leisure visas for citizens of participating nations.
Hirono did not return requests for comment on whether her views on the measure have changed in light of news that the Chinese government allowed Snowden to leave Hong Kong in defiance of requests by U.S. officials to keep him in the city.
“This was a deliberate choice by the [Chinese] government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Monday.
The Senate may not be able to remove the language in light of Monday’s Snowden revelations despite that diplomatic wedge between China and the United States because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has prevented any additional amendments.
Reid used a procedural maneuver called “filling the amendment tree,” which permits votes only on a limited number of amendments, to prevent additional changes to the legislation.
After the Senate considers an amendment to add border security previsions to the bill—it is expected to vote on a cloture motion at 5:30 p.m.—no other amendments can be offered.
At least 350 amendments have been proposed, according to the Hill, but the Senate may only vote on nine of them.
“Unfortunately, Democrats appear to have shut down the amendment process,” one Senate Republican leadership aide told the Washington Free Beacon.
Republican senators are fuming at the move. Fourteen wrote a letter to Reid on Monday saying that the decision to fill the tree undercut pledges of procedural cooperation on immigration legislation.
“After repeated promises of a full and open amendment process on the floor, we have had nine roll call votes on amendments to the Gang of Eight’s 1,076-page immigration bill. Nine. And there is the prospect of a full shut-down of amendment votes after today,” the senators wrote.
Reid’s maneuver “is deeply, deeply disturbing,” they added, and “is effectively shutting down the American people’s ability to be heard on this issue through their elected representatives.”
The Republican aide said that while changes could be made to the bill through unanimous consent (UC), even small changes to the bill will likely encounter resistance, making a UC effort near impossible.
http://freebeacon.com/hong-kong-given-special-visa-access-in-immigration-bill/
Why does the Republican Party lose elections? Because we do things like this...
1) Most of the Republicans backing the bill in the Senate lied to their base: What is George W. Bush's daddy most remembered for? Being Ronald Reagan's VP? No. Winning the Gulf War? No. Oh, yes, it was breaking his, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. But, is that fair? After all, politicians lie, don't they? So, what makes that one stand out? Well, there's a reason people remember that lie: because Bush gratuitously lied to his base on an issue that deeply mattered to them. It wasn't just a lie; it was a betrayal. Well, guess what? Many of the Republicans in the Senate that have supported the McCain/Rubio amnesty bill are engaging in exactly the same type of betrayal.
2) The bill gives liberals everything they want while conservatives get nothing: Why is it that most "bipartisan" bills seem to start with the presumption that Democrats should get almost everything that they want while Republicans get nothing and that's a "compromise?"
The Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is essentially a Democrat immigration wish list with some phony security proposals tossed in that everyone paying attention to the bill knows are doomed to fail.
The Democrats will get 30 million new immigrants, probably 5-12 million of which they will turn into new voters, an end to tough interior enforcement, a continuing permanent stream of illegal aliens, a new guest worker program that will put more Americans out of jobs onto welfare while conservatives get absolutely nothing in return other than an empty promise of security from the exact same Republicans who have lied to them about being against amnesty.
When the Republicans won't even make a halfhearted attempt to fight for the issues that their supporters want, that they campaigned on, and that the American people are demanding, why should anyone vote them into office?
3) Politically, this bill helps Democrats in every way possible while hurting Republicans in every way possible: So, we have Barack Obama being buried under an avalanche of scandals. The IRS scandal, Benghazi, the NSA scandal -- the only thing the GOP had to do was stay out of the way, let him twist in the wind, and then reap the rewards in November of 2014. Instead, we have Republican senators taking the heat off Obama and breaking their word to their constituents to support a bill that primarily helps the Democrats.
Let's say theoretically, John Boehner loses his mind, abandons the Hastert rule, and passes the Senate bill with mostly Democrat support. Then, what would happen? Obama would take all the credit for the bill, millions of betrayed conservatives would stay home in 2014 in protest and Democrats would run ads non-stop attacking the GOP as racists for making the poor, put-upon "future Americans" wait 10 years to become citizens. In other words, this bill doesn't take the issue "off the table" at all and would likely cost the GOP many more Hispanic and conservative votes than it would bring in over the long haul.
Alternately, if the bill dies like a dog on the freeway in the House, Democrats will STILL run ads aimed at Hispanics attacking "racist" Republicans for blocking amnesty while millions of conservatives will still be furious at Senate Republicans for lying to them yet again.
Sell-outs like Marco Rubio and proven failures like John McCain may rake in campaign contributions from corrupt businessmen while the New York Times writes nice articles about them, but their stupidity and selfishness has put the Republican Party in a no-win situation from day one on this issue.
4) It misses an obvious opportunity: Whether you're talking Republican, Democrat or independent, white, black or Hispanic, male or female, straight or gay, it doesn't matter, just about every group you can find says that it wants the border secured and an end to illegal immigration. However, one of the groups that DOESN'T WANT that to happen is the Democrat Party.
So, why not toe the line on a popular issue like border security and MAKE THE DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST IT? Why not offer up some kind of legal status AFTER the border is secure, the fence is built and E-verify is in place without putting citizenship on the table? Giving any kind of legal status to illegals is better than they deserve since they're here illegally, but most Americans and even most conservatives would probably be okay with it if we actually got security first. Then, the GOP could do Hispanic outreach, hammer the Obama administration for refusing to enforce the law and accuse the Democrats of wanting to "deport grandma" for refusing to go along with the security first, legalization later idea.
The problem with that is too many Republicans DON'T WANT TO WIN ON THE ISSUE. Too much money is being slipped into their pockets, too many of their establishment buddies at cocktail parties want open borders, and too many corrupt businessmen want cheap workers with the American people picking up the tab. But, they realize that admitting all of this is political death; so they lie on the campaign trail, create political disasters like this amnesty bill and then try to cast the blame elsewhere for their inability to tell the truth.
5) The bill is proof that the GOP governs just as poorly as the Democrats: If you want proof that the Democrats can't govern, your first piece of evidence is Obamacare. It's a massive bill that legislators didn't even read, that was sold entirely with lies, that is failing in almost every way possible. Not only did it just eviscerate the Democrats in 2010, Obamacare is on track to kill them in the 2014 election as well as it's rolled out. It's like a shattered knee-cap, the gift that just keeps on hurting.
Yet, what is this immigration bill? It's a massive bill that no one has read, that has been sold entirely with lies that will fail in every way and keep on reminding people how bad it is. It doesn't matter if Rubio and McCain promise to buy the Great Wall of China and staff it with a million, zillion, jillion border agents because once illegals are allowed to stay here legally, none of the security promises will ever be fulfilled. Every last Republican senator voting for that bill knows that as does every informed person who follows this issue.
That begs a question: Why should the American people want the GOP in office? If both parties are just as incompetent, just as dishonest and just as committed to working for special interests instead of the American people, but the Democrats will give you more free stuff, then what good are the Republicans?
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/06/25/5-reasons-republicans-lose-elections-wrapped-up-in-the-amnesty-bill-n1626899/page/full
relies on executive power to corral power plants.
The president calls for the Environmental Protection Agency
to “expeditiously” set limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new and
existing power plants, a move that will be hailed by environmentalists
and decried as debilitating by the struggling coal industry.
“To accomplish these goals, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection
Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for
both new and existing power plants,” states the Obama plan. “This work
will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas
and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.”
A recent report’s findings that federal tax subsidies for renewable
energy have negligible effects on greenhouse gas emissions and in some
cases even increase them has renewed concerns about government energy
policies ahead of President Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday unveiling his new climate plan.
I was just watching Senator Ted Cruz’s floor speech in opposition to the atrocious immigration bill and took note of a remarkable exchange between Senators Cruz and Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and mastermind of the legislation. The short YouTube video is worth your time (Schumer interrupts about a minute in). Cruz pointed out that the hefy 1,200-page Corker-Hoeven Amendment was dropped like a stealth bomb late Friday with supporters now pushing for an immediate vote when it is perfectly obvious that no one could possibly have read, studied and analyzed the proposal. As if it were a defense, Schumer insisted that of the 1,200 pages “only” 100 pages are new, and that certainly a senator should be able to read “only” 100 pages of “important legislation” over a weekend.
Let’s pretend Schumer is correct — and he’s not: Senator Corker says it is actually 119 new pages. When a bill is amended in a sneaky manner, as this one has been, no responsible senator could just read 100 new pages. The amendments are interspersed thoughout the bill — it’s not like you could sit and read them as a unit, even if you had the time. Since the proponents are clearly trying to pull a fast one, prudence, as Senator Cruz pointed out, would dictate rereading every line of text, old and new, to search for insertions — and, indeed, news reports indicate that numerous new buy-offs and pot-sweeteners have been inserted.
But there is a larger point: no “important legislation” should be 100 pages long, much less 1,200 (or the even more mind-boggling girth of monstrosities like Obamacare). The United States Constitution is about 4,500 words long — outfits like Cato and Heritage publish it in small pamphlets that can be read in a few minutes. Nowadays, not only are the bills so gargantuan that no one could conceivably master them and predict their consequences; each page produces even more pages of regulations. They can’t even be lifted, much less digested.
You cannot have a functioning democratic republic when the laws are so voluminous no one can know what the law is. And that is especially the case when (a) the rationale for passing new laws — according to “reform” proponents like Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Paul Ryan — is that we don’t enforce the laws currently on the books; (b) key parts of legislation consist of commitments to do what previously enacted law already commands; and (c) the president, notwithstanding his oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, claims the power to refrain from enforcing whatever laws he disapproves of. Washington has made a farce of the legislative process and of the once proud boast that we are ”a nation of laws not men.”
In his excellent little book A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia recalls that the emperor Nero would post edicts high up on the pillars — it was a pretense of having the rule of law that barely camouflaged the reality of arbitrary and tyrranical enforcement. That is what we have now. It is what happens when a government gets so big no one any longer recognizes either the limits or why it is essential to have limits.
Whatever the merits of the legislation (and who can say with confidence what they are?), the senate process alone is reason enough to vote against it. World’t greatest deliberative body? It is astounding that any lawmaker could vote for this beast and still call himself a conservative supporter of limited government.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351916/immigration-bill-or-it-corker-hoeven-amendment-everything-wrong-washington-andrew-c
Hong Kong Given Special Visa Access in Immigration Bill
Reid procedural ploy will prevent Senate from removing language despite city’s protection of NSA leaker
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) authored that provision, which grants Hong Kong residents access to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The VWP expedites business and leisure visas for citizens of participating nations.
Hirono did not return requests for comment on whether her views on the measure have changed in light of news that the Chinese government allowed Snowden to leave Hong Kong in defiance of requests by U.S. officials to keep him in the city.
“This was a deliberate choice by the [Chinese] government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Monday.
The Senate may not be able to remove the language in light of Monday’s Snowden revelations despite that diplomatic wedge between China and the United States because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has prevented any additional amendments.
Reid used a procedural maneuver called “filling the amendment tree,” which permits votes only on a limited number of amendments, to prevent additional changes to the legislation.
After the Senate considers an amendment to add border security previsions to the bill—it is expected to vote on a cloture motion at 5:30 p.m.—no other amendments can be offered.
At least 350 amendments have been proposed, according to the Hill, but the Senate may only vote on nine of them.
“Unfortunately, Democrats appear to have shut down the amendment process,” one Senate Republican leadership aide told the Washington Free Beacon.
Republican senators are fuming at the move. Fourteen wrote a letter to Reid on Monday saying that the decision to fill the tree undercut pledges of procedural cooperation on immigration legislation.
“After repeated promises of a full and open amendment process on the floor, we have had nine roll call votes on amendments to the Gang of Eight’s 1,076-page immigration bill. Nine. And there is the prospect of a full shut-down of amendment votes after today,” the senators wrote.
Reid’s maneuver “is deeply, deeply disturbing,” they added, and “is effectively shutting down the American people’s ability to be heard on this issue through their elected representatives.”
The Republican aide said that while changes could be made to the bill through unanimous consent (UC), even small changes to the bill will likely encounter resistance, making a UC effort near impossible.
http://freebeacon.com/hong-kong-given-special-visa-access-in-immigration-bill/
5 Reasons Republicans Lose Elections Wrapped Up In The Amnesty Bill
If you want to know what's wrong with the Republican Party wrapped up in one pretty package, like the head in the box at the end of Seven, all you have to do is look at the latest amnesty disaster that was created by a gang of Republican idiots in the Senate. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, John Hoeven, Kelly Ayotte, Dean Heller and the rest of the braindead Senate Republican buffoons that have supported this bill are the living personification of the words, "Stuck on Stupid." They picked the wrong issue, at the wrong time, did it the wrong way, and set it up so that no matter what happens, the Republican Party is doomed to get kicked in the teeth.Why does the Republican Party lose elections? Because we do things like this...
1) Most of the Republicans backing the bill in the Senate lied to their base: What is George W. Bush's daddy most remembered for? Being Ronald Reagan's VP? No. Winning the Gulf War? No. Oh, yes, it was breaking his, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. But, is that fair? After all, politicians lie, don't they? So, what makes that one stand out? Well, there's a reason people remember that lie: because Bush gratuitously lied to his base on an issue that deeply mattered to them. It wasn't just a lie; it was a betrayal. Well, guess what? Many of the Republicans in the Senate that have supported the McCain/Rubio amnesty bill are engaging in exactly the same type of betrayal.
"I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally." -- Marco Rubio
“In the Senate, Kelly’s top immigration priority will be to secure our borders – no excuses. Simultaneously, she will work to ensure that existing immigration laws are enforced and is against amnesty.” -- Kelly Ayotte's website
"I believe it is an amnesty program, a back-door amnesty program for the 12 to 15 million people who are here illegally." -- Dean HellerThese types of lies to the base are the equivalent of adultery in a marriage. If they're going to blatantly lie on something this important, how do the American people trust these Republicans ON ANYTHING? The honest answer is that you can't trust them. Today they're lying on illegal immigration and tomorrow they may lie to you on deficit reduction, gun control, or abortion. When a politician's own supporters can't take anything he says at face value, how can the American people be expected to trust him?
2) The bill gives liberals everything they want while conservatives get nothing: Why is it that most "bipartisan" bills seem to start with the presumption that Democrats should get almost everything that they want while Republicans get nothing and that's a "compromise?"
The Rubio/McCain amnesty bill is essentially a Democrat immigration wish list with some phony security proposals tossed in that everyone paying attention to the bill knows are doomed to fail.
The Democrats will get 30 million new immigrants, probably 5-12 million of which they will turn into new voters, an end to tough interior enforcement, a continuing permanent stream of illegal aliens, a new guest worker program that will put more Americans out of jobs onto welfare while conservatives get absolutely nothing in return other than an empty promise of security from the exact same Republicans who have lied to them about being against amnesty.
When the Republicans won't even make a halfhearted attempt to fight for the issues that their supporters want, that they campaigned on, and that the American people are demanding, why should anyone vote them into office?
3) Politically, this bill helps Democrats in every way possible while hurting Republicans in every way possible: So, we have Barack Obama being buried under an avalanche of scandals. The IRS scandal, Benghazi, the NSA scandal -- the only thing the GOP had to do was stay out of the way, let him twist in the wind, and then reap the rewards in November of 2014. Instead, we have Republican senators taking the heat off Obama and breaking their word to their constituents to support a bill that primarily helps the Democrats.
Let's say theoretically, John Boehner loses his mind, abandons the Hastert rule, and passes the Senate bill with mostly Democrat support. Then, what would happen? Obama would take all the credit for the bill, millions of betrayed conservatives would stay home in 2014 in protest and Democrats would run ads non-stop attacking the GOP as racists for making the poor, put-upon "future Americans" wait 10 years to become citizens. In other words, this bill doesn't take the issue "off the table" at all and would likely cost the GOP many more Hispanic and conservative votes than it would bring in over the long haul.
Alternately, if the bill dies like a dog on the freeway in the House, Democrats will STILL run ads aimed at Hispanics attacking "racist" Republicans for blocking amnesty while millions of conservatives will still be furious at Senate Republicans for lying to them yet again.
Sell-outs like Marco Rubio and proven failures like John McCain may rake in campaign contributions from corrupt businessmen while the New York Times writes nice articles about them, but their stupidity and selfishness has put the Republican Party in a no-win situation from day one on this issue.
4) It misses an obvious opportunity: Whether you're talking Republican, Democrat or independent, white, black or Hispanic, male or female, straight or gay, it doesn't matter, just about every group you can find says that it wants the border secured and an end to illegal immigration. However, one of the groups that DOESN'T WANT that to happen is the Democrat Party.
So, why not toe the line on a popular issue like border security and MAKE THE DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST IT? Why not offer up some kind of legal status AFTER the border is secure, the fence is built and E-verify is in place without putting citizenship on the table? Giving any kind of legal status to illegals is better than they deserve since they're here illegally, but most Americans and even most conservatives would probably be okay with it if we actually got security first. Then, the GOP could do Hispanic outreach, hammer the Obama administration for refusing to enforce the law and accuse the Democrats of wanting to "deport grandma" for refusing to go along with the security first, legalization later idea.
The problem with that is too many Republicans DON'T WANT TO WIN ON THE ISSUE. Too much money is being slipped into their pockets, too many of their establishment buddies at cocktail parties want open borders, and too many corrupt businessmen want cheap workers with the American people picking up the tab. But, they realize that admitting all of this is political death; so they lie on the campaign trail, create political disasters like this amnesty bill and then try to cast the blame elsewhere for their inability to tell the truth.
5) The bill is proof that the GOP governs just as poorly as the Democrats: If you want proof that the Democrats can't govern, your first piece of evidence is Obamacare. It's a massive bill that legislators didn't even read, that was sold entirely with lies, that is failing in almost every way possible. Not only did it just eviscerate the Democrats in 2010, Obamacare is on track to kill them in the 2014 election as well as it's rolled out. It's like a shattered knee-cap, the gift that just keeps on hurting.
Yet, what is this immigration bill? It's a massive bill that no one has read, that has been sold entirely with lies that will fail in every way and keep on reminding people how bad it is. It doesn't matter if Rubio and McCain promise to buy the Great Wall of China and staff it with a million, zillion, jillion border agents because once illegals are allowed to stay here legally, none of the security promises will ever be fulfilled. Every last Republican senator voting for that bill knows that as does every informed person who follows this issue.
That begs a question: Why should the American people want the GOP in office? If both parties are just as incompetent, just as dishonest and just as committed to working for special interests instead of the American people, but the Democrats will give you more free stuff, then what good are the Republicans?
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/06/25/5-reasons-republicans-lose-elections-wrapped-up-in-the-amnesty-bill-n1626899/page/full
Obama’s new climate plan relies on unilateral executive power
Under pressure from environmentalists, President Barack Obama’s new plan to tackle global warming relies on executive power to corral power plants.The president calls for the Environmental Protection Agency
to “expeditiously” set limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new and
existing power plants, a move that will be hailed by environmentalists
and decried as debilitating by the struggling coal industry.“To accomplish these goals, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection
Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for
both new and existing power plants,” states the Obama plan. “This work
will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas
and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.”
“In developing the standards, the President has asked the Environmental
Protection Agency to build on state leadership, provide flexibility,
and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies
including many actions in this plan,” the document continues.
Regulations previously proposed by the EPA to limit emissions at new power
plants would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power
plants unless they utilize carbon capture technology, which the industry
argues is not commercially viable.
“We do not believe EPA regulations are an effective way to address concerns about global climate change,” said Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “If the government creates standards that are not practical, they risk not just shutting down existing plants but also halting the development of additional clean coal technology
facilities. Taking America’s most significant source of electricity
offline would have disastrous consequences for our nation’s economy.”
Earlier this year, the EPA missed its deadline to finalize a rule limiting emissions from new power plants. Environmental groups and several states responded by threatening to sue to force the agency to implement the rule. The lawsuit was shelved pending the president’s new climate plan.
“Combating climate change means curbing carbon pollution — for the first time ever — from the biggest single source of such dangerous gases: our coal-fired power plants,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We stand ready to help President Obama in every way we can.”
The EPA has also already indicated that emission limits for existing power plants are ahead.
Acting EPA administrator Bob Perciasepe told reporters that the agency looks forward to “working with states on existing sources, but we’re not there yet. But that’s certainly something that will be on the table in this next fiscal year.”
The president’s climate plan
has three main area of focus: reducing U.S. carbon emissions, taking
the lead on a global climate agreement and preparing the U.S. for the
effects of global warming.
“While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged,” reads Obama’s plan. “Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children’s health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment.”
This includes directing the Interior Department to permit more green energy projects on public lands by 2020 to power more than 6 million homes, assistance for energy efficiency in commercial and industrial buildings and developing fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
The plan would also direct federal agencies to support “climate-resilient’ investments on the local level and commits the U.S. to expanding and entering into new international agreements to curb emissions.
The administration’s plan, however, did not address the issue approving the Keystone XL pipeline, a hot-button issue among environmentalists.
Obama’s announcement comes at a time when cracks are starting to show in the science surrounding global warming, as global temperatures stopped rising about 15 years ago.
“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” said Roger Pielke, Sr., senior research scientist at CIRES at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The United Nations’ climate authority predicted that global temperatures would rise between 1 degree Celsius and 3 degrees
Celsius in the short term, but UK scientists have reported that global
temperatures will only rise between 0.9 degrees Celsius and 2.0 degrees
Celsius — echoing a finding by Norwegian scientists that temperatures
would only rise 1.9 degrees Celsius.
Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute noted many studies have lowered warming estimates:
“Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).”
“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” meteorologist Hans von Storch told the German publication Der Spiegel. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.”
“The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/obamas-new-climate-plan-relies-on-unilateral-executive-power/#ixzz2XF0cNy5N
Protection Agency to build on state leadership, provide flexibility,
and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies
including many actions in this plan,” the document continues.Regulations previously proposed by the EPA to limit emissions at new power
plants would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power
plants unless they utilize carbon capture technology, which the industry
argues is not commercially viable.“We do not believe EPA regulations are an effective way to address concerns about global climate change,” said Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “If the government creates standards that are not practical, they risk not just shutting down existing plants but also halting the development of additional clean coal technology
facilities. Taking America’s most significant source of electricity
offline would have disastrous consequences for our nation’s economy.”Earlier this year, the EPA missed its deadline to finalize a rule limiting emissions from new power plants. Environmental groups and several states responded by threatening to sue to force the agency to implement the rule. The lawsuit was shelved pending the president’s new climate plan
.“Combating climate change means curbing carbon pollution — for the first time ever — from the biggest single source of such dangerous gases: our coal-fired power plants,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources
Defense Council. “We stand ready to help President Obama in every way we can.”The EPA has also already indicated that emission limits for existing power plants are ahead.
Acting EPA administrator Bob Perciasepe told reporters that the agency looks forward to “working with states on existing sources, but we’re not there yet. But that’s certainly something that will be on the table in this next fiscal year.”
The president’s climate plan
has three main area of focus: reducing U.S. carbon emissions, taking
the lead on a global climate agreement and preparing the U.S. for the
effects of global warming.“While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged,” reads Obama’s plan. “Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children’s health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment
.”This includes directing the Interior Department to permit more green energy projects on public lands by 2020 to power more than 6 million homes, assistance for energy efficiency
in commercial and industrial buildings and developing fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles.The plan would also direct federal agencies to support “climate-resilient’ investments on the local level and commits the U.S. to expanding and entering into new international agreements to curb emissions.
The administration’s plan, however, did not address the issue approving the Keystone XL pipeline, a hot-button issue among environmentalists.
Obama’s announcement comes at a time when cracks are starting to show in the science surrounding global warming
, as global temperatures stopped rising about 15 years ago.“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge
of the climate system,” said Roger Pielke, Sr., senior research scientist at CIRES at the University of Colorado at Boulder.The United Nations’ climate authority predicted that global temperatures would rise between 1 degree Celsius and 3 degrees
Celsius in the short term, but UK scientists have reported that global
temperatures will only rise between 0.9 degrees Celsius and 2.0 degrees
Celsius — echoing a finding by Norwegian scientists that temperatures
would only rise 1.9 degrees Celsius.Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute noted many studies have lowered warming estimates:
“Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).”
“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” meteorologist Hans von Storch told the German publication Der Spiegel. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.”
“The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/obamas-new-climate-plan-relies-on-unilateral-executive-power/#ixzz2XF0cNy5N
Renewable Energy Subsidies Do Little to Reduce Emissions
Experts concerned about government policies ahead of Obama energy speech
The report,
conducted by a National Research Council committee for Congress and
sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, concluded that the tax
provisions fail to place a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions
at a “substantial cost.” Energy-sector subsidies totaled $48 billion in
fiscal years 2011 and 2012, according to Treasury Department estimates.
While the report released Thursday found that production and investment tax credits for renewable electricity reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 0.3 percent, the researchers determined that tax supports and mandates for biofuels such as ethanol, some of which expired last year, actually increase emissions.
Biofuel mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard will increase global carbon dioxide emissions by about 2 million metric tons, according to model projections in the report.
“These results show the often-counterintuitive nature of the effects of tax subsidies,” the report states. “Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite.”
The report suggests that biofuel credits increase emissions because they lower the prices of motor fuels and encourage consumption, canceling out the intended emissions reductions of gasoline blended with renewable biofuels.
The report’s authors recommend a carbon tax or tradable carbon allowances as “both necessary and more efficient” measures of curtailing emissions.
However, Obama is expected to announce tougher regulations on existing coal-fired plants and avoid any tax proposals, which would likely face congressional opposition.
Obama’s stance might reflect the view among some experts that an increase in electricity prices is unlikely to affect consumer behavior, said Maureen Cropper, University of Maryland economics professor and a member of the report committee.
“I think the question is really how much of an increase does it take to alter people’s behavior,” she said.
The regulations more likely represent Obama’s first concrete effort to make renewable energy sources more attractive by inflating the prices of traditional fuels, hurting consumers in the process, said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research.
Some economists have labeled carbon taxes and similar regulations regressive because low-income people spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.
“If you can take actions that kill the coal industry that make it look like you’ll rely on the natural gas industry, and then regulate the gas industry to make prices goes up, that makes the electricity prices go up to such a point that renewable sources are competitive,” Kish said.
http://freebeacon.com/renewable-energy-subsidies-do-little-to-reduce-emissions/
But America’s analog to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is just getting started. Today President Obama will make a climate policy address at Georgetown University. The White House has been keeping its intentions under cover, in part because Obama’s socialist, anti-growth agenda on energy is even contentious among many of his supposed supporters in the Democratic Party. But the President’s duplicity will again be on display--for all who bother to take notice.
“In speeches to political donors and environmental lobby groups over the past few weeks, the President and his Energy Adviser Heather Zichal have slowly telegraphed the coming contents of the speech,” writes James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners in a research note. “It will consist of action which the President can undertake unilaterally, on his own, without Congressional approval, as the President has said he would act on past occasions.”
Lucier notes that the timing of the announcement carries a message in itself, illustrating the desire of Obama to conceal his anti-growth energy agenda. The White House has made a mess of U.S. energy policy--intentionally--with policy decisions required on a number of major national issues months or even years late:
In his speech today, Obama will throw a bone to his supporters on the anti-growth, socialist wing of the Democratic Party. True to his Chicago roots, however, Obama will eventually pretend to give the business community what they want--namely approval of the Keystone XL natural gas pipeline--when the price is right. Yet the complete and very intentional disarray within the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama will allow environmental groups to delay the Keystone XL pipeline project through litigation, perhaps for several years.
John Broder wrote in The New York Times:
But fear not. Obama’s delay in proposing new policy initiatives is intentional. Obama will make friendly noises this week for the environmentalist, tree hugger crowd, but then he will deliberately delay the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline as long as possible to maximize the fund raising opportunities from the business community. Outside the world of politics, this sort of behavior is called extortion. Again Capital Alpha:
We have a new definition of “Californication.” The ultimate objective of Obama and the anti-growth environmentalist community is to turn America into California. They sell a happy image cleaner environment, but the real agenda is pure anti-business, pro-government fascism à la FDR. The future of American energy policy pursued by Obama includes limits on carbon emissions and other environmental rules that are impossible for business to achieve and which will make it equally impossible to create new jobs for Americans in the future.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/24/Washington-Wall-Street-Obama-Energy-Californication
Funny how Mr. Putin always seems to discover his inner civil libertarian when it's an opportunity to humiliate the United States. When the Russian government wants someone off Russian soil, it either removes him from it or puts him under it. Just ask investor Bill Browder, who was declared persona non grata when he tried to land in Moscow in November 2005. Or think of Mr. Browder's lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, murdered by Russian prison officials four years later.
Mr. Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong, where local officials refused a U.S. arrest request, supposedly on grounds it "did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law." That's funny, too, since Mr. Snowden had been staying in a Chinese government safe house before Beijing gave the order to ignore the U.S. request and let him go.
"The Hong Kong government didn't have much of a role," Albert Ho, a Hong Kong legislator, told Reuters. "Its role was to receive instructions to not stop him at the airport."
Now Mr. Snowden may be on his way to Havana, or Caracas, or Quito. It's been said often enough that this so-called transparency crusader remains free thanks to the cheek and indulgence of dictatorships and strongmen. It's also been said that his case illustrates how little has been achieved by President Obama's "reset" with Moscow, or with his California schmoozing of China's Xi Jinping earlier this month.
But however the Snowden episode turns
out (and don't be surprised if the Russians wind up handing him over in
exchange for an unspecified American favor), what it mainly illustrates
is that we are living in an age of American impotence. The Obama
administration has decided it wants out from nettlesome foreign
entanglements, and now finds itself surprised that it's running out of
foreign influence.
That is the larger significance of last week's Afghan diplomatic debacle, in which the Taliban opened an office in Doha for the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"—the name Mullah Omar grandiloquently gave his regime in Kabul before its 2001 downfall. Afghan President Hamid Karzai responded by shutting down negotiations with the U.S. over post-2014 security cooperation.
Now the U.S. finds itself in an amazing position. Merely to get the Taliban to the table for a bogus peace process, the administration agreed at Pakistan's urging to let Mullah Omar come to the table on his owns terms: no acceptance of the Afghan Constitution, no cease-fire with international forces, not even a formal pledge to never again allow Afghanistan to become a haven for international terrorism. The U.S. also agreed, according to Pakistani sources, to allow the terrorist Haqqani network—whose exploits include the 2011 siege of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul—a seat at the table.
Yet having legitimized Haqqani and given the Taliban everything it wanted in exchange for nothing, the U.S. finds itself being dumped by its own client government in Kabul, which can always turn to Iran as a substitute patron. Incredible: no peace, no peace process, no ally, no leverage and no moral standing, all in a single stroke. John Kerry is off to quite a start.
What's happening in Afghanistan is of a piece with the larger pattern of U.S. diplomacy. Iraq? The administration made the complete withdrawal of our troops a cornerstone of its first-term foreign policy, and now finds itself surprised that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won't lift a finger to prevent Iranian cargo planes from overflying his airspace en route to resupplying Bashar Assad's military. Syria? President Obama spent two years giving the country's civil war the widest berth, creating the power vacuum in which Iran, Hezbollah and Russia may soon achieve their strategic goals.
And Iran: In 2003, Tehran briefly halted its secret nuclear-weapons work and agreed to suspend its enrichment activities, at least for a few months. Yet since then, every U.S. effort to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear course has failed. Is it because the Obama administration was insufficiently solicitous, patient, or eager for a deal? Or is it that Tehran believes that treating this administration with contempt carries little cost?
"America can't do a damn thing against us" was a maxim of the Iranian revolution in its early days when America meant Jimmy Carter. Under President Obama, the new maxim could well be "America won't do a damn thing."
Which brings us back to the Snowden file. Speaking from India, Mr. Kerry offered a view on what it would mean for Russia to allow him to flee. "Disappointing," said our 68th secretary of state. He added "there would be without any question some effect and impact on the relationship and consequences."
Moscow must be trembling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324637504578565530512048940.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
In 1998, the Clinton administration sat down at the negotiating table with the Taliban and secured a promise that the Taliban would “not allow terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorism.” A few months later, al-Qaeda blew up U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Three months after those attacks, the Clinton team was back at
the table with the Taliban. According to declassified records, Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright agreed “to engage in a serious and
confidential dialogue with the Taliban through the U.S. Embassy in
Islamabad.” While those negotiations were underway, another meeting was
taking place in Afghanistan, as Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik
Mohammed sat down in Tora Bora to plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
See a pattern here?
Now in 2013, the Taliban has once again promised, in a statement announcing the opening of its new political office in Qatar, that it “does not wish to harm other countries from its soil and neither will it allow others use Afghan soil to pose a threat to the security of other nations.”
Don’t believe a word of it.
Taliban leaders are not interested in sharing power. Their goal is to get the United States out of the way so they can take over Afghanistan.
So why are the Taliban negotiating? Simple. It knows that Barack Obama wants to leave Afghanistan and close Guantanamo Bay — and they want to help him do both.
Taliban leaders have three objectives:
First, they want Obama to free five senior leaders held at Guantanamo Bay. They include a deputy defense minister who has been accused of war crimes by the United Nations and, according to the U.S. military, has “operational associations with significant al-Qaida and other extremist personnel.” They include a deputy minister of intelligence who, according to the U.S. military, “utilized his office to support al-Qaida” and “arranged for al-Qaida personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff.” They include an interior minister who was “directly associated with Usama bin Laden” as well as Hamas and deceased al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Why does the Taliban want these people back? So that they can rejoin the fight to take over Afghanistan. The Taliban heard Obama complain in his National Defense University speech how “we must spend another $200 million to keep Gitmo open at a time when we’re cutting investments in education and research here at home.” They think he will be more than willing to free them — especially in exchange for a captured U.S. soldier.
Second, Taliban leaders want to speed the withdrawal of U.S. troops. They heard Obama declare in his NDU speech that “the Afghan War is coming to an end.” They know Obama is eager for a complete, or near-complete, withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2014. They want to give the president cover to withdraw on time and to leave as few troops behind as possible.
Third, they want to use their Qatar office as a base of operations in the Persian Gulf. From the headquarters Obama allowed them to open in Doha, they can raise funds across the Gulf, link up with other radical jihadist groups and legitimize themselves by engaging other countries diplomatically. Already, they have sent a diplomatic delegation to Iran for a meeting that a Taliban spokesman described “as a meeting of two governments.”
We’ve allowed them to do all this while getting no concessions whatsoever in return. The Taliban has not cut ties with al-Qaeda (something former secretary of state Hilary Clinton once said was an “unambiguous red line”). It has not recognized the Afghan government. It has not renounced violence.
Quite the opposite, it has escalated violence. On the same day it opened its office in Qatar to “negotiate” with the United States, the Taliban launched a rocket attack on Bagram Air Base that killed four U.S. soldiers. How’s that for a confidence-building measure?
The Taliban delegation in Qatar includes members of the Haqqani network — a group that the Obama administration just designated a terrorist organization. Are we really going to sit down with representatives of a group that, according to our State Department, was responsible for the September 2011 attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul, among other terrorist attacks? What’s next? Opening talks with Ayman Zawahiri?
The idea that anything can come of these negotiations is pure folly. The Taliban have no incentive to make concessions. They know that America is leaving Afghanistan. They know that Obama cannot wait to get out. Their objective is not to share power with the Afghan government. It is to replace the Afghan government.
Negotiating with us helps them achieve that goal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-taliban-is-playing-obama/2013/06/24/27c07038-dcdb-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
I cannot recall, in the last five years, Barack Obama ever identifying the Iranians, Hezbollah, or the late Hugo Chavez as among our “enemies,” in the fashion that he once urged Latino leaders to punish conservatives at the polls: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If only the president would treat those who don’t like the United States in the same manner that he does those who do, he might bring great clarity to his now listless foreign policy. Indeed, why waste his rich vocabulary of teleprompted invective on fellow Americans, when there is an entire world out there that wishes the United States ill?
Imagine if Obama declaimed of the Iranians in Tehran that “those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values,” in the manner he once attacked John McCain for calling for border security in 2008. Could not a worldly Obama at least go after the intolerant Saudis for spreading Wahhabi-hatred worldwide and for sending subsidies to radical Sunni terrorists, in the detailed way he once deconstructed rural conservative voters of Pennsylvania? He might have taken apart these dogmatic religious absolutists in the following manner: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” All such invective seems to sum up current Saudi society far better than it does the people of Pennsylvania. Could not the president finish by noting that their madrassas encourage divisions and discourage cooperation, just as he boldly lectured an Irish audience about the problems with Catholic parochial schools?
As far as these hyper-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms go, could not the fearless Obama urge these “fat cats” to share their riches with poorer countries, in the manner he once sermonized to Americans in no uncertain terms: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”?
When Obama deals with the Palestinians, could he not say of them, as he once did without hesitation of the Republican Congress, “Even though most people agree … I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right”? Of the Gaza flotilla incident that was used against ally Israel, Obama at least could offer one of his accustomed blunt retorts like “there is no there there,” as he did to his own domestic critics of Benghazi. Or better yet, he could have flipped it off as a “sideshow.”
Trouble in Syria? Tough Chicagoan Obama should warn Assad that America was bringing a gun to a knife fight, or that Americans were going to get in the faces of their enemies, just as the street-fighting candidate Obama once urged his supporters to confront Republicans.
Of natural disasters in Pakistan, the historically minded president might also see it as a metaphor of a sick society, in the way he said of Katrina that the hurricane catastrophe “was a powerful metaphor of what’s gone on for generations.” Greece is in shambles, its socialist/siesta culture unsustainable. If the candid president is going to lecture Americans with “we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,” and with “this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track,” then perhaps he might extend that tough love to the bankrupt Greeks as well.
Egypt? Could not no-nonsense Obama say of Mohamed Morsi and his destruction of that country that he “was acting stupidly,” in the fashion he did with the Cambridge Police Department? Could not Attorney General Eric Holder be enlisted to talk down to the Libyans, who will not turn over the killers of our government personnel, by claiming they are abject “cowards”? Many Islamists in Nigeria are slaughtering Christians; could not an empathetic Obama express solidarity with the victims the way he did so poignantly with Trayvon Martin: “If I had a son, he’d look like a slain Christian Nigerian”?
Speaking of Christians, might Obama order his NASA chief to praise Christians for their contributions to civilization, in the manner Charles Bolden was ordered to redirect NASA’s mission to Muslim outreach: “Third, and perhaps foremost, he [Obama] wanted me to find a way to each out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering”)?
Perhaps Obama could teach the grasping and cash-rich Chinese that now is not the time for them to profit and that at some point their rapacious international companies should cease the money-making, in the same manner he instructed Americans: “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” The Chinese are said to have the dirtiest air and water on the planet – might a green Obama remonstrate with them about their duty to planet Earth, in the way that he damned his Republican opponents for wanting to “have dirtier air, dirtier water”?
To a hostile Vladimir Putin — reported to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars — the statist Obama might remark that the Russian leader did not build his fortune, at least not without the help of the state. Or more directly, civil-rights organizer Obama might remind polite society of the often-bigoted Putin that he was “a typical white person,” in the manner he once derided his own grandmother. If only Putin was BP, Obama would have him worried about the president musing over “whose ass to kick.”
Obama could also from time to time enlist First Lady Michelle Obama as well. She would be wonderful in courageously reminding a bullying China that it is “just downright mean.” To the corrupt United Nations, a no-holds-barred Michelle could confront its members by reminding them that she had never before been proud of that organization. Perhaps to the Europeans who piggy-back on American defense expenditures, the tough-love first lady might remonstrate as she did with American voters: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Turning to more concrete action, the IRS has global reach. Could it not turn on Hezbollah the way it has gone after the Tea Party?
Instead of inflammatory language like “patriots” and “tea party,” might the agency fixate on “terrorism” and “jihad”? And just as the FBI did not detain Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Major Hasan, or Anwar al-Awlaki after these suspects came to their attention, could it not finally let go of the poor video-maker Mark Basseley Youssef, innocent of inciting the al-Qaeda related terrorists in Benghazi?
For that matter, if controversial films are supposedly catalysts to hate-filled violence, could not the exasperated Obama condemn his powerful friend Recep Erdogan for airing on Turkish state television the anti-Semitic and anti-American Valley of the Wolves? Was not the multimillion-dollar slick Turkish production that played throughout the Islamic world more detrimental to U.S. interests than Youssef’s cheap video farce?
The Associated Press and James Rosen are small-fry leakers in comparison to the things al Jazeera says about America. Why not monitor that new agency’s phone banks, or perhaps even the parents of al Jazeera reporters? If Obama goes after Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News by name, cannot he conjure up at least something like his earlier slur “teabaggers” for the anti-American Islamist media?
Is al Jazeera all that less subversive than Fox News? If EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson can use a fake name and adopt a phony alter ego to evade accountability from her domestic critics, can’t our own government operatives do that abroad to confuse Islamists? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius shook down American companies to pony up money to promote Obamacare; can’t she similarly coerce our allies to help pay more for the joint venture in Afghanistan?
——————————-
American politics is historically a rough-and-tumble business, characterized by invective and slurs. What is different with the Obama administration is not that it goes after its critics, but rather that it does so in an extreme fashion that it does not employ for those abroad who oppose the United States at almost every turn. Diplomacy is one thing, but being far harsher with domestic than foreign critics is a peculiarity we have not seen since the Nixon era, when an “enemies list” did not reference Red China or Leonid Brezhnev’s Russia as much as those who worked for the Washington Post.
Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize, not for anything concrete that he did, but in the eyes of the award committee for his rhetorical efforts to bring the world together. Obviously, the Nobel judges did not think that included half of Obama’s fellow Americans. For Obama, the problem is not so much foreign radicals, revolutionaries, authoritarians, and dictators who hate the United States as it is those within America who, he thinks, cause such odious folk abroad to justifiably despise us.
In other words, if not for our conservatives, the NRA, the pro-lifers, the traditional marriage bunch, the one-percenters, the crazy House Republicans, and the Tea Party/Sarah Palin sorts, our enemies abroad might have become our friends.
And that depressing ideology explains why the president of the United States saves his best invective for his own.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/if-only-our-foreign-enemies-were-republicans/?singlepage=true
While the report released Thursday found that production and investment tax credits for renewable electricity reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 0.3 percent, the researchers determined that tax supports and mandates for biofuels such as ethanol, some of which expired last year, actually increase emissions.
Biofuel mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard will increase global carbon dioxide emissions by about 2 million metric tons, according to model projections in the report.
“These results show the often-counterintuitive nature of the effects of tax subsidies,” the report states. “Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite.”
The report suggests that biofuel credits increase emissions because they lower the prices of motor fuels and encourage consumption, canceling out the intended emissions reductions of gasoline blended with renewable biofuels.
The report’s authors recommend a carbon tax or tradable carbon allowances as “both necessary and more efficient” measures of curtailing emissions.
However, Obama is expected to announce tougher regulations on existing coal-fired plants and avoid any tax proposals, which would likely face congressional opposition.
Obama’s stance might reflect the view among some experts that an increase in electricity prices is unlikely to affect consumer behavior, said Maureen Cropper, University of Maryland economics professor and a member of the report committee.
“I think the question is really how much of an increase does it take to alter people’s behavior,” she said.
The regulations more likely represent Obama’s first concrete effort to make renewable energy sources more attractive by inflating the prices of traditional fuels, hurting consumers in the process, said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research.
Some economists have labeled carbon taxes and similar regulations regressive because low-income people spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.
“If you can take actions that kill the coal industry that make it look like you’ll rely on the natural gas industry, and then regulate the gas industry to make prices goes up, that makes the electricity prices go up to such a point that renewable sources are competitive,” Kish said.
http://freebeacon.com/renewable-energy-subsidies-do-little-to-reduce-emissions/
Washington & Wall Street: Obama, Energy & "Californication"
It's the edge of the worldBarack Obama is arguably the most incompetent and duplicitous individual to occupy the White House since Franklin Roosevelt. His ineptitude is illustrated by fiascos like the terrorist attack in Benghazi. More recently, we saw the gratuitous public rejection of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke during an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS. Obama’s cavalier comments about the Fed chairman staying “too long” caused a week-long sell-off in the financial markets that has badly shaken public confidence in the US economic recovery.
And all of western civilization
The sun may rise in the East
At least it settled in a final location
It's understood that Hollywood
Sells Californication Red Hot Chili Peppers
But America’s analog to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is just getting started. Today President Obama will make a climate policy address at Georgetown University. The White House has been keeping its intentions under cover, in part because Obama’s socialist, anti-growth agenda on energy is even contentious among many of his supposed supporters in the Democratic Party. But the President’s duplicity will again be on display--for all who bother to take notice.
“In speeches to political donors and environmental lobby groups over the past few weeks, the President and his Energy Adviser Heather Zichal have slowly telegraphed the coming contents of the speech,” writes James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners in a research note. “It will consist of action which the President can undertake unilaterally, on his own, without Congressional approval, as the President has said he would act on past occasions.”
Lucier notes that the timing of the announcement carries a message in itself, illustrating the desire of Obama to conceal his anti-growth energy agenda. The White House has made a mess of U.S. energy policy--intentionally--with policy decisions required on a number of major national issues months or even years late:
The month of July, immediately before Congress goes on break for the Fourth of July recess, is about the last opportunity in the year to make any new policy announcement. In August, Washington shuts down for the summer, and in the fall, especially this coming fall, every available moment is taken up by fiscal matters.
In his speech today, Obama will throw a bone to his supporters on the anti-growth, socialist wing of the Democratic Party. True to his Chicago roots, however, Obama will eventually pretend to give the business community what they want--namely approval of the Keystone XL natural gas pipeline--when the price is right. Yet the complete and very intentional disarray within the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama will allow environmental groups to delay the Keystone XL pipeline project through litigation, perhaps for several years.
John Broder wrote in The New York Times:
The president is preparing to move soon because rules as complex as those applying to power plants can take years to complete. Experts say that if Mr. Obama hopes to have a new set of greenhouse gas standards for utilities in place before he leaves office he needs to begin before the end of this year.
But fear not. Obama’s delay in proposing new policy initiatives is intentional. Obama will make friendly noises this week for the environmentalist, tree hugger crowd, but then he will deliberately delay the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline as long as possible to maximize the fund raising opportunities from the business community. Outside the world of politics, this sort of behavior is called extortion. Again Capital Alpha:
We think that the President does need to reinforce his environmental bona fides prior to his likely approval of a border-crossing permit for the pipeline. And we would not be completely surprised to see the President make comments that have a bearing on Keystone XL He might, for instance, say that he expects the pipeline to meet higher standards of environmental review than previously expected, or to include a more robust carbon lifecycle analysis than has ever been done before.
We have a new definition of “Californication.” The ultimate objective of Obama and the anti-growth environmentalist community is to turn America into California. They sell a happy image cleaner environment, but the real agenda is pure anti-business, pro-government fascism à la FDR. The future of American energy policy pursued by Obama includes limits on carbon emissions and other environmental rules that are impossible for business to achieve and which will make it equally impossible to create new jobs for Americans in the future.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/24/Washington-Wall-Street-Obama-Energy-Californication
The Age of American Impotence
As the Edward Snowden saga illustrates, the Obama administration is running out of foreign influence.
At this writing, Edward J. Snowden, the fugitive National Security Agency contractor indicted on espionage charges, is in Moscow, where Vladimir Putin's spokesman insists his government is powerless to detain him. "We have nothing to do with this story," says Dmitri Peskov. "I don't approve or disapprove plane tickets."Funny how Mr. Putin always seems to discover his inner civil libertarian when it's an opportunity to humiliate the United States. When the Russian government wants someone off Russian soil, it either removes him from it or puts him under it. Just ask investor Bill Browder, who was declared persona non grata when he tried to land in Moscow in November 2005. Or think of Mr. Browder's lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, murdered by Russian prison officials four years later.
Mr. Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong, where local officials refused a U.S. arrest request, supposedly on grounds it "did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law." That's funny, too, since Mr. Snowden had been staying in a Chinese government safe house before Beijing gave the order to ignore the U.S. request and let him go.
"The Hong Kong government didn't have much of a role," Albert Ho, a Hong Kong legislator, told Reuters. "Its role was to receive instructions to not stop him at the airport."
Now Mr. Snowden may be on his way to Havana, or Caracas, or Quito. It's been said often enough that this so-called transparency crusader remains free thanks to the cheek and indulgence of dictatorships and strongmen. It's also been said that his case illustrates how little has been achieved by President Obama's "reset" with Moscow, or with his California schmoozing of China's Xi Jinping earlier this month.
That is the larger significance of last week's Afghan diplomatic debacle, in which the Taliban opened an office in Doha for the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"—the name Mullah Omar grandiloquently gave his regime in Kabul before its 2001 downfall. Afghan President Hamid Karzai responded by shutting down negotiations with the U.S. over post-2014 security cooperation.
Now the U.S. finds itself in an amazing position. Merely to get the Taliban to the table for a bogus peace process, the administration agreed at Pakistan's urging to let Mullah Omar come to the table on his owns terms: no acceptance of the Afghan Constitution, no cease-fire with international forces, not even a formal pledge to never again allow Afghanistan to become a haven for international terrorism. The U.S. also agreed, according to Pakistani sources, to allow the terrorist Haqqani network—whose exploits include the 2011 siege of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul—a seat at the table.
Yet having legitimized Haqqani and given the Taliban everything it wanted in exchange for nothing, the U.S. finds itself being dumped by its own client government in Kabul, which can always turn to Iran as a substitute patron. Incredible: no peace, no peace process, no ally, no leverage and no moral standing, all in a single stroke. John Kerry is off to quite a start.
What's happening in Afghanistan is of a piece with the larger pattern of U.S. diplomacy. Iraq? The administration made the complete withdrawal of our troops a cornerstone of its first-term foreign policy, and now finds itself surprised that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won't lift a finger to prevent Iranian cargo planes from overflying his airspace en route to resupplying Bashar Assad's military. Syria? President Obama spent two years giving the country's civil war the widest berth, creating the power vacuum in which Iran, Hezbollah and Russia may soon achieve their strategic goals.
And Iran: In 2003, Tehran briefly halted its secret nuclear-weapons work and agreed to suspend its enrichment activities, at least for a few months. Yet since then, every U.S. effort to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear course has failed. Is it because the Obama administration was insufficiently solicitous, patient, or eager for a deal? Or is it that Tehran believes that treating this administration with contempt carries little cost?
"America can't do a damn thing against us" was a maxim of the Iranian revolution in its early days when America meant Jimmy Carter. Under President Obama, the new maxim could well be "America won't do a damn thing."
Which brings us back to the Snowden file. Speaking from India, Mr. Kerry offered a view on what it would mean for Russia to allow him to flee. "Disappointing," said our 68th secretary of state. He added "there would be without any question some effect and impact on the relationship and consequences."
Moscow must be trembling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324637504578565530512048940.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The Taliban is playing Obama
Is history repeating itself?In 1998, the Clinton administration sat down at the negotiating table with the Taliban and secured a promise that the Taliban would “not allow terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorism.” A few months later, al-Qaeda blew up U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
See a pattern here?
Now in 2013, the Taliban has once again promised, in a statement announcing the opening of its new political office in Qatar, that it “does not wish to harm other countries from its soil and neither will it allow others use Afghan soil to pose a threat to the security of other nations.”
Don’t believe a word of it.
Taliban leaders are not interested in sharing power. Their goal is to get the United States out of the way so they can take over Afghanistan.
So why are the Taliban negotiating? Simple. It knows that Barack Obama wants to leave Afghanistan and close Guantanamo Bay — and they want to help him do both.
Taliban leaders have three objectives:
First, they want Obama to free five senior leaders held at Guantanamo Bay. They include a deputy defense minister who has been accused of war crimes by the United Nations and, according to the U.S. military, has “operational associations with significant al-Qaida and other extremist personnel.” They include a deputy minister of intelligence who, according to the U.S. military, “utilized his office to support al-Qaida” and “arranged for al-Qaida personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff.” They include an interior minister who was “directly associated with Usama bin Laden” as well as Hamas and deceased al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Why does the Taliban want these people back? So that they can rejoin the fight to take over Afghanistan. The Taliban heard Obama complain in his National Defense University speech how “we must spend another $200 million to keep Gitmo open at a time when we’re cutting investments in education and research here at home.” They think he will be more than willing to free them — especially in exchange for a captured U.S. soldier.
Second, Taliban leaders want to speed the withdrawal of U.S. troops. They heard Obama declare in his NDU speech that “the Afghan War is coming to an end.” They know Obama is eager for a complete, or near-complete, withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2014. They want to give the president cover to withdraw on time and to leave as few troops behind as possible.
Third, they want to use their Qatar office as a base of operations in the Persian Gulf. From the headquarters Obama allowed them to open in Doha, they can raise funds across the Gulf, link up with other radical jihadist groups and legitimize themselves by engaging other countries diplomatically. Already, they have sent a diplomatic delegation to Iran for a meeting that a Taliban spokesman described “as a meeting of two governments.”
We’ve allowed them to do all this while getting no concessions whatsoever in return. The Taliban has not cut ties with al-Qaeda (something former secretary of state Hilary Clinton once said was an “unambiguous red line”). It has not recognized the Afghan government. It has not renounced violence.
Quite the opposite, it has escalated violence. On the same day it opened its office in Qatar to “negotiate” with the United States, the Taliban launched a rocket attack on Bagram Air Base that killed four U.S. soldiers. How’s that for a confidence-building measure?
The Taliban delegation in Qatar includes members of the Haqqani network — a group that the Obama administration just designated a terrorist organization. Are we really going to sit down with representatives of a group that, according to our State Department, was responsible for the September 2011 attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul, among other terrorist attacks? What’s next? Opening talks with Ayman Zawahiri?
The idea that anything can come of these negotiations is pure folly. The Taliban have no incentive to make concessions. They know that America is leaving Afghanistan. They know that Obama cannot wait to get out. Their objective is not to share power with the Afghan government. It is to replace the Afghan government.
Negotiating with us helps them achieve that goal.
If Only Our Foreign Enemies Were Republicans
I cannot recall, in the last five years, Barack Obama ever identifying the Iranians, Hezbollah, or the late Hugo Chavez as among our “enemies,” in the fashion that he once urged Latino leaders to punish conservatives at the polls: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If only the president would treat those who don’t like the United States in the same manner that he does those who do, he might bring great clarity to his now listless foreign policy. Indeed, why waste his rich vocabulary of teleprompted invective on fellow Americans, when there is an entire world out there that wishes the United States ill?
Imagine if Obama declaimed of the Iranians in Tehran that “those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values,” in the manner he once attacked John McCain for calling for border security in 2008. Could not a worldly Obama at least go after the intolerant Saudis for spreading Wahhabi-hatred worldwide and for sending subsidies to radical Sunni terrorists, in the detailed way he once deconstructed rural conservative voters of Pennsylvania? He might have taken apart these dogmatic religious absolutists in the following manner: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” All such invective seems to sum up current Saudi society far better than it does the people of Pennsylvania. Could not the president finish by noting that their madrassas encourage divisions and discourage cooperation, just as he boldly lectured an Irish audience about the problems with Catholic parochial schools?
As far as these hyper-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms go, could not the fearless Obama urge these “fat cats” to share their riches with poorer countries, in the manner he once sermonized to Americans in no uncertain terms: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”?
When Obama deals with the Palestinians, could he not say of them, as he once did without hesitation of the Republican Congress, “Even though most people agree … I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right”? Of the Gaza flotilla incident that was used against ally Israel, Obama at least could offer one of his accustomed blunt retorts like “there is no there there,” as he did to his own domestic critics of Benghazi. Or better yet, he could have flipped it off as a “sideshow.”
Trouble in Syria? Tough Chicagoan Obama should warn Assad that America was bringing a gun to a knife fight, or that Americans were going to get in the faces of their enemies, just as the street-fighting candidate Obama once urged his supporters to confront Republicans.
Of natural disasters in Pakistan, the historically minded president might also see it as a metaphor of a sick society, in the way he said of Katrina that the hurricane catastrophe “was a powerful metaphor of what’s gone on for generations.” Greece is in shambles, its socialist/siesta culture unsustainable. If the candid president is going to lecture Americans with “we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,” and with “this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track,” then perhaps he might extend that tough love to the bankrupt Greeks as well.
Egypt? Could not no-nonsense Obama say of Mohamed Morsi and his destruction of that country that he “was acting stupidly,” in the fashion he did with the Cambridge Police Department? Could not Attorney General Eric Holder be enlisted to talk down to the Libyans, who will not turn over the killers of our government personnel, by claiming they are abject “cowards”? Many Islamists in Nigeria are slaughtering Christians; could not an empathetic Obama express solidarity with the victims the way he did so poignantly with Trayvon Martin: “If I had a son, he’d look like a slain Christian Nigerian”?
Speaking of Christians, might Obama order his NASA chief to praise Christians for their contributions to civilization, in the manner Charles Bolden was ordered to redirect NASA’s mission to Muslim outreach: “Third, and perhaps foremost, he [Obama] wanted me to find a way to each out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering”)?
Perhaps Obama could teach the grasping and cash-rich Chinese that now is not the time for them to profit and that at some point their rapacious international companies should cease the money-making, in the same manner he instructed Americans: “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” The Chinese are said to have the dirtiest air and water on the planet – might a green Obama remonstrate with them about their duty to planet Earth, in the way that he damned his Republican opponents for wanting to “have dirtier air, dirtier water”?
To a hostile Vladimir Putin — reported to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars — the statist Obama might remark that the Russian leader did not build his fortune, at least not without the help of the state. Or more directly, civil-rights organizer Obama might remind polite society of the often-bigoted Putin that he was “a typical white person,” in the manner he once derided his own grandmother. If only Putin was BP, Obama would have him worried about the president musing over “whose ass to kick.”
Obama could also from time to time enlist First Lady Michelle Obama as well. She would be wonderful in courageously reminding a bullying China that it is “just downright mean.” To the corrupt United Nations, a no-holds-barred Michelle could confront its members by reminding them that she had never before been proud of that organization. Perhaps to the Europeans who piggy-back on American defense expenditures, the tough-love first lady might remonstrate as she did with American voters: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Turning to more concrete action, the IRS has global reach. Could it not turn on Hezbollah the way it has gone after the Tea Party?
Instead of inflammatory language like “patriots” and “tea party,” might the agency fixate on “terrorism” and “jihad”? And just as the FBI did not detain Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Major Hasan, or Anwar al-Awlaki after these suspects came to their attention, could it not finally let go of the poor video-maker Mark Basseley Youssef, innocent of inciting the al-Qaeda related terrorists in Benghazi?
For that matter, if controversial films are supposedly catalysts to hate-filled violence, could not the exasperated Obama condemn his powerful friend Recep Erdogan for airing on Turkish state television the anti-Semitic and anti-American Valley of the Wolves? Was not the multimillion-dollar slick Turkish production that played throughout the Islamic world more detrimental to U.S. interests than Youssef’s cheap video farce?
The Associated Press and James Rosen are small-fry leakers in comparison to the things al Jazeera says about America. Why not monitor that new agency’s phone banks, or perhaps even the parents of al Jazeera reporters? If Obama goes after Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News by name, cannot he conjure up at least something like his earlier slur “teabaggers” for the anti-American Islamist media?
Is al Jazeera all that less subversive than Fox News? If EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson can use a fake name and adopt a phony alter ego to evade accountability from her domestic critics, can’t our own government operatives do that abroad to confuse Islamists? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius shook down American companies to pony up money to promote Obamacare; can’t she similarly coerce our allies to help pay more for the joint venture in Afghanistan?
——————————-
American politics is historically a rough-and-tumble business, characterized by invective and slurs. What is different with the Obama administration is not that it goes after its critics, but rather that it does so in an extreme fashion that it does not employ for those abroad who oppose the United States at almost every turn. Diplomacy is one thing, but being far harsher with domestic than foreign critics is a peculiarity we have not seen since the Nixon era, when an “enemies list” did not reference Red China or Leonid Brezhnev’s Russia as much as those who worked for the Washington Post.
Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize, not for anything concrete that he did, but in the eyes of the award committee for his rhetorical efforts to bring the world together. Obviously, the Nobel judges did not think that included half of Obama’s fellow Americans. For Obama, the problem is not so much foreign radicals, revolutionaries, authoritarians, and dictators who hate the United States as it is those within America who, he thinks, cause such odious folk abroad to justifiably despise us.
In other words, if not for our conservatives, the NRA, the pro-lifers, the traditional marriage bunch, the one-percenters, the crazy House Republicans, and the Tea Party/Sarah Palin sorts, our enemies abroad might have become our friends.
And that depressing ideology explains why the president of the United States saves his best invective for his own.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/if-only-our-foreign-enemies-were-republicans/?singlepage=true
No comments:
Post a Comment