web analytics
May 6, 2015 / 17 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Black Republican Ben Carson Running for President

Monday, May 4th, 2015

Retired neurosurgeon and black Republican Dr. Ben Carson has announced he is running to be his party’s nominee for president in next year’s election.

Dr. Carson visited Israel in December, reported here, an unofficial prerequisite for presidential candidates.

The 63-year-old Republican is from Detroit, lived in Baltimore for more than 35 years and now lives in Florida. He was the first black doctor to head the Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery unit.

His lack of both political experience and ties with such factions as the Tea Party offers Republican voters a distinct choice among the growing number of candidates. However, he does not have the organization and political experience of other contenders, the most popular being Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, also from outside the political world, is considering tossing her hat in the political ring.

Dr. Carson grew up in poverty and has the appeal to white voters as their desired image of an America where anyone can achieve success through hard work and without making himself out to be a victim.

He has been a harsh critic of President Barack Obama, whom Dr. Carson once described as someone who “seems to believe more in a utopian view of cradle-to-grave care.”

He has made headlines, for better and for worse, on the issue of same-sex marriage. Below is an interview on CNN in which he maintained that homosexuality is a choice and that each state should decide for itself whether or not to allow marriages of homosexuals. He said in the interview that many people become homosexuals after being in prison.

After harsh criticism, he apologized, and Dr. Carson stated before announcing his candidacy today:

I’ve come to recognize that when you use certain terms, people can no longer hear anything else you say. As you’ll notice in the last several weeks, I’ve been able to get my points across without inflammatory language.

In his visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem in December, Dr. Carson placed a note between the bricks and later referred to King Solomon in an interview with CBN and said he asked God for “Solomonic wisdom on what to do” concerning the race for president.

His stand on Israel is clear, and he told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,

“Until such time as their neighbors are no longer desirous of their elimination,” Israel’s continued control of the West Bank “makes perfectly good sense.”

Dr. Carson’s strong conservative stand may appeal to Christian evangelists despite his being black.

He said at the national Prayer Breakfast earlier this year that the United States is headed for “moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility.” He also declared:

We have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently.

President Barack Obama was sitting a few feet away, and although Carson did not directly blame the president for America’s ills, the White House was upset.

“Within a matter of minutes after the conclusion of the program, I received a call from some of the prayer breakfast organizers saying that the White House was upset and requesting that I call the president and apologize for offending him,” Carson later wrote in his book “One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future.”

Carson added in his book, “I said that I did not think that he was offended and that I didn’t think that such a call was warranted.”

Without This Amendment, Corker-Cardin Will Likely Do More Harm Than Good

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015

Today, there is no greater threat to U.S. national security than the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Led by theocratic zealots who have pledged to “annihilate Israel” and who regularly lead chants of “Death to America,” an Iran with nuclear weapons poses an unacceptably high risk of murdering millions of Americans or millions of our allies.

For that reason, the top priority for the Senate should be to stop a bad Iran deal.

The Senate is now considering the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act (Corker-Cardin), which provides that any Iran deal must be submitted to Congress. This legislation started out with good intentions, and I supported moving it forward in committee. Indeed, I support anything that slows down the Obama administration’s headlong rush into finalizing an Iran deal that jeopardizes U.S. national security.

On the floor of the Senate, however, I intend to press vigorously for a critical amendment to this legislation. At the end of the debate, if this bill is not strengthened, I will have a great deal of difficulty supporting it.

Right now, the President has statutory authority to relax some Iran sanctions, and he has the constitutional authority to try to negotiate with foreign nations any deal he desires. Yet we must remember that in order for any foreign deal to become binding U.S. law, there are two and only two paths under our Constitution: First, he can submit his proposal as a treaty to the Senate, which requires 67 votes for ratification. Or second, he can submit it as legislation, get a majority vote in both Houses of Congress, and then sign it into law.

President Obama chafes at these constitutional requirements. The current Iran deal is so bad on the merits that he knows that it cannot meet either threshold. Hence, the Administration has suggested it wants to circumvent Congress, perhaps by trying to go the United Nations for ratification. But the UN, likewise, lacks the authority to create binding U.S. law. If it is not codified in a treaty or a statute, a UN resolution cannot bind the next President.

So what does Corker-Cardin do? It requires the President to submit an Iran deal to Congress, and then it provides that Congress can pass a “resolution of disapproval” to kill the deal. Any such resolution would be subject to a possible Democratic filibuster, which would take 60 votes to overcome. And, even if both Houses were to pass a resolution of disapproval, President Obama could veto it, which would then require two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to override.

If those super-majorities cannot be mustered, the President’s bad Iran deal would go into effect.

Thus, Corker-Cardin motion of disapproval reverses the ordinary presumptions. Instead of the President needing 67 Senate votes to ratify the Iran deal, it would now require 67 votes to stop an Iran deal.

This makes no sense. Why is the current legislation so weak? Because the price of getting support from Democratic senators has been to water down the legislation to the point where it is almost entirely meaningless.

As written, the legislation would do two things. First, it would provide Democratic senators with a show vote to say they were tough on Iran (before tacitly approving it). Second, it would virtually ensure that President Obama’s bad Iran deal—which endangers the lives of millions of Americans—stands.

President Obama’s proposed deal makes military conflict with Iran a virtual certainty. Under the terms that have been publicly announced, Iran will keep its nuclear centrifuges, will keep its enriched uranium, and will keep developing its ICBM program (which exists for the sole purpose of carrying a nuclear weapon to America). Under the terms of the deal, Iran will receive billions of dollars — which it will surely use to keep developing nuclear weapons. And, because Iran will remain the leading state sponsor of terrorism (the deal does nothing to change that), those billions of dollars will also be funneled directly to Hezbollah and Hamas and radical Islamic terrorists across the world.

Along with Sen. Pat Toomey, I have introduced an amendment to switch the presumption of power back where it belongs: to Congress.

If the President cannot secure either a majority in both Houses, no sanctions relief should be implemented.

Without this amendment, Corker-Cardin will likely do more harm than good—simply providing political cover for a bad Iran deal (which is why the Obama administration is now supportive of the legislation).

President Obama is fond of posing a false dichotomy: either you support his current Iran deal, or you want war. But, as Israel‘s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightly observed, “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” As it stands, Corker-Cardin is a bad deal that paves the way for the President’s worse deal with Iran.

In January 2017, we will have a new President. He or she will likely encounter an Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. If President Obama has implemented his bad deal—if he has unraveled the international consensus in favor of strict sanctions on Iran—then sanctions will in all likelihood be impossible to re-impose. Doing so would take months or years (if at all), probably too far out to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Thus, the next president would be left with two choices: acquiesce to Iran having nuclear weapons (which it could then use to murder Americans and our allies), or launch a targeted military attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity.

The Obama deal makes those the only two realistic options in 2017. That’s why the Senate should stop it. Peace through strength is the only way both to avoid war and to prevent a nuclear Iran.

And that is why we need Iran sanctions legislation with teeth.

The article originally appeared in The Washington Times

W’s Private Remarks to RJC Reveal Disagreements with Obama (SHOCKER)

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015

At a Republican Jewish Coalition dinner that was closed to the press and at which the attendees were reportedly told repeatedly not to transcribe his remarks, George W. Bush did something he was refrained from doing since leaving public office. He shared his views on the way his successor has handled foreign policy.

It happened at a dinner given by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson at a Republic Jewish Coalition gathering in Las Vegas.

But at least one of the 800 people in the room, despite the repeated importunities to refrain, transcribed portions of what the former president said, and then shared them with the media. Both the New York Times and Bloomberg View published accounts based on those transcripts.

You ready to hear the big secret? That former president doesn’t think much about this current president’s decisions.

Really.

Take Obama’s foreign policy track record. Please. On Iraq, on Iran, on ISIS, on America’s role on the world stage, Bush was critical.

According to the press reports of the leaked “transcripts,” Bush thought Obama was too trusting of Iran’s intentions and to quick to relax sanctions on Tehran. Admitting that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, is certainly smoother than was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bush was doubtful that there has been any real change in ideology or in plans.

Bush did not have positive things to say about the rapidity with which U.S. troops were pulled out of Iraq in 2011, nor about Obama’s hands-off approach to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

As far as the ascent of ISIS, the former president described this barbaric terrorist group as “al Qaeda’s second act.”

The former president also took a shot at making some predictions regarding the upcoming U.S. presidential campaign. About former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Bush said she will have to make a choice as to whether she will run on the Obama administration’s policies or against them.

“If she defends them, she’s admitting failure,” he reportedly said, “but if she doesn’t, she’s blaming the president.”

On the Republican side, Bush said that foreign policy is going to be very important, and that “the test for Republicans running will be who has got the ‘courage’ to resist isolationist tendencies.”

NY Times Notices That Obama Pushes Off Netanyahu Meeting (Again)

Thursday, April 23rd, 2015

President Obama has again pushed off a potential meeting with PM Netanyahu.

The NY Times reported on Thursday that President Obama informed a group of American leaders on April 13th that he would only meet with Netanyahu after negotiations with Iran were over. Obama is afraid that Netanyahu would publicly criticize the Iran deal if they met before the negotiations were over.

If the NY Times had read JewishPress.com, they would have known that this is the second time Obama has delayed a Netanyahu meeting since the Israeli elections ended.

JewishPress.com first reported on April 6, that Obama said he would only meet with Netanyahu, after Netanyahu set up a coalition, which is expected to be mid-May.

This latest report pushes off that potential meeting off by at least an additional month and a half.

On the other hand, despite reports that Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, is persona non grata in the White House, and that Obama wants a different Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer is hosting Vice President Joe Biden at Israel’s Independence Day bash in Washington D.C., which some are interpreting as an attempt by the administration to mend fences with the Netanyahu government, or at least reduce the tension.

Obama Gift List to Former Enemies Continues: Cuba Plucked from Terrorism Sponsor List

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

So, let’s see. He “reset” with Russia’s Putin – ask the Crimeans what they think of that move -, he sent loving happy new years notes to Iran, and that produced a warm and loving feelings towards America. He drop-kicked Egypt’s Mubarak from the buddy league but snuggled up with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi. That did not do much for Morsi, and he spit in the eye of Israel’s Netanyahu whom everyone agrees actually benefitted from Obama’s animosity.

So to whom is U.S. President Barack Obama now handing out party favors? Why, it’s none other than Raul Castro, el jefe of Cuba.

That’s right. The happy dictator to our immediate south either was granted this gift or was simply rewarded, unbidden, with the imminent delisting of Cuba from the U.S.’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

First, the punishments which will be lifted if Cuba is removed from the terrorism list include: a ban on arms-related exports and sales; 30-day Congressional notifications for exports of goods or services deemed “dual use,” meaning they could have peaceful uses but they also could have be used to support terrorism; and prohibitions on economic assistance.

Unless Congress acts to prohibit the delisting, 45 days after the President issues the report making that recommendation, Cuba goes off the list.

How did this happen?

We learn from a press release issued by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday, April 13, that Obama directed the State Department to launch a review and then provide him with a report to determine whether Cuba should continue to be designated as an official terrorism sponsor this past December. The president did that as a “critical component of establishing a new direction for U.S.-Cuba relations.”

Well, perhaps not surprisingly, the State Department recommended “based on the facts and the statutory standard” that Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism be rescinded.

To be sure, it might have been possible for the State Department to determine Cuba was ineligible for removal from the designated list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

Why, according to the State Department’s statement, if Cuba had “provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six months,” or if it had refused to provide “assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future,” those naughty boys would remain on the terrorism list. But the answers to the questions being asked were such that the president was able to give one of his new best friends, Raul Castro, the good news.

In issuing its statement recommending the removal of Cuba from the state terrorism listing, the State Department carefully pointed out that the narrow requirements it focused on constitute the qualifications set by Congress for what countries can be removed from the terrorism sponsors list. That statement also pointed out that the criterion for review was a narrow and Congressionally-determined one.

The basis for removal from the list does not mean that American authorities have determined Cuba, a Communist nation with one political party, is no longer engaged in repression or human trafficking or any other significant departures from modern democratic societies, but those issues are not part of the calculation for terrorism sponsoring de-listing.

“While the United States has had, and continues to have, significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, these concerns and disagreements fall outside of the criteria for designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” is how the State Department couched it.

“Circumstances have changed since 1982, when Cuba was originally designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism because of its efforts to promote armed revolution by forces in Latin America. Our Hemisphere, and the world, look very different today than they did 33 years ago. Our determination, pursuant to the facts, including corroborative assurances received from the Government of Cuba and the statutory standard, is that the time has come to rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” the statement continued.

Those ‘United States’ Determine Their Own Sanctions Against Iran

Monday, April 13th, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have the right to negotiate a nuclear deal on behalf of the country with Iran — but that doesn’t mean individual states won’t have a say in the matter.

The Executive Branch in America’s government is about to find out just how much power can be wielded by individual states when they are of a mind.

Some two dozen states have already enacted measures of their own, punishing companies operating in certain sectors of the Iranian economy. For instance, public pension funds worth billions of dollars in assets have been ordered to divest from the firms, and some have been barred from public contracts.

A specific example is Becton Dickinson and Co., a U.S. medical supplies company that sells to Iran legally under current federal regulations. In 2013 and 2014, Michigan divested $45 million from the company. Oddly, the company seemed completely unaware of the loss until contacted by reporters for a comment on the matter. It then issued a statement saying its trade with Iran is authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees federal sanctions.

More than a dozen states have implemented regulations that do not allow their restrictions to expire until and unless Iran is no longer designated to be a supporter of terrorism, and/or if all U.S. federal sanctions against the Islamic Republic are lifted. These conditions will be difficult to meet, to say the least.

In Kansas and Mississippi, state governments are reportedly considering additional sanctions to target Tehran.

“Our investment sanctions are not tied in any way to President Obama’s negotiations with the Iranians,” Florida GOP State Senator Don Gaetz told Reuters.

“They would have to change their behavior dramatically and we would not be necessarily guided by President Obama or any other president’s opinion about the Iranians,” Gaetz said. The state senator sponsored legislation in 2007 that punished companies with investments in Iran’s energy sector.

At least a dozen states contacted by the news agency said they were not considering changing their sanctions against Iran even in the event a deal negotiated with Iran were to be signed. Some said they would need to adjust their legislation to accommodate the divestment policies vis a vis the new federal status if a deal were signed.

In all of the states, the divestment measures had bipartisan support and typically were signed into law by Republican and Democratic governors alike.

Obama Rolls Red Carpet for Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run

Sunday, April 12th, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama appears to be rolling out the red carpet for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to launch her campaign for the presidency on the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Obama told reporters in Panama during a news conference at the Summit of the Americas on Saturday, “I think she would be an excellent president.”

The former first lady was a “formidable candidate” against him when they were both running for the Democratic nomination in 2008, he noted. The president added that Clinton will have strong messages to deliver if she decides to run.

Which she has.

Media have already been informed the official campaign announcement is to be made some time today (Sunday, April 12) with the release of an online video via social media – a “new type of campaign launch,” as Fox News noted – to be followed with a handful of small-group events in Iowa.

On Saturday, Clinton’s campaign team circulated a memo entitled “We Are Hillary For America” to her supporters listing guiding principles. The memo explains the aim of the campaign is to “give every family, every small business, and every American a path to lasting prosperity by electing Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States. This campaign is not about Hillary Clinton and not about us – it’s about the everyday Americans who are trying to build a better life for themselves and their families,” the memo reads.

It ends by telling supporters, “We are guided by Hillary’s bedrock values of hard work, service, fairness, and faith in the American Dream.”

That last is a statement that will undoubtedly face intense scrutiny from countless op-ed writers, bloggers and other columnists who have long memories of Clinton’s track record in other arenas.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is also expected to announce his intention to run for the GOP nomination next week, most probably on Monday.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/obama-rolls-red-carpet-for-hillary-clintons-presidential-run/2015/04/12/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: