Breaking News -- United States
Obama’s Legacy of Failure
by Alan Caruba
Is it too soon to begin to sum up President Obama’s “legacy”? Possibly, but after six years we know enough to draw some conclusions.
There is much to protest on any given day Obama sits in the Oval Office with all its powers at his disposal. The Constitution granted the executive branch considerable power, particularly in the conduct of foreign affairs but the Founders also created a system to offset the office when it comes to domestic affairs.
It is clear that Obama has virtually no interest in foreign affairs, preferring to tell lies about Islamic terrorism and to ignore Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its support of insurgents in eastern Ukraine. Instead he has devoted most of his time, when not vacationing and playing golf, to his domestic agenda. It has proven to be a failure.
The failure of ObamaCare, introduced with a series of lies, is the most dramatic feature of his legacy. While it remains a law, it has been so plagued with problems that one can easily imagine it being repealed once Obama is out of office. It has seriously harmed what was widely understood to be a costly system. By now, thanks to Jonathan Gruber, one of its architects, we know that both he and the President knew it would be largely unaffordable back in 2009 and both regarded Americans to be “stupid.”
The Supreme Court will hear a case, King v. Burwell, on March 4 and will likely rule in June. As The Wall Street Journal opined, “As a matter of ordinary statutory construction, the Court should find that when the law limited subsidies to insurance exchanges established by states, that does not include the 36 states where the feds run exchanges.” That many states refused to set up their own exchanges and that tells you just how poorly it was received.
Fundamentally, “if the subsidy foundation is undermined, the rest will collapse of its own weight…The subsidies are crucial to ObamaCare because they offset the added costs of the law’s regulations.” Suffice to say, Republicans who now control Congress had better have some measures to enact to replace ObamaCare. And, yes, if it was passed in whole, it can be repealed in whole.
While 36 states refused to participate in ObamaCare’s exchanges, 26 states joined together in a legal suit against the legitimacy of Obama’s unilateral executive order intended to alter the laws regarding illegal aliens, but only Congress can change those laws. No President has the authority to do so.
Ironically, on President’s Day, February 16, Federal Judge Andrew Hanen enjoined Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, from implementing “any and all aspects of phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program as set out by Johnson in a November 20, 2014 memorandum.
The injunction was based on “the failure of the defendants to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.” That Act governs the issuance of new rules and regulations by government agencies, including requirements that public notice be posted and opportunities to comment exist before a substantive rule can be enacted. The routinely arrogant Obama administration ignored this.
The greater issue, of course, has been Obama’s refusal to obey the existing immigration laws in order to add five million or more illegal aliens to the U.S. population without their going through the process that millions of others have obeyed.
If Obama won’t obey the law, why should he expect the states or anyone else to do so? The suit was brought by the states on the grounds that “the Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law” and Judge Hanen concluded that “this assertion cannot be disputed.” The case will now move up through the court system because, of course, Obama’s Department of Justice will seek an appeal. By the time a ruling is made, Obama is likely to be out of office and his amnesty efforts will have failed.
Obama’s two key initiatives will go down in flames and that is very good news.
Beyond them is the astonishing amount of debt he had added over the past six years, starting with a failed “stimulus” program that wasted a trillion dollars on non-existent “shovel ready” jobs, the bailout of General Motors that left taxpayers with a loss of $11.2 billion, and grants to “clean energy” companies, many of which went belly up.
As of this writing, not only has the credit rating of the U.S. been downgraded for the first time in its history, but U.S. debt stands at $18 trillion and growing. That is definitely not good news.
We can, however, as Obama’s term of office recedes with every passing day, know that his “transformation” of America into a socialist state will end in failure. When gone, whoever replaces him will have a huge job of reestablishing America as the leader of the free world.
It will not likely be a Democrat. Obama’s legacy will include—as it already has—a major voter shift to support of Republicans in Congress, in the governorships, and many state legislatures throughout America. And that is good news.
Obama-Netanyahu Ties Hit Low as U.S.-Israel Alliance Endures
by Jonathan FerzigerTerry Atlas
(Bloomberg) -- When he stands before Congress next week, Benjamin Netanyahu will be betting that warning against a “dangerous” nuclear deal with Iran will be worth the toll it takes on his difficult relationship with President Barack Obama.
In doing so, the Israeli prime minister risks tossing U.S.- Israel ties into the maelstrom of Washington partisanship after decades in which the Jewish state has enjoyed broad support for what is often called an “enduring partnership.”
The tensions over how to deal with Iran, which both sides have done little to mask, have brought comparisons to a low point in relations in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush tussled with Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir over Israeli settlement construction.
Through it all, the U.S. remains Israel’s biggest trading partner and closest defense ally, providing $3.1 billion in annual military assistance. Officials from both nations agree that the level of U.S.-Israel security cooperation, including intelligence-sharing, is unprecedented. In business, two-way trade in goods between the nations has grown to $38.1 billion in 2014 from $28.3 billion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
“Institutionally, the relationship is stronger than it’s ever been,” said Prem Kumar, who was the White House National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa before joining the consulting firm Albright Stonebridge Group earlier this year.
“Politically, there have been some difficulties, but they’re not insurmountable,” he said.
Last week, Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen discussed Iran and other issues with his White House counterpart, Susan Rice. Those talks went ahead even as administration officials said the U.S. is withholding details about the Iran negotiations because Israeli officials have leaked misleading information to undermine a deal.
Politically, it’s a different matter. The White House has made no secret of its displeasure with Netanyahu’s scheduled March 3 address to Congress at the invitation of Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and a number of Democrats plan to boycott it in a rare show of partisan discord on a matter important to Israel and its American supporters.
“The U.S.-Israel relationship has always been characterized, despite any ups and downs over policy disagreements, as certainly bipartisan,” David Makovsky, a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an interview. “The question -- which it may be too soon to answer -- is whether the friction over this will bring that into question in a way that is hasn’t been brought into question” in the past.
Disagreement over how to thwart what both Obama and Netanyahu regard as Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions has put the two leaders on a collision course. This is coming to a head with the possibility of a negotiated deal between Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., that fails to meet what Netanyahu says are Israel’s security requirements.
Plotting his course to Capitol Hill, Netanyahu had to get over the notion that he shouldn’t team up with Republicans against Obama’s efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, according to his advisers.
He’s said the emerging terms would enable Iran to retain a “break-out” capability to produce nuclear weapons before the U.S. or Israel could prevent it. Netanyahu, addressing a group of U.S. Jewish leaders in Jerusalem last week, said he has a “sacred duty” to make Israel’s case to Congress.
“The prime minister decided, as I understand it, that to prevent this bad agreement from being signed and implemented is more important than the personal relations with the president, and that’s why he’s going to Congress to give the speech,” said Yaakov Amidror, Netanyahu’s former national security adviser.
Amidror, now a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv, said signing an agreement with Iran would amount to dismissing Israel’s most vital security requirements and leave “a scratch on the relations” between the two allies.
“When there was a need, the Americans were not there,” he said.
One source of tension for Obama is that his support for measures to strengthen Israel’s security haven’t bought him much in return from Netanyahu on the two big strategic issues they jointly face: Iran and the future of the Palestinians.
An earlier sign of that was Netanyahu’s rejection of a 2010 U.S. offer of a weapons deal including Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters if Netanyahu would extend for 90 days a partial settlement freeze to encourage peace talks with the Palestinians.
When Netanyahu comes to Washington, Obama has ruled out granting him a White House visit, which has capped virtually all of his trips to the U.S. as prime minister. Obama said it wouldn’t be appropriate given Israeli elections on March 17.
Isaac Herzog, the parliamentary opposition chief whose Zionist Union ticket narrowly leads Netanyahu’s Likud party in polls, said on Tuesday he rejected an offer to join the prime minister in Washington and present a united front on Iran.
“I know how to make myself heard in a clear, influential way from here and not there,” he said at a Jerusalem news conference.
Along with the Netanyahu speech and the Israeli elections, a third event next month is an end-of-month deadline for reaching a framework political deal in the Iran negotiations.
“Those are three big events that I think could very much affect the trajectory of the U.S.-Israel relationship going forward,” said Makovsky.
A Gallup Poll released Monday found a high level of American public support for Israel, with seven of ten people having a broadly favorable view. Gallup said the dispute between the two leaders did seem to have had an impact: The percentage of U.S. Democrats viewing Israel favorably fell to 60 percent from 74 percent a year ago. The telephone poll conducted Feb. 8-11 has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Abraham Foxman, a Jewish leader who is national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said he’s “a lot concerned” that controversy over the Netanyahu speech distracts from the important debate over Iran and undercuts the long-standing bipartisan character of American support for Israel.
Foxman has called for Netanyahu to cancel the congressional speech, particularly considering that he can speak in less controversial venues, including a scheduled address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel lobbying group. It’s important to reinforce bipartisanship, particularly to address an issue as important as Iran, Foxman said in an interview.
Changing the Subject
“This became politicized, and the issue in the media was not the Iran issue, but all of a sudden how many Democrats will come, which Democrats will boycott, will they be applauding,” he said. “That was the unintended consequence, totally distracting, and that will undermine the purpose” of Netanyahu’s address.
Given the importance of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons power, “it’s critical that we have a bipartisan embrace,” he said. “Now this situation looks far from the bipartisan embrace.”
Making the U.S.-Israel relationship a partisan issue “could have lasting consequences,” two senior Senate Democrats wrote Netanyahu in a letter Monday. The partisan way the speech was arranged -- without consultation with the White House or congressional Democratic leaders -- sacrificed “deep and well-established cooperation on Israel for short-term partisan points,” Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Dianne Feinstein of California said.
Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, and Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, invited Netanyahu to a private meeting with Senate Democrats “to maintain dialogue with both political parties in Congress.”
Describing Netanyahu’s trip to Washington as a “political stunt,” Danny Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2002 to 2006, said the speech will do nothing to change the minds of U.S. lawmakers on Iran.
“While he’s the one who shows Israelis he’s standing up to the president of the United States, I think in the long run it’s a mistake,” Ayalon said. “Our fight is not with Obama, it’s with Iran.”
Zalman Shoval, another former Israeli ambassador to Washington who served under both Netanyahu and Shamir, said the two leaders will find a way to iron out their problems.
“There’s always a way in good diplomacy, even on very controversial things, even if you can’t stand each other,” he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Ferziger in Tel Aviv at firstname.lastname@example.org; Terry Atlas in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Walcott at firstname.lastname@example.org Larry Liebert
Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty
by Daniel Halper
President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.
According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.
“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.
“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”
“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”
UPDATE: Here are the remarks, via a transcript provided by the White House:
MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences
THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.
In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.
|(Disclaimer) What to Look For in World Events: Audio & Text Video|