RUTHFULLY YOURS

‘Why on earth would Republicans do that?” That is a question I’ve been asked at least a dozen times since illustrating that the GOP has played a cynical game in connection with President Obama’s Iran deal.

“Follow the money” is a common answer to questions about political motivation. It may not explain everything in this case, but it is certainly relevant.

This spring, Republican leadership colluded with the White House and congressional Democrats to enact a law — the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — that guaranteed Obama would be authorized to lift sanctions against Iran (the main objective of the terrorist regime in Tehran). The rigged law authorized Obama to lift sanctions as long as Republicans could not pass a resolution of disapproval. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and other GOP leaders well knew, there was no way they would ever be able to enact a disapproval resolution over Obama’s veto. But the process choreographed by Corker-Cardin meant they would be able to complain about the deal and vote to disapprove it — thereby creating the impression that they were staunchly against the lifting of sanctions that they had already authorized.

Why on earth would Republicans do that? Well, their incentive to obscure the earlier approval vote with the theater of a futile disapproval process is clear: The Iran deal is intensely unpopular among the GOP’s base supporters, just as it is unpopular across the country. Incumbents who hope to be reelected want to be perceived as staunch opponents of the things their constituents abhor. But why isn’t this perception the reality — why wouldn’t GOP congressional leaders actually be staunch opponents? Why wouldn’t they zealously use their every power to stop the deal?

There is a complaint against Obama foreign policy that goes “all our allies have been alienated, and are scared by the lack of American leadership and our indifference to their security, and all Obama does is cozy up to our enemies.” Jeb Bush has asked audiences, “Name a country where we have a better relationship now than we did seven years ago,” and audiences answer back “Iran!”

In pursing this policy of cooperating with our enemies rather than our friends, Obama is now going to include the horrific issue of Syria. A central pillar of American foreign policy for over 50 years has been to keep the Russians out of the Middle East. Now we appear to be welcoming their return as a military power there. The Obama reaction has been first to have Secretary of State John Kerry telephone Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to express concern, then to have Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter call his own Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, and next to have military-to-military talks with Russia.

This is amazing. It undermines a half-century of policy and broadcasts weakness and irresolution to both enemies (Iran, China) and friends (Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf states). But it certainly isn’t surprising: Weakness and irresolution have in fact been the heart of U.S. policy in Syria in the Obama years. When the (mostly Sunni) people of Syria rose up peacefully against the Alawite, Iran-and-Hezbollah backed Assad regime in 2011 and Assad began to kill his own population, Obama did nothing. As the deaths mounted and his own advisers — Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, Dempsey — advised action to build a non-jihadi rebel force, he did nothing. When Assad did not react to Obama’s chemical-weapons red line, Obama backed down, not Assad. And so the deaths and the refugees have mounted into a humanitarian catastrophe that was avoidable.

He was told that his daughter refused to change her religion, so she was buried from the neck down, and then stoned to death. — Nigeria.

Nearly 300 Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram last year were being beaten, forced to convert to Islam, and indoctrinated into believing that their mission is to “slit the throats of Christians and to carry out suicide attacks.” — Nigeria.

Christians kidnapped and held for ransom continue to be slaughtered even after their ransom is paid. — Pakistan.

“In most instances the victims are minors, young adolescent girls. They suffer sexual violence, forced prostitution, domestic abuse and even sold to human traffickers.” — Sardar Mushtaq Gill, human rights lawyer, Pakistan.

“If the West wants to do something about the present crisis, the most effective thing would be to support local governments, which need sufficient armies and forces to maintain security and defend respective populations against attacks.” — Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, Patriarch of Antioch.

Not only is the Islamic State (IS) persecuting Christians but so are the U.S.-supported “rebel” forces in Syria, which the Obama administration assures are “moderate.” According to a recent National Public Radio (NPR) report, “With backing from U.S. allies, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, this [U.S. supported] rebel coalition fights both the Syrian regime and the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS. But the coalition has extremists in its own ranks who have mistreated Christians and forced them out of their homes”—just as IS has done.

Fiorina referenced this support during the Sep. 16th GOP debate….you can read the ad at https://carlyforamerica.com/blog/icymi-former-hp-board-member-tom-perkins-the-truth-about-carly/…rsk

A “super PAC” supporting Carly Fiorina is defending her record as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard in a full-page ad in The New York Times that promotes her strength as a leader of the technology company.Tom Perkins, the founder of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and a member of the board that ultimately ousted Ms. Fiorina in 2005, described the Republican presidential candidate as a visionary executive who helped to revive the company during hard times.

“Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth,” Mr. Perkins wrote, pointing to an increase in revenues and patents during her time there.

A lot has been said and written about this week’s presidential debate hosted by CNN. Many people have focused on exchanges between Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump, or between Rand Paul and The Donald, and between Chris Christie and the two “outsiders.” Of course there was also the confrontation between Trump and Jeb Bush. Great: all good, interesting exchanges.

One exchange that hasn’t nearly received the attention it deserves though, is a debate between Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The subject: the nuclear deal with Iran.

This deal is perhaps the most horrific deal ever made with any authoritarian regime, but Kasich stood on the podium and defended it nonetheless. He admitted that it’s likely that the mad ayatollahs don’t keep their part of the agreement, but that didn’t matter much to him; he believes it’s much more important to get “the international community” (whatever that may be) to support any action the United States takes. If that means that there first has to be an agreement with the terrorism-supporting radical thugs in Tehran, so be it.

Kasich:

Let me make clear, let me make clear, if we think they get close to developing a nuclear weapon and we get that information, you better believe that I would do everything in my power as the Commander-in-Chief to stop them having a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the problem with that is that it’ll be too little, too late. When that happens, Iran will have material already to produce a bomb in little to no time — faster than anyone can act. It’s the North Korean nuclear story all over again.

Politico, for once, said it best:

If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton,” Carly Fiorina quipped at Wednesday’s Republican debate. The line got hearty applause—but it also cut to the core of one of the defining lines of attacks against the former first lady and Democratic presidential frontrunner. After nearly forty years in public life, what exactly has she accomplished.

It’s a question that even, at times, has tripped up Clinton herself: During her 2014 book tour, when ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked her about her “marquee achievement,” Clinton changed the subject and she fumbled over a similar question during a women’s forum in Manhattan last year. “I see my role as secretary—in fact leadership in general in a democracy—as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished,” she told Thomas Friedman.

The question Fiorina posed has also tripped up members of the Obama administration. When State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked last year to “identify one tangible achievement” accomplished through one of Hillary Clinton’s key projects as Secretary of State—the first-ever audit of the department—Psaki punted, “I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.”

Hillary’s supporters have been stumped too. When Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin asked a focus group of Iowans this summer about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, one Democratic supporter said, “I honestly can’t say I followed along [with] everything that was going on.”

My e-pal DPS says “There are no behavioral rules within which this administration operates. We all know that politics is a blood sport but there has to be a reason for someone to have thought up the term, “gutter politics,” – a type of political behavior so far beyond the pale that it needs it own, derogatory appellation. “So, what do you see when you read how the President is treating the Pope? Politics as usual? Or the gutter type? You know what I think.”…dps

And this from Ruthfully on December 10,2010
WHY THE SURPRISE? THE OBAMAS HAVE A HISTORY OF INVITING ANTI-AMERICAN TRASH TO THE WHITE HOUSE…

Shocked. Everyone is just shocked that an illiterate, untalented, anti American creep named PSY was invited to the White House last night.

“A South Korean entertainer known as PSY will perform on the evening of December 9 at the White House despite a swirling controversy over lyrics in his songs that advocate the torture and murder of Americans. President Barack Obama and his family are scheduled to attend the holiday concert. South Korea is an ally of the U.S.”

What about the invite to a swine named “Common” in May 2011?…RSK

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/pres_obama_invitation_of_rappe.html

Obama White House invitation to rapper who praised convicted killer of N.J. state trooper outrages police officials

OR: http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/12/humberto-fontova-rapper-invited-to-white-house-hails-stalinist-mass-murderer/

Invitations to transgender activists, first openly gay U.S. Episcopal bishop and activist nun to White House event prompt pushback.
On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.
Dignity Washington, a group of LBGT Catholics in Washington, D.C., are excited about Pope Francis’ visit on September 22nd and are hoping his message of non-judgement continues as they seek acceptance from the church.

According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See worries that any photos of the pope with these guests at the White House welcoming ceremony next Wednesday could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.

The tension exemplifies concerns among conservative Catholics, including many bishops, that the White House will use the pope’s visit to play down its differences with church leaders on such contentious issues as same-sex marriage and the contraception mandate in the health care law.

The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment on the Vatican’s reaction to the ceremony’s guest list. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Thursday he was unaware of the names of individuals on the guest list, but cautioned against drawing any conclusions on specific guests “because there will be 15,000 other people there too.”

Pope Francis will be at the White House next Wednesday as part of his tour through the United States in coming days—but this welcoming ceremony could have a distinctly chilly tone. The WSJ reports that the Vatican has some objections to the White House’s guest list:

On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.
Bishop Gene Robinson, who has also been invited to the pope’s welcoming ceremony, is a former Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire and the first openly gay Episcopal bishop in the U.S. He is also an ex-spouse in a same-sex marriage. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Another guest, Mateo Williamson, is a former co-head of the transgender caucus of Dignity USA, a group for LGBT Catholics. He said the Vatican’s disapproval of his presence at the ceremony “speaks to the necessity for continued dialogue” between transgender Catholics and the church hierarchy. […]

Our first-time visitor will find a free-enterprise system that has lifted millions from poverty.

As lay Catholics, one of us a “cradle” Catholic, and one of us a convert, we add our warm welcome to you, Pope Francis, on your upcoming pastoral visit to the United States.

Americans deeply admire—and share—your commitment, as affirmed in your inaugural Mass, “to protect the whole of creation, to protect each person, especially the poorest.” In that same Mass you called on all of us to share in this service to the person “so that the star of hope will shine brightly.”

Americans know this service well. Our nation was founded precisely on the basis of protecting the person. Our founders proclaimed the “self-evident” truth that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.