Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save His Party?

Obama must be watching the unfolding 2016 election with a growing sense of horror. The Democrats got the greatest gift imaginable when Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, but Hillary Clinton has already all but frittered away the greatest natural advantage any politician could possibly have – being a woman running against Donald Trump. Clinton’s inept, bungling campaign has alienated huge portions of the blue collar Democrat voting base and has made a race that should be a cakewalk into one that is actually competitive.

One thing that Barack Obama has shown during his seven and a half years in office is that he really is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, he cares deeply about actually advancing progressive causes, and he is nearly obsessed with his legacy – much of which will be built on unilateral action that could easily be undone by a hostile successor (if we suppose that Trump would actually care to undo any of it). On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds him, he knows that many of these programs will become much more difficult to undo.

His alliance with Clinton has always been one of political convenience rather than one of genuine friendship, if the Democrat insiders who constantly gab to the media are to be believed. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has any personal investment in Hillary Clinton becoming President – he’d personally be just as happy with Bernie if not more so.

Moreover, his own Justice Department is allegedly threatening open mutiny if action is not taken against Clinton after the probe into her private email server is completed. If Clinton were in a strong position for the general election, no doubt Obama would order Lynch to softpedal any action that lands on Clinton herself, no matter what the facts say. However, Obama can read the polls as well as anyone, and he knows that Sanders would walk all over Donald Trump, whereas Clinton might well find herself in a dogfight. (Read more from “Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save His Party?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_speaks_in_Cairo,_Egypt_06-04-09 (2)

MAKE SURE YOU’RE SITTING DOWN: Since Obama Took Office, U.S. Stopped Targeting Terror-Linked Charities

Under the administration of President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department stopped blacklisting domestic charities that collect funds for terrorist organizations, Eli Lake of Bloomberg View reported on Thursday.

Lake explained that targeting charities that front for terrorist organizations was a “key tool” of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism after 9/11. During the Bush presidency, the Treasury targeted eight such charities located in the United States, including “al-Qaeda fronts such as the U.S. branch of the al-Haramain Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation. In this period, the U.S. government also blacklisted groups that raised money for the Palestinian terror group Hamas, including the Holy Land Foundation, and for the Lebanese militia and political party Hezbollah, like the Good Will Charitable Organization.”

In contrast, the only charity to be designated under the Obama administration was the Tamil Foundation, which funded the Sri Lankan terrorist organization the Tamil Tigers. The group was blacklisted in February 2009, a month after Obama’s inauguration.

Lake presented some possible reasons for the drop in such designations, including that “terrorist groups have determined it’s too risky to set up a philanthropic front in the U.S. these days.” Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser for counter-terrorism during the Bush administration, told Lake that “enforcement efforts did have an effect on the ability of groups to openly organize and use non-governmental organizations as fundraising mechanisms for designated terrorist organizations.”

Zarate added that a number of terrorist groups have developed other funding mechanisms, so using a U.S. charity may not be as vital to their functioning as it once was.

Another possibility offered by Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counter-terrorism analyst and deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury, is that the designation of charities was of limited use, as the charity could contest the designation. “When an authority does find an entity worthy of this kind of attention, the first inclination is not to designate, which has limited consequences, but rather to investigate and prosecute,” said Levitt, who now heads the intelligence and counter-terrorism program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

However Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the Treasury and current vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, raised concerns that the drop in designations may mean that charities that finance terrorist groups are escaping scrutiny. Schanzer observed that the Treasury now views itself as more of a “global intelligence shop,” and targets actors such as Iran and the Islamic State while leaving domestic charities to the FBI. But Schanzer expressed concern that “the FBI may be overwhelmed with direct threats to the homeland, thereby relegating domestic terrorism-finance cases to a third- or fourth-tier priority. Is anyone taking the threat of domestic terrorism finance as seriously as the Treasury did back in its heyday? I don’t know.”

Schanzer testified before Congress last month that seven key members of the Holy Land Foundation are now involved with American Muslims for Palestine, a group that is funding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel on U.S. campuses.

Lake concluded by observing that “raising money for anti-Israel activism is not the same as raising money for suicide bombers,” but now that Hamas has developed other sources of funding, that “remnants of [Hamas’s] former charity are free to raise funds for the war of ideas against the Jewish State at American colleges.” (For more from the author of “MAKE SURE YOU’RE SITTING DOWN: Since Obama Took Office, U.S. Stopped Targeting Terror-Linked Charities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Franklin_Graham_Festioweal_Nadziei_2014.06.15 (1)

After Hearing Obama’s Decree, Franklin Graham Asks an Important Question

After learning of the Obama administration’s letter insisting public schools open their restrooms to transgender students based on gender identity, evangelist Franklin Graham was quick to post his response on Facebook.

In the post, Graham first addressed government overreach. “Who does President Barack Obama think he is? The sultan of Washington?” he asked. Graham went on to ask the question many across the country wish they could ask the president, writing, “What about the privacy and protection of all the other students? Isn’t this discrimination against all of them?” According to Graham, this decision will expose many students to sexual predators.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement commenting on the decree. “There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” she said. Lynch said the decree would allow teachers as well as parents to safeguard transgender students from harassment from their peers, while uncovering unjust school policies.

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus. We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence,” said another statement from Education Secretary John King Jr.

Graham accused the president of making decisions without any thought of a higher power over him. “The president obviously must have no fear of God, who made us and created us male and female,” he wrote.

Graham ended his post urging school districts to defy the agenda set forth by the Obama administration.

Based on hundreds comments on Graham’s post, many agree with him.

One mother heartily agreed with Graham, commenting, “As the mother of a 15 year old girl, I have a real problem with a biological male having unfettered access to a locker room full of young women in a state of undress …. many [girls] have trouble even changing in front of their biologically female classmates. They have their own feelings and issues, and their rights are just as important. They aren’t somehow less deserving of consideration because their genitals match the gender they identify with.”

Another posted, “I stand with Franklin Graham – Obama is now attempting to act as the king of the United States and what ever he says is law.” (For more from the author of “After Hearing Obama’s Decree, Franklin Graham Asks an Important Question” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties

Last week President Obama got into a spat with Senator Rand Paul over tax treaties, but you likely paid little attention to the details surrounding the bickering.

Obama has taken issue with Senator Paul “blocking” eight tax treaties from receiving ratification in their current form. Now, you might expect this to be a story about the tax treaties’ role in easing excessive taxation (or double taxation), while promoting cooperation in tax compliance among nations. But the tax treaties are actually being used as a tool for nations to share the private financial data on individuals with bank accounts overseas. This is all done without regard for privacy protections, a warrant or any allegations of wrong-doing.

Sharing data without privacy protections is also a notable departure from past practice. For example, former treaties between the U.S. and Switzerland allowed these countries to share sensitive data on bank customers – but only if a crime, like tax fraud, was being committed. The key here is that data could only be shared if there was probable cause – essentially, a Fourth Amendment style protection for private data. However, the tax treaties now in question lack that same protection, and allow any and all information to be shared between governments, no questions asked.

Therefore, Senator Paul has requested an amendment to the treaties to provide additional privacy protections – among them, that there at least be probable cause of wrongdoing before individual financial data is shared between governments.

Yet, this request is unacceptable to the Obama administration, and the reason is far more nefarious than meets the eye. The tax treaties are merely part of a deeper web of data gathering to enforce a law I dubbed “the most dangerous law you’ve never heard of”- or, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

To understand the treaties, you must realize how they fuel an even worse law: FATCA.

What is FATCA?

FATCA is a law that requires every foreign bank in the world to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the financial data on every bank account or asset owned by an American citizen living abroad.

Any foreign bank that fails to comply with this request is penalized. The penalty subjects the bank to a 30 percent withholding tax, or in other words, the U.S. government seizes 30 percent of any transaction that belongs to that foreign bank. Since the U.S. economy is the largest and most interconnected in the world, foreign banks have little choice but to go along with this U.S. law.

FATCA is a law that effectively treats Americans living overseas with the presumption of guilt, since an individual’s private financial data is turned over to the government without any privacy protections.

The law was passed under the guise of catching tax cheats. Unfortunately, it has done little to catch rich Americans trying to hide their loot. Instead, it has punished over seven million Americans working abroad, many of whom have been outright banned from banking with foreign banks, who no longer want to work with U.S. citizens due to the high compliance costs and oversight complications that stem from FATCA. As a result, thousands of Americans have forfeited their U.S. citizenship to avoid the obstacles they now face trying to do simple banking overseas.

Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)

The key to FATCA is an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). First, it must be understood that foreign banks don’t have to comply with FATCA. After all, FATCA is a U.S. law that is not recognized by foreign banks. The Obama administration’s solution is to implement IGAs, which are similar to a treaty. These IGAs allow for an agreement between the U.S. and foreign nation in which the foreign nation will, essentially, comply with FATCA as if it were its own law – and will agree to coordinate and exchange financial information on private individuals in accordance with FATCA.

Since these agreements imitate treaties, IGAs allow foreign nations to override their domestic laws to comply with U.S. requests. Or in more ominous instances, countries are lured into complying with FATCA by U.S. offers to exchange data from U.S. banks. That’s right: the U.S. government has agreed to spy on YOU (the U.S. customer) in exchange for the foreign banks willingness to spy on American citizens abroad – the old, “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine,” operation.

Generally, any agreement that resembles a treaty is constitutionally required to receive the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The definition of a treaty is “a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.” But somehow, President Obama calls it by another name and these IGAs bypass the law of the land as “agreements,” rather than as formally ratified treaties.

This entire scheme is like a game of Jenga – remove the wrong block and the entire structure comes falling down. FATCA, the IGAs, and the tax treaties currently pending in the Senate are all an intricate part of this structure.

Former Senate aide and FATCA expert Jim Jatras explains how those tax treaties impact the IGA. In Accounting Today, he writes:

Because the IGAs designate tax treaty mechanisms for FATCA information “exchange,” Paul’s holdup of the bilateral treaties also impedes indiscriminate FATCA reporting. Conversely, if the treaties were amended to allow information transfer only under the probable cause standard, the higher constitutional standard would govern. That, not double tax relief, is why Treasury is so desperate to approve these treaties without amendment.

In other words, FATCA requires an IGA. The IGA is what allows other nations to cooperate with FATCA’s requirements. Still, it is the tax treaties that act as the final authority in permitting the IGAs to collect information; the IGAs lean on the tax treaties as their implicit right to do so.

Furthermore, Jatras concludes that the tax treaties would provide a “backdoor legal authority to issue regulations in the U.S.” to force domestic banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and mutual funds to provide financial information on resident customers to send to foreign governments in order to fulfill the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” reciprocity agreements.

Get that? FATCA needs IGAs, IGAs need tax treaties. Phew.

Therefore, in this confusing, twisted scheme of enforcing the big data gathering machine that is FATCA, these tax treaties play an important role. That is why there is far more to this sleepy issue than just taxes.

There are two senators currently challenging this crazy law and these insane treaties: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT). The narrative from the White House and Senate leadership is that these two senators are “blocking” these treaties from moving. But, in reality, Paul and Lee aren’t blocking these treaties at all. Instead, they are just objecting to the Senate ratifying them by “unanimous consent.” The Senate leadership has the authority to bring these tax treaties to the floor for full consideration – debate, amendments, and votes. That is what Senators Paul and Lee are asking for.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Democratic counterparts simply want to give unanimous consent to these tax treaties. Unanimous consent means that the process takes all of about 10 seconds; there is no time to review the treaties, there is no time for debate, and not a second of time to offer amendments. They simply want them to be expedited through the Senate without transparency.

At the end of the day, this is a discussion about bad treaties used to implement a terrible law. I applaud Senators Paul and Lee for standing on principle, and trying to insert language into the treaties that provide constitutional protections to all Americans. But perhaps more important is Paul and Lee’s challenge to the establishment. As sitting U.S. Senators, they have the right to ask for debate and amendments to these treaties. They should not be pilloried and smeared for asking for it.

These treaties are dangerous to our personal liberties. Senator Paul and Senator Lee deserve the transparency and debate they’ve requested. We should all stand with Rand and Mike in fighting these terrible treaties. (For more from the author of “The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


SURPRISE! Obama Continues Partisan Push to Cement His Failed Presidency

Earlier this week, President Obama conducted an interview with BuzzFeed News and continued his campaign to put in the place what The New York Times says would be the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.

The campaign up to this point can only be described as a colossal failure. So far, conservative groups have dramatically outspent liberal counterparts, taking the case directly to the American people that the President cannot be allowed to fundamentally transform the nation’s highest court in the waning months of his administration.

In addition to their failed paid advertising campaign, President Obama and his allies have tried to make their argument in media appearances with no avail. Julie Pace of The Associated Press reported that focus groups she observed were “completely uninterested” in this debate and that it would not impact voters’ decisions this fall.

Despite the fact that this effort has not yielded anything in terms of results, it’s not surprising that President Obama keeps trying to repeat the same message. It’s clear that he wants another reliable justice on the Supreme Court that will cement his failed liberal agenda. Fortunately, Republicans are doing the right thing in their unwavering commitment to prevent his politically motivated power grab. (For more from the author of “SURPRISE! Obama Continues Partisan Push to Cement His Failed Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military

We should count our blessings when dealing with this Republican-controlled Congress. At least they did what some of us called on them to do and stripped out the provision from the NDAA (H.R. 4909) including women in mandatory registration for Selective Service. Unfortunately, they have, once again, failed to utilize the “must-pass” defense authorization bill as a vehicle to fight the broader social engineering and transformation of our military. It appears that this much-vaunted promise of an open amendment process only applies to banal “in the weeds” issues, not to some of the fundamental issues affecting the morale, security, and mission of the military.

One policy Obama has been using to promote his social transformation is opening up the military to illegal aliens he unilaterally amnestied through his DACA program. In September 2014, the Department of Defense announced a new policy allowing military recruiters to enlist illegal immigrants under the auspices of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI. This was a pilot program created in 2008 designed to recruit foreign nationals with special language skills, but the program was only opened to legal immigrants. These foreign nationals are then given citizenship in return for their service and are able to bypass the 10-year green card process. After just a few months, 43 illegals immigrants were accepted into the MAVNI program. Undoubtedly, more have enlisted over the past year.

The acceptance of DACA recipients into MAVNI was part of a broader push from the administration and allies in Congress to open up all military service to illegal immigrants at a time when soldiers are being let go in large numbers as a result of Obama’s drastic cuts to the military.

The NDAA was a perfect opportunity to explicitly block Obama’s DoD directive to open military positions to DACA recipients. Yet, rather than go on offense, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, at the behest of Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), inserted a provision into the bill (Section 597) expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense has the discretion to authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens when it is “vital to the national interest.” This provision passed in committee by voice vote and Rep. Gallego declared it a “victory for Dreamers.” The pride of the nation, which protects our sovereignty and constitutional republic — was allowed to be used as a conduit to repudiate our rule of law.

In comes Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) last night to the House Rules Committee hearing where members teed up over 100 amendments to the NDAA. Gosar introduced an amendment to strike section 597 of the NDAA and affirm existing law explicitly barring illegal aliens from joining the military. Among all the small-ball amendments made in order last night, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) did not approve the Gosar amendment.

It’s a shame that Thornberry and Sessions were not willing to stand up for the military and stop Obama from using it as a visa mill for lawlessness. Moreover, the presence of illegal aliens in the military represents a huge security risk. The Obama administration has approved almost every DACA application, and as Judicial Watch discovered in 2014, DHS ostensibly gutted all background checks for DACA applicants, including the requirement of a government issued photo ID. As of a year ago, 282 DACA recipients lost their status after being approved due to their affiliation with gangs.

Moreover, as Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), a co-sponsor of the Gosar amendment, observed, why would there be a need for illegal immigrants in the military when Obama is dramatically downsizing it? “At a time when we are drawing down our military forces, and unable to retain and promote the men and women who have so bravely served our country, it is irrational, demeaning and absurd to ask that we prioritize the DREAMers over our own service members,” said the Virginia congressman.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) likes to brag about his open amendment process, but that process is only truly open to either insignificant issues or bills that will never become law. As I noted during last year’s NDAA vote, Republicans have failed to use the defense bill to stop any area of social engineering, including the unilateral lifting of the ban on transgender individuals in the military, placing women into direct ground combat against the wishes of Marine commanders, and stifling religious freedom in the service. This has taken a toll on morale in the military. In addition to dealing with all the spending and procurement issues, Republicans should be using the NDAA to reverse the terrible polices Obama’s Pentagon has unilaterally foisted upon our military.

Conservatives should pick up the motto of the Army: “This We’ll Defend” and should defend the institution against lawlessness and demand that this amnesty provision be stripped from the defense bill before it receives a final vote on the floor.

“While we are disappointed by the decision to not make the amendment in order, we are actively pursuing other avenues to achieve the same policy objective,” said Gosar in a statement to Conservative Review. “We are confident that this amendment will ultimately receive a vote on the House floor in the near future.” (For more from the author of “Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Lawyer With Firm That Won Freddie Gray Settlement Is Next Obama Judge up for Senate’s OK

President Barack Obama has not been able to move his Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, through the Senate but Republicans continue to advance the president’s lower court nominees.

The chamber on Monday is set to take up the nomination of Paula Xinis, a partner and senior trial attorney at Murphy, Falcon & Murphy—the Baltimore law firm that secured a $6.4 million settlement from the city of Baltimore in September in the wrongful death case of Freddie Gray.

If confirmed as a U.S. District Court judge for Maryland, Xinis, 47, could serve for life.

In April 2015, after being arrested for possessing an illegal switchblade, Gray, 25, received a spinal cord injury in the back of a police van and died a week later. Gray had a lengthy criminal record.

A medical examiner ruled Gray’s death a homicide. His death drew national attention after sparking riots, arson, and vandalism in West Baltimore as well as peaceful protests. Trials continue for the six police officers charged in the case.

Though Senate Republican leadership has vowed to stop any Supreme Court nominees, they’ve promised to evaluate each of Obama’s picks for federal circuit and district courts.

Obama nominated Xinis more than a year ago. She would be the second lower court nominee confirmed since Senate Republicans began their blockade of Supreme Court candidates after the Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative.

Five months earlier, on Sept. 17, the Judiciary Committee by voice vote approved her for the District Court seat in Greenbelt.

The vote on Xinis by the full Senate coincides with the beginning of National Police Week. Xinis served as a complaint examiner for the District of Columbia’s Office of Police Complaints. From 2005 to 2011, Xinis issued six opinions, ruling against the accused officer in each case.

One case involved an arrest for disorderly conduct in 2011. After ignoring a police order to move along, a District man began cursing at officers outside a local supermarket. A witness reported that the man “became verbally abusive.” But Xinis upheld a charge of harassment against the officer, ruling that “the arrest was baseless.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., noting her employment with Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, questioned Xinis about such opinions during a Judiciary Committee hearing on July 15, 2015.

Xinis, also a former public defender, said her job was to review cases before her, adding that she has a reputation for open-mindedness and integrity, according to a live blog of the proceedings.

“Can you assure police officers in Baltimore and all over Maryland that might be brought before your court that they’ll get a fair day in court, and that your history would not impact your decision-making?” Sessions asked.

Xinis, of University Park, replied that a well-trained judge has no agenda, and she wouldn’t have one. [Her appearance begins at 29:15 in this committee video.]

Xinis joined Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in 2011 and made partner in 2013. As a trial lawyer in private practice, she has won several cases involving civil rights and police brutality. She won a $5 million settlement from Camden County, New Jersey, for an incident that occurred after a police dog attacked a suspect, causing neurological damage.

According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Xinis and a partnering lawyer collected $1.54 million in attorney fees.

In a profile, the American Society of Legal Advocates wrote of her criminal defense work:

Ms. Xinis is a tenacious, and meticulous advocate for her clients with 14 years of prior experience as an assistant federal public defender representing individuals charged with the most complex and serious federal crimes, including wire, mail and bank fraud, public corruption, trade embargo violations, bribery, tax evasion, as well as drug conspiracies and firearms offenses.

A spokeswoman for Murphy, Falcon & Murphy told The Daily Signal that the firm would not respond to questions about Xinis until after Monday’s vote.

Before passing the bar, Xinis received her undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia in 1991 and graduated from Yale Law School in 1997.

She began her legal career when she clerked in 1998 for Judge Diana Gribbon Motz on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Motz, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, personally recommended Xinis for the U.S. District Court bench in Maryland.

Democrats Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, Maryland’s U.S. senators, have shepherded Xinis since Obama nominated her in March 2015. (For more from the author of “Lawyer With Firm That Won Freddie Gray Settlement Is Next Obama Judge up for Senate’s OK” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


FORMER OBAMA DEFENSE SEC: Yeah, Obama Was Never Serious About Stopping Iran From Getting Nukes

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta would “probably not” believe that President Barack Obama was serious about his promise to take action to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb if Panetta could make his assessments over again, he conceded in a New York Times Magazine article published on Thursday.

Panetta, who was the director of the CIA from 2009-2011 and then served as defense secretary until 2013, told reporter David Samuels that one of his most important jobs in the Pentagon was preventing Israel from launching a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak wanted to know if the president was serious about his commitment to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’” Panetta recalls. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”

Panetta stops.

“But would you make that same assessment now?” I ask him.

“Would I make that same assessment now?” he asks. “Probably not.”

Panetta explained that defense and foreign policy veterans like him and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be asked for policy opinions, only for White House staffers such as Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and the subject of Samuels’ piece, to narrow them down to “to where they thought the president wanted to be.”

They’d say, ‘Well, this is where we want you to come out.’ And I’d say ‘[expletive], that’s not the way it works. We’ll present a plan, and then the president can make a decision.’ I mean, Jesus Christ, it is the president of the United States, you’re making some big decisions here, he ought to be entitled to hear all of those viewpoints and not to be driven down a certain path.”

Rhodes disputed this, saying that the president rejected policy options that he didn’t like was because he didn’t agree with the traditional foreign policy establishment, of which Panetta was a part. But Rhodes did not dispute the process that Panetta described.

Panetta also said that in his capacity as CIA director, he never assessed that there was a meaningful difference between Iranian moderates and hardliners. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction,” he said.

Rhodes, the White House’s chief foreign policy communications manager, promoted the narrative that the election of Iranian president Hassan Rouhani presented an opportunity to engage with moderates to limit Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program. But he admitted to Samuels that “we are not betting” that Rouhani or foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are actually moderates.

Wendy Sherman, who served at the administration’s lead negotiator with Iran, made a similar statement earlier this year in a speech at Duke University, admitting that “there are hardliners in Iran, and then there are hard-hardliners. Rouhani is not a moderate, he is a hardliner.” (For more from the author of “FORMER OBAMA DEFENSE SEC: Yeah, Obama Was Never Serious About Stopping Iran From Getting Nukes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Hey Obama, We’ve Lost Our Patience With Your Lying Administration

Renowned author and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, in his book “People of the Lie,” describes evil personalities as those distinguished by:

(a) consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which my often be quite subtle. (b) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury. (c) Pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives. (d) Intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic like disturbance of thinking at times of stress.

Peck also makes the point that a sign of evil personalities is not dishonesty. We all have moments where we choose to be dishonest, but serial dishonesty is a different thing.

This weekend, while reading coverage of the now infamous Ben Rhodes interview with the New York Times, I was reminded of Peck’s book. Is this really where we are right now? Have we lost so much of our national innocence that Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications for President Obama, willingly grants an interview to a major American newspaper and proudly declares, that they manipulated the American public to sell the Iran nuclear deal?

Compounding this gross display of deception and hubris, Rhodes said of the press, “The average reporter we talk to is 27-years-old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing…” Thus, he appeared to blame media ignorance for his deception.

How many times are we going to be lied to by the Obama administration, and the president himself, before we stop pussyfooting around and call them what they are: liars? I fully understand that name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are gauche in the DC-insider political circles. But this is not name-calling for name-calling sake, or unnecessary ad-hominem; it’s simply the truth.

How else would one refer to a president and an administration that says things to the American people, recorded on tape for all of us to review, which turn out later to be patently false? Why the need to be delicate with a president who has never shown any such feelings for his political opposition? He is a liar and many in his administration are too. There, I said it, and you should too, because we will never be able to repair the dramatic loss in confidence in government under the Obama administration until we recognize that openly lying to and serially deceiving the American people is evil and unacceptable in a civil society.

And for our liberal friends, desperate to defend this failed presidential administration, who believe that the Ben Rhodes interview was an anomaly, I ask you to carefully remove your ideological blinders for a moment and consider the facts. Regardless of your position on immigration, Obamacare, or the Iran deal, it’s now painfully obvious that the Obama administration lied—yes, lied—about all three.

President Obama told us about immigration policy, “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.” And then President Obama turned around and ignored immigration law by implementing executive immigration amnesty through DACA and DAPA.

President Obama told us repeatedly about Obamacare, “If you like your healthcare plan, you will keep your plan.” He then signed the Obamacare legislation which cost millions of Americans the healthcare plans they were promised they could keep.

Some liberals may say in response, “It’s no big deal, most politicians lie.” Yes, you are correct. But does that mean that they have to slap us all in the face by openly celebrating it in the New York Times? And does it mean that they should be given a free pass for lying repeatedly?

Conservatives and libertarians prefer a smaller, leaner, and more efficient government precisely because of the tendency for politicians of all stripes to lie. A small government enables the lies of politicians to have the smallest possible impact on our lives and enables us to track their lies easily. A growing government monolith like the one we are living with now enables a sprawling government to hide its old lies under a bed of new lies and lie about the lies by calling their political opposition liars. Sound familiar?

Lying about major policy initiatives that will deeply impact the lives of nearly every American citizen is wrong. It is evil and we shouldn’t dance around that word anymore. I’m tired of having to dance around language to avoid telling the truth about Barack Obama while he compares Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Now go back and read Peck’s definition of an evil personality and see if you come to the same conclusions I have about this administration. (For more from the author of “Hey Obama, We’ve Lost Our Patience With Your Lying Administration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


President Death

Well, President Obama has just returned from an overseas visit, trying to convince Britain and Germany to sign his trade deal and generally butting into European politics in a way many had not expected when President Peace Prize descended from heaven to give the world the new, improved, “Smart Diplomacy.”

The latest international disaster occurred in Great Britain, when the President gave a speech urging the UK to remain in the European Union. Despite warnings from many quarters that such intrusion in the idea of the Brexit – the British Exit – would be less than appreciated, President Stupid went and did it anyway, prompting this reporter to ask the following:

BBC Reporter: Is this any of your business?

That’s from the left, left, left wing BBC, of all people.

London Mayor Boris Johnson called the President’s remarks “ridiculous” and “weird.” Queen Elizabeth apparently asked him not to make the pro-EU speech that he then went on to make, with President Golf Cart telling Britain that if it left the EU it would move “to the back of the Queue” as far as America was concerned.

Well, the important things got done, anyway.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all President Smart Diplomacy had done during his administration was destroy the special relationship between the United States and our best friend in the world, a catastrophe that began during his first days in office when he shipped the British gift of a bust of Winston Churchill back before he had unpacked his bags?

Yes, but that would be simply as Disaster. But President Catastrophe has damaged relations with ALL of our European partners who have said quietly, then not so quietly, that they were astounded at his arrogance and naiveté.

What’s This?

Russia gets more aggressive with us every day: they flew attack jets within 25 feet of a US Navy vessel and awaited the STRONGLY WORDED LETTER in reply.

As a matter of fact, when we were first introduced to the miracle of smart diplomacy, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented the Russian Foreign Minister with a gag red button for him to push… a button marked “RESET” but which was mistranslated. When President Failure’s US State Department, on worldwide television, debuted the new Smart Diplomacy, they had one Russian word to translate correctly and they got that one word wrong.

Meanwhile, China is building man-made islands in the South China Sea and warning US and Allied Warships away from their new “territory.”

In Libya, Mummar Khaddafi — who turned over his nuclear and chemical weapons program the day after US Forces pulled Saddam Hussein from his hiding place — was overthrown and Libya became such a chaotic bloodbath that US forces found themselves aiding Al Qaeda on the battlefield. After months of begging for additional security, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died as Obama and Hillary Clinton watched on TV, ordering the rescue attempt to stand down and then both of them lied to the American people, telling them the Benghazi attack on 9/11 was all the result of a YouTube video.

President Failure backed the overthrow of Pro-American Hosni Mubarak in Eqypt, handing the country to the Muslim Brotherhood. He then stumbled backing over his own Red Line in Syria, allowing the Russians to come to his rescue and, incidentally, achieving major player status in the Middle East overnight, after decades of effective, Non-Smart Diplomacy sidelining.

President Failure could not – or would not – conclude a simple Status of Forces agreement in Iraq, so American troops walked away – they were actually ordered to walk away – from a hard-won victory and allowed the last vestiges of the ravaged and defeated AQI – Al Qaeda in Iraq – to recover enough in the absence of American strength to rename itself ISIS. And now that we have created the Iraq War defeat that President Failure and his Treason Party had promised the American people, we are quietly sending more troops BACK to Iraq. And Syria. And Libya. And Afghanistan… all to try to make up the ground President Failure has not just lost but thrown away.

And of all the things Barack Obama did to damage this country, it’s the one thing he didn’t do that is most heartbreaking: In 2009, the people of Iran rose up against the murderers and fanatics, demanding freedom and democracy. The mullahs teetered on the brink for months. A mere word from the President of the United States would have encouraged them the way President Reagan encouraged Eastern Europe to throw off their communist tyrants. It was the only time during eight catastrophic years that President Obama didn’t have a single thing to say.

So now the sanctions on Iran are lifted. Billions of dollars of funds have been freed for more massacres, and the Iranians have cheated on President Gullible’s treaty before the ink was dry. President Catastrophe has called the Israeli Prime Minister “Chickenshit,” while his and his former secretary of state – currently his likely successor – closest advisors are Iranian. So there’s nothing to deter these Iranian fanatics nuclear ambitions now other than the speed of their centrifuges.

And barking-mad North Korea is reported to have developed a hydrogen bomb and has just launched a ballistic missile from a submarine.

This is Obama and his “Smart Diplomacy,” the Top Secret details of which have been leaked to whomever is curious as the result of the criminal arrogance of Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and the Treason Party’s Presidential nominee, who cut and pasted Top Secret and above info onto a server in a bathroom in New York in order to escape Freedom of Information Act requests.

We are going to pay for this. And so are our kids. And so will their kids. (For more from the author of “President Death” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.