Search This Blog

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Hamas TV: Muslims to Exterminate the Jews

Hamas TV: Muslims to Exterminate the Jews

by Abe Katsman

Jul 30, 2014 3:17 PM PT

Though glossed over in major media reporting on the Israel-Gaza confrontation, the Hamas conflict with the Jewish State remains deeply ideological. Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV broadcast a sermon Friday reaffirming the Hamas ideology that according to Islam, it is Muslim destiny to exterminate the Jews.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) carries a new video of an official television broadcast in which a Hamas cleric states:

Our belief about fighting you [Jews] is that we will exterminate you, until the last one, and we will not leave of you, even one. For you are the usurpers of the land, foreigners, mercenaries of the present and of all times. Look at history, brothers: Wherever there were Jews, they spread corruption... (Quran): "They spread corruption in the land, and Allah does not like corrupters." Their belief is destructive. Their belief fulfills the prophecy. Our belief is in obtaining our rights on our land, implementing Shari'ah (Islamic law) under Allah's sky.

[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 25, 2014]

Killing Jews as religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that Muslim struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and eventual extermination of Jews at the hands of Muslims is intrinsic to Islam. Hamas includes this message in its charter:

Hamas Charter Introduction: "Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave..."

Article 28: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims..."

Article 7: "Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet (prayer and peace be upon him) said [in a Hadith]: 'The time (of Resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: o Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!'"

Justice Ginsburg Hints Next President May Pick Her Replacement

Justice Ginsburg Hints Next President May Pick Her Replacement

on Thu, 31 Jul 2014

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans on staying on the U.S. Supreme Court for the time being, creating the possibility that her seat will be a factor in the 2016 presidential election.

On July 30, Ginsburg sat down with Katie Couric for an interview for ABC News and Yahoo News in a content-sharing deal between the network and web company. “All I can say is that I am likely to remain for a while,” Ginsburg told Couric.  

The 81-year-old Ginsburg specifically said she would like to stay on the High Court past the age at which Justice Louis Brandeis stepped down. Brandeis was the first Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court and set the record for a Jewish justice when he retired at 82.

Ginsburg evidently wants to beat that record. Brandeis was exactly three months past his birthday when he stepped down. Ginsburg did not specify whether that means she wants to pass precisely that age, which means she could step down during the summer of 2015, or if she wants to go until at least age 83, which would put her in the summer of 2016. Many justices try to retire during the Court’s annual summer recess to avoid national disruption and allow an orderly transition.

Asked how she would decide when to retire, she replied, “When I can’t do the job full steam.” Her husband Martin died in 2010, her children are grown, and she loves her job. As long as Ginsburg believes a liberal Democrat may succeed Obama as president in 2016, there’s no reason for her to leave the Court. So long as her famously brilliant mind remains sharp, she might choose to follow the path of Chief Justice William Rehnquist to live out the rest of her life in office.

Liberals have been pushing the 81-year-old Ginsburg to retire, citing their goal of keeping that seat in liberal hands. Ginsburg is a leader of the liberal wing of the Court which adheres to the idea of a “Living Constitution”—that judges should interpret the Constitution and all laws in light of what that judge believes to be wise, enlightened, and leading to good outcomes, even if that sometimes involves disregarding the meaning of certain words.

Conservatives oppose this concept because it’s anti-democratic. In a democratic republic the people get to rule themselves. Conservatives believe freedom includes being free to vote for dumb politicians who pass dumb laws. Judges are not the national babysitters who have a right to trump democracy anytime they want when they decide the American people are too dense to run their own lives.

Examples of this clash of judicial worldviews run the gamut of economic, social, and national security issues, infecting every area of law. Since America is a nation of laws, this clash impacts every area and aspect of American life.

For example, in 2008 the Supreme Court inBoumediene v. Bush held 5-to-4 that foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and held at a military facility on foreign land (Guantanamo Bay, or “Gitmo”) could claim the writ of habeas corpus. That constitutional right provides that any person held by the government can demand to face specific charges and process to defeat them, or otherwise be released.

The history of habeas corpus shows it only applies on American soil. If it has any application on foreign soil, it would only be for American citizens held by American agents. It plainly does not apply to foreign terrorists held by the military at Gitmo. Moreover, generally speaking it applies to domestic law enforcement, not the military in a wartime operation.

Yet five justices thought it was fair and just for foreign military combatants to have habeas corpus, so they said that the U.S. Marines had controlled Gitmo for so long that it was “de facto” American soil—and that American soldiers should be held to the same standard as police officers, and that combatants from a foreign army should be treated like criminals—and thus habeas corpus applies. The courts have been clogged with habeas petitions from Islamic terrorists ever since.

Another example is gun rights. The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” History proves this provision was to empower the American people to defend themselves against any force that would try to take away their freedom, whether foreign invaders or a tyrannical president who tried to impose martial law.

But four justices made it clear they don’t like guns. (Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned several times during oral arguments in 2008, and again in 2010, that guns kill people.) So they interpreted the Second Amendment in such a way that they argued it gives no American citizen the right to own a gun and that government could completely ban gun ownership.

The same is true for economic issues. Ginsburg voted in the 5-to-4 Ledbetter case that the 18-day time limit written in federal law to bring a sex-discrimination employment claim should be ignored for a woman who waited after that deadline in order to sue shortly after she retired. The majority voted that Congress decides how long a person has to bring a claim, and courts have no jurisdiction to ignore what Congress has written. Ginsburg disagreed, essentially because she thought it wasn’t fair under these circumstances.

Just this year she was in the 5-to-4 dissent inUtility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, where Congress specified a certain quantity of pollutant that had to be emitted before the EPA had power to regulate it. The EPA ignored that number and invented its own number (which was drastically different) in order to claim the power to regulate carbon dioxide and create a national carbon licensing system. The majority held the EPA cannot rewrite Congress’s law. Critics argued Ginsburg voted to allow the EPA to do so because she personally believes in manmade global warming.

Also in the recent Hobby Lobby case, Ginsburg wrote a lengthy dissent about how the government can force businesses owned by devout Christians to pay for drugs for employees that can cause abortions. The majority held that regulation is a clear violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from enforcing regulations that impose a substantial burden on a person’s exercising his faith. Ginsburg’s dissent was essentially that abortion rights were so important that RFRA should not be an obstacle.

Ginsburg has a history of very serious health problems. She had colon cancer in the 1990s and pancreatic cancer less than a decade ago. She has beaten very tough odds to have lived so long.

Yet ever since Democrats made Supreme Court nominations a super-charged political issue in 1987, justices try not to retire in presidential election years. So if Ginsburg doesn’t retire next year and her health endures, then it’s likely Ginsburg will not leave the bench until after the next president is sworn in. Or if Republicans win the Senate this year and Ginsburg breaks with tradition to retire in mid-2016, there is a good chance Republicans will be able to keep that seat open past Election Day.

Since two other justices are expected to retire during the next presidential term, Ginsburg will determine whether a third seat is in play. The current Supreme Court is so evenly divided that a many issues Americans care about are decided by a single vote. Therefore under any of those scenarios, it seems the future of the Supreme Court will be on the ballot in 2016.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter@kenklukowski.




Justice Ginsburg Hints Next President May Pick Her Replacement

Justice Ginsburg Hints Next President May Pick Her Replacement

on Thu, 31 Jul 2014

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans on staying on the U.S. Supreme Court for the time being, creating the possibility that her seat will be a factor in the 2016 presidential election.

On July 30, Ginsburg sat down with Katie Couric for an interview for ABC News and Yahoo News in a content-sharing deal between the network and web company. “All I can say is that I am likely to remain for a while,” Ginsburg told Couric.  

The 81-year-old Ginsburg specifically said she would like to stay on the High Court past the age at which Justice Louis Brandeis stepped down. Brandeis was the first Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court and set the record for a Jewish justice when he retired at 82.

Ginsburg evidently wants to beat that record. Brandeis was exactly three months past his birthday when he stepped down. Ginsburg did not specify whether that means she wants to pass precisely that age, which means she could step down during the summer of 2015, or if she wants to go until at least age 83, which would put her in the summer of 2016. Many justices try to retire during the Court’s annual summer recess to avoid national disruption and allow an orderly transition.

Asked how she would decide when to retire, she replied, “When I can’t do the job full steam.” Her husband Martin died in 2010, her children are grown, and she loves her job. As long as Ginsburg believes a liberal Democrat may succeed Obama as president in 2016, there’s no reason for her to leave the Court. So long as her famously brilliant mind remains sharp, she might choose to follow the path of Chief Justice William Rehnquist to live out the rest of her life in office.

Liberals have been pushing the 81-year-old Ginsburg to retire, citing their goal of keeping that seat in liberal hands. Ginsburg is a leader of the liberal wing of the Court which adheres to the idea of a “Living Constitution”—that judges should interpret the Constitution and all laws in light of what that judge believes to be wise, enlightened, and leading to good outcomes, even if that sometimes involves disregarding the meaning of certain words.

Conservatives oppose this concept because it’s anti-democratic. In a democratic republic the people get to rule themselves. Conservatives believe freedom includes being free to vote for dumb politicians who pass dumb laws. Judges are not the national babysitters who have a right to trump democracy anytime they want when they decide the American people are too dense to run their own lives.

Examples of this clash of judicial worldviews run the gamut of economic, social, and national security issues, infecting every area of law. Since America is a nation of laws, this clash impacts every area and aspect of American life.

For example, in 2008 the Supreme Court inBoumediene v. Bush held 5-to-4 that foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and held at a military facility on foreign land (Guantanamo Bay, or “Gitmo”) could claim the writ of habeas corpus. That constitutional right provides that any person held by the government can demand to face specific charges and process to defeat them, or otherwise be released.

The history of habeas corpus shows it only applies on American soil. If it has any application on foreign soil, it would only be for American citizens held by American agents. It plainly does not apply to foreign terrorists held by the military at Gitmo. Moreover, generally speaking it applies to domestic law enforcement, not the military in a wartime operation.

Yet five justices thought it was fair and just for foreign military combatants to have habeas corpus, so they said that the U.S. Marines had controlled Gitmo for so long that it was “de facto” American soil—and that American soldiers should be held to the same standard as police officers, and that combatants from a foreign army should be treated like criminals—and thus habeas corpus applies. The courts have been clogged with habeas petitions from Islamic terrorists ever since.

Another example is gun rights. The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” History proves this provision was to empower the American people to defend themselves against any force that would try to take away their freedom, whether foreign invaders or a tyrannical president who tried to impose martial law.

But four justices made it clear they don’t like guns. (Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned several times during oral arguments in 2008, and again in 2010, that guns kill people.) So they interpreted the Second Amendment in such a way that they argued it gives no American citizen the right to own a gun and that government could completely ban gun ownership.

The same is true for economic issues. Ginsburg voted in the 5-to-4 Ledbetter case that the 18-day time limit written in federal law to bring a sex-discrimination employment claim should be ignored for a woman who waited after that deadline in order to sue shortly after she retired. The majority voted that Congress decides how long a person has to bring a claim, and courts have no jurisdiction to ignore what Congress has written. Ginsburg disagreed, essentially because she thought it wasn’t fair under these circumstances.

Just this year she was in the 5-to-4 dissent inUtility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, where Congress specified a certain quantity of pollutant that had to be emitted before the EPA had power to regulate it. The EPA ignored that number and invented its own number (which was drastically different) in order to claim the power to regulate carbon dioxide and create a national carbon licensing system. The majority held the EPA cannot rewrite Congress’s law. Critics argued Ginsburg voted to allow the EPA to do so because she personally believes in manmade global warming.

Also in the recent Hobby Lobby case, Ginsburg wrote a lengthy dissent about how the government can force businesses owned by devout Christians to pay for drugs for employees that can cause abortions. The majority held that regulation is a clear violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from enforcing regulations that impose a substantial burden on a person’s exercising his faith. Ginsburg’s dissent was essentially that abortion rights were so important that RFRA should not be an obstacle.

Ginsburg has a history of very serious health problems. She had colon cancer in the 1990s and pancreatic cancer less than a decade ago. She has beaten very tough odds to have lived so long.

Yet ever since Democrats made Supreme Court nominations a super-charged political issue in 1987, justices try not to retire in presidential election years. So if Ginsburg doesn’t retire next year and her health endures, then it’s likely Ginsburg will not leave the bench until after the next president is sworn in. Or if Republicans win the Senate this year and Ginsburg breaks with tradition to retire in mid-2016, there is a good chance Republicans will be able to keep that seat open past Election Day.

Since two other justices are expected to retire during the next presidential term, Ginsburg will determine whether a third seat is in play. The current Supreme Court is so evenly divided that a many issues Americans care about are decided by a single vote. Therefore under any of those scenarios, it seems the future of the Supreme Court will be on the ballot in 2016.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter@kenklukowski.




Exclusive - Polling Data Shows GOP Voters Think Republicans Standing Tough On Immigration Most Important Issue

Exclusive - Polling Data Shows GOP Voters Think Republicans Standing Tough On Immigration Most Important Issue

Share This:      Polling data compiled by Tea Party Patriots and provided exclusively to Breitbart News shows that a majority of Republican voters think Republicans standing strong on immigration is more important than repealing Obamacare, getting to the bottom of the Benghazi or IRS scandals—or anything else for that matter.

When asked by TPP’s pollster which issue they think is the important for Republicans in Congress to deal with, 34.6 percent of GOP voters said stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border. Stopping Obama’s “illegal overreach” with executive power came in a distant second with 24 percent of GOP voters saying that’s the most important, while 23 percent saying repealing Obamacare is the most important and just 7.2 percent say the IRS scandal is the most important issue and 2.8 percent say the Benghazi scandal is most important. A total of 8.4 percent of GOP voters said they don’t know or refused to answer.

The poll was conduced with 1,000 likely GOP voters on Thursday, July 24 via a combination of cell phones and landlines nationwide, with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.

When the GOP voters were asked why the illegal aliens are coming into America, 78.8 percent said they are coming because “they have been led to believe that they will be allowed to remain here legally” while just 13.6 percent said they are coming because they want to “flee violence in their home countries” and 7.6 percent said they don’t know.

Also interesting in the poll, 48.6 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders in Congress should listen to their constituents primarily, 17.9 percent think they should to listen to their conscience, 12.7 percent think they should listen to low dollar donors, 7.1 percent to the Republican platform and 2.8 percent to their families. Just 2.5 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders should entertain ideas from high-dollar donors.

Dead GOP Bill Tried To Sneak Immigration Boost

Dead GOP Bill Tried To Sneak Immigration Boost

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) walks from the podium after speaking to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington July 10, 2014. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) walks from the podium after speaking to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington July 10, 2014. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

The border bill that was defeated by conservative GOP legislators would have greatly expanded the “unaccompanied alien child” loophole that is now being used by at least 80,000 Central American youths to win legal residency in the United States.

“This takes a problem that is bad, and makes it worse,” a Hill staffer that wished to remain anonymous told The Daily Caller.

The GOP bill would have allowed youths from Mexico to use the same “unaccompanied alien child” loophole in a 2008 law that is currently offered only to minors traveling from non-contiguous countries, such as Honduras and Guatemala, say conservatives and legal analysts.

The defeated bill expanded the loophole, even though numerous GOP and conservative legislators, plus many conservative activists and a majority of voters, urged it be closed by an amendment to the 2008 law.

The GOP’s leadership, led by House Speaker John Boehner, abandoned their effort to pass the bill when many conservative legislators balked during intense negotiations on July 30 and July 31.

House Democrats could have allied with Boehner to pass the bill, but he instead choose to let it fail.

The defeat will help Democrats blame the border crisis on the GOP, even though the influx of the 100,000-plus Central Americans began in 2012, amid lax enforcement of the border by President Obama’s border agencies.

Under the flawed 2008 law, so-called UACs from Mexico can be repatriated in a day via a “voluntary return” legal procedure, says an explanation of the bill shared by conservative legislators and activists.

The new “bill appears to put the majority – if not all – [Mexican UACs] in the new court proceedings,” where they will be exempt from “voluntary return,” and will have five ways to win residency, said the document.

Those major policy changes are hidden by obscure language in the “Secure the Southwest Border Act of 2014,” according to an analysis released by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The bill includes “a cornucopia of options by which UACs can ensure that they are never returned to their country of nationality,” the CIS report says.

For example, the bill amends the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by “altering the bright-line distinction between UACs from countries that are contiguous, versus noncontiguous, to the United States,” says the CIS report.

“It does this specifically by inserting instead the phrase, ‘Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and any other foreign country that the Secretary determines appropriate’ where the word ‘contiguous’ was previously used,” said the CIS report.

The bill also created a new legal process that pressures judges to grant residency to youths.

Section 103 created a new court procedure that allows UAC to win green cards unless the immigration judges can show it would be “manifestly unjust.”

That was just one of five opportunities that any and all UACs would be allowed to seek green cards.

“The House bill allows five bites at the apple for those claiming asylum,” according to the explanation of the bill.

“UACs are screened for credible fear by the Border Patrol; UACs go before an immigration judge in the new court proceeding to determine if they have a claim for relief; UACs are screened by an asylum officer for a credible fear of persecution; UACs then have their asylum case adjudicated by any asylum officer who can only grant relief or refer the case to immigration court; and If a UAC’s case is referred, the immigration judge will hear their case on the merits de novo,” read the explanation.

Also, the bill ensured that the number of youths who can claim to be UACs will rise because of a new definition hidden in a section about the use of the National Guard on the border.

Current law says youths who have parents or guardians in the United States don’t get the legal advantage of being called UACs.

For example, “when children who arrived unaccompanied are released to their parents [living in the United States], they cease to be UACs within the meaning of Wilberforce,” said CIS.

But the new bill defined UACs as illegals younger than 18 for whom “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”

The bill also requires that more youths be detained pending completion of their case.

That new definition meant that detained youths would be classified as UACs — even if they arrive with their parents — because they could not be transferred to the custody of their parents while they’re being detained.

The bill’s sponsors said it was intended to speed up court proceedings needed to deport migrant youths form Central America.

It required judges “to issue decisions within 72 hours of conclusion of the hearing… [but] there is no indicator of exactly how long such a hearing may be prolonged,” said the CIS report.

Obama Will Be Disgraced, Not Impeached

Obama Will Be Disgraced, Not Impeached



There’s nothing that President Obama’s current distasteful impeachment trolling resembles so much as Alex Rodriguez in 2004. The slumping hitter, frustrated after a difficult season, triggered a bench-clearing brawl in Boston after being hit by a pitch from Bronson Arroyo. Rodriguez threw down his bat, glared, and started cussing at the pitcher. Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek rushed into his path, and as A-Rod cursed the pitcher and accused him of hitting him on purpose, legend has it Varitek shot back, “We don’t throw at .260 hitters!” And, well, this happened. A few months later the half-centaur was swatting at Arroyo’s glove, and his reputation in baseball was never the same.

This incident should inform the general Republican Party response to any executive action on amnesty and the Left’s other passive-aggressive attempts to divert attention away from the failures of their unpopular, discredited president. Treat him like A-Rod, and don’t throw at .260 hitters.

The problem for Republicans is that if Obama does what he’s apparently planning to do, it really is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. Yuval Levin, no crazy conspiracy theorist he:

“Many people in Washington seem to be talking about the prospect of the president unilaterally legalizing the status of several million people who entered the country illegally as though it were just another political question. But if reports about the nature of the executive action he is contemplating are right, it would be by far the most blatant and explosive provocation in the administration’s assault on the separation of powers, and could well be the most extreme act of executive overreach ever attempted by an American president in peacetime.”
Whatever your preferred immigration policy solution, yes, this is outrageous. It’s the sort of action taken by a monarch, not an elected representative of the people. Total abandonment of the rule of law for blatantly partisan reasons after failing to achieve anything legislatively, betting on the courts to ignore it or do the no standing dance until it’s established policy – it’s all pretty obscene. But impeachment is a unrealistic and unworkable approach and Republicans know it (though it is amusing to watch the media and Capitol Hill Democrats which such short memories). There is no court or parliamentary procedure or legal technicality which can defend against Obama’s actions at this point or short-circuit the process (or lack thereof) he’s going to employ for the rest of his presidency. Under his leadership, his party has thoroughly abandoned the rule of law in pursuit of their policy aims. It might as well be part of the party platform now, and the Joe Biden presidency (lulz) would not be markedly more respectful of it.

So Republicans and Independents keep dropping jaws and cracking monocles, but it’s not going to do any good, and there’s no referee to throw the flag or umpire to call out the president for slapping the glove (well, there is that god-awful record at the Supreme Court, but that works on a delay). Paul Ryan has said that the GOP’s current political differences with the president don’t add up to high crimes and misdemeanors. But even if Obama does this, and even if the base concludes this is a step too far, there’s really nothing Republicans can do other than to laugh at how much of a failed presidency this has become, at the sheer absurdity and elitism of engaging in mass amnesty at a time when the working class is struggling so much, and get back to winning the argument with the people.

Don’t throw at .260 hitters. Impeachment won’t stop disrespect of the rule of law from this crew. Only crafting a new governing majority will.

Subscribe to Ben’s daily newsletter, The Transom.

The Parallel Failures of Obama's and Bush's Foreign Policy Doctrines - NationalJournal.com

The Parallel Failures of Obama's and Bush's Foreign Policy Doctrines - NationalJournal.com



The iron fist failed. Then the velvet glove failed.

That's undoubtedly a simplistic verdict on the foreign policy records of the past two presidents, George W. ("iron fist") Bush and Barack ("velvet glove") Obama. But it now appears inevitable that the 2016 foreign policy debate will unfold against a widespread sense that America's world position eroded under both Bush's go-it-alone assertiveness and Obama's deliberative multilateralism. "There will be a groping on both sides toward a new synthesis," says Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

Although Bush rallied the public with his resolute response to the September 11 attacks, disillusionment over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars undermined confidence in his foreign policy. Bush intended the Iraq invasion to convince rogue regimes that it was too costly to defy international standards. Instead, the chaotic aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall, combined with continuing instability in Afghanistan, convinced most Americans that we could not remake the world at an acceptable price. In a 2008 Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations poll, a resounding 71 percent said they believed global respect for America was declining.

In office, Obama extended, to an unexpected extent, Bush's policies aimed at terrorism (drone strikes, intrusive electronic surveillance). But in most ways, Obama has functioned internationally as the anti-Bush. Where Bush was quick to act, Obama has been painstaking. Where Bush was frequently accused of ignoring allies, Obama has consulted exhaustively.

Most important, where Bush launched a war of choice in Iraq, Obama has resisted not only military intervention but even lesser forms of involvement in crises such as Syria's. In his recent West Point commencement speech, Obama bookended Bush's ringing calls for spreading democracy with an alternative doctrine: "Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint," Obama declared, "but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences."

(Alex Wong/Getty Images, left; Pete Souza/White House Photo, right)

That sentiment actually aligns Obama with the public's post-Iraq mood: Polls consistently find most Americans opposed to involvement in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, or other hot spots now boiling over. But those blazes are simultaneously melting public confidence in Obama's management of global affairs. And in both parties, the same foreign policy leaders who judged Bush as too reckless now largely view Obama as too cautious. Thinkers in both parties echo Marshall when he says the president has overcorrected from Bush's course and "underestimated the cost of standing aloof from crises that get much worse" in places like Syria and Ukraine. In perfect symmetry, the latest Pew/CFR poll found last fall that after improving when Obama first took office, the share of Americans who believe the nation is losing respect internationally has almost spiked back to its Bush-era level.

All of the potential 2016 presidential contenders must navigate between this parallel disenchantment with both of their predecessors. Hillary Clinton began that process with her memoir Hard Choices, in which she signaled she would have been tougher than Obama on Syria and Russia—but also unambiguously renounced her support for the Iraq War. In balancing diplomacy and force, aspiration and restraint, Clinton seems determined to seek what one top Democratic security thinker calls "an intermediate point between Bush and Obama."

Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, meanwhile, are already channeling Ronald Reagan's arguments against Jimmy Carter by insisting that Obama has invited disorder by failing to provide "clear, decisive, and morally unambiguous American leadership." But Rubio (and like-minded Republicans) face a mountainous hurdle Reagan didn't: Many Americans now equate that brand of leadership with the discredited Iraq War. For that reason, Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who served on Bush's National Security Council, says Republicans ultimately can't sell a more assertive approach than Obama's without reversing the widespread conclusion that Iraq was a historic blunder. "You have to make the argument that sins of omission can be as bad or worse than sins of commission," Feaver says.

Even hawkish Republicans may balk at that mission. Just defending Iraq inside the GOP could be tough enough. Likely 2016 contender Rand Paul is building the most forceful challenge to Republican internationalism since Sen. Robert Taft in the 1950s. Paul blames today's Mideast turmoil on mistakes by both Bush and Obama ("both sides," the Senator insists, "continue to get foreign policy wrong"), and pledges an isolationist-tinged foreign policy that "puts America first."

For all the consternation, Bush and Obama (so far) have each achieved their single highest goal of preventing another major terrorist attack on the homeland. But after the two men's utterly antithetical foreign policy approaches produced so many other disappointments, the hard question is whether any strategy can meaningfully increase America's ability to shape global events.

In a "rise of the rest" world of diffusing power, every future U.S. president may need to blend cooperation and confrontation with chastened expectations.

This article appears in the July 26, 2014 edition of National Journal Magazine as World of Hurt.

Iran's Rouhani: ‘This Festering Zionist Tumor Has Opened Once Again’ | Washington Free Beacon

Rouhani: ‘This Festering Zionist Tumor Has Opened Once Again’ | Washington Free Beacon



Iranian President Hassan Rouhani lashed out at Israel in vitriolic terms on Wednesday, referring to Israel as a “festering Zionist tumor.”
Rouhani, who has been championed by Western media as a moderate reformer who could change Iran’s extremist ways, appears to be adopting a violent tone similar to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has advocated for the complete destruction of Israel in recent days.
“Today, this festering Zionist tumor has opened once again and has turned the land of olives into destruction and blood and littered the land with the body parts of Palestinian children,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in a statement that was translated by the Brookings Institution.
Rouhani’s comments have received little attention in the Western media, which rushed to congratulate the Iranian leader last year for sending a greeting to Jews during the Rosh Hashanah holiday.
Rouhani went on to compare Israel to the jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), which Iran is fighting against in Iraq.
ISIL is “a second festering tumor that murders people in the name of Islam,” Rouhani said, adding that, “analysts say that both of these tumors derived from the same origin.”
Khamenei himself has called for the arming of all Palestinians so that they can combat Israel.
Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and cofounder of Iranian Liberal Students and Graduates, warned that Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, the lead negotiator in talks with the West, are fooling the world by posing as moderates.
“Rouhani and Zarif to Khamenei are the same as Joachim von Ribbentrop was to Adolf Hitler,” Ghasseminejad said. “Both are loyal servants to a dangerous apartheid regime that wants to change the world order dramatically and is ready to use any means available to reach its deal. Like Ribbentrop, it is their job to fool the world, buy time for the regime, and sell a fake image to the world.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq, slammed U.S. media for perpetuating the myth that Rouhani is a Western-style moderate.
“The Iranian government counts on the fact that the American media will act as useful idiots,” Rubin said. “Some self-censor for access, others simply believe what they read in English—for example Rouhani’s Rosh Hashanah tweet—and ignore completely what the Iranian leadership says in Persian.”
“The fact of the matter is that Rouahni is part and parcel of the system, and embraces Khamenei’s ideology hook, line, and sinker,” Rubin added
Rubin noted that several years ago Rouhani boasted about his ability to appease the United States with promises of diplomacy.
“There should be some serious introspection about the cherry picking in which the media has engaged to promote a false narrative,” Rubin said. “Putting lipstick on Rouhani doesn’t make him Western; he remains just as much a devotee of an ideology seeking to defeat both Israel and the West.”
As Western leaders such as President Barack Obama seek to get closer to Rouhani, his regime has armed terror groups such as Hamas and sought to spread regional chaos.
“The reality is that under Rouhani, Iran has increased its support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah thanks to the sanctions relief” provided to Iran under the terms of the interim nuclear agreement, Ghasseminejad said.

Dow down 1 percent on Europe deflation fears

Dow down 1 percent on Europe deflation fears



U.S. stocks declined on Thursday, positioning the Dow and S&P 500 for their first monthly losses since January, as an unexpected drop in European inflation fueled worries about deflation there and a jump in U.S. labor costs furthered the idea that the Federal Reserve would have to hike interest rates sooner rather than later.
"The good news is getting lost in the shuffle, and for the time will take a back seat to weakness in European markets on deflationary fears," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Wunderlich Securities.
Investor sentiment was also hit by Argentina's default after hopes for a deal with holdout creditors fell through. Argentinian stocks traded in the U.S. were hit, including Pampa Energy off.

Editorial: Beware a wounded Putin

Editorial: Beware a wounded Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin heads the Cabinet meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence. (Alexei Nikolsky/AP)

Editorial Board 
July 30, 2014

AMONTH ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to be successfully executing his campaign to destabilize Ukraine. While Russian-backed insurgents consolidated a breakaway republic, weak and divided Western governments ignored their own deadlines for imposing sanctions. Now, suddenly, Mr. Putin faces twin reversals: relatively tough sanctions from the United States and European Union on Russian banks and oil companies, and a string of military defeats that have pushed back his proxy forces. It’s a dangerous moment for Mr. Putin — and, perhaps, an opportunity for Ukraine and its allies.

The Obama administration and European governments deserve credit for agreeing on joint action against Russia after months of haggling and hesitation. But Mr. Putin is mostly responsible for his own setbacks. Having recklessly supplied his Ukrainian proxy force with advanced anti-aircraft missiles, he was surprised when one downed a Malaysian passenger jet, causing a heavy loss of European lives. Even then he might have avoided significant sanctions, but his response to the tragedy was to stonewall and deny responsibility even while escalating his weapons deliveries to the flailing insurgents.

President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders have bent over backward to avoid a full rupture with Mr. Putin over Ukraine. Mr. Obama said Tuesday that the sanctions did not represent “a new cold war”but rather was “a very specific issue” related to Ukraine. Yet the combination of economic losses from the sanctions and Ukraine’s potential defeat of the rebels could pose a threat to Mr. Putin’s hold on the Kremlin. Having whipped up nationalist passions over Ukraine with his state-directed propaganda apparatus, the Russian ruler might have trouble explaining the rebels’ eclipse. While the effect of sanctions will take time to sink into the economy — the Russian stock market and ruble rose Wednesday — Mr. Putin has already been on thin ice with Russia’s middle class and its private-sector businessmen.

It’s not yet clear how Mr. Putin will react to these reversals. He is capable of surprising shifts of direction — such as his sudden offer last summer to help strip his ally Syria of chemical weapons. Ukrainian officials, like some of their counterparts in the West, worry about a reckless lashing out by a ruler who feels cornered. Mr. Putin, they counsel, still should be offered a face-saving way of retreating from Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko and the interim government, which have been offering such compromises all along, are set to renew negotiations with the Russian-backed forces this week.

While such initiatives are worth trying, the reality is that Mr. Putin is more likely to escalate than back down. Ukraine and the West must be prepared for a more forceful and overt Russian military intervention. That should mean more support for the Ukrainian military, which is seeking drones and better communications equipment from the West, and more economic support for the new government, which has been forced to spend heavily on the armed forces. Russia should not be allowed to permanently entrench its proxy forces in eastern Ukraine, creating a “frozen conflict.”

The West also should not shrink from the destabilization of Mr. Putin’s regime. Once considered a partner, this Kremlin ruler has evolved into a dangerous rogue who threatens the stability and peace of Europe. If he can be undermined through sanctions and the restoration of order in eastern Ukraine, he should be.

Obamacare Bringing Insurers, Hospitals Big Profits

Obamacare Bringing Insurers, Hospitals Big Profits

by Warner Todd Huston

Jul 31, 2014 4:43 AM PT

Experts, insurers, and hospitals still don't have enough data to say if Obamacare is going to be good for the country, but two things seem certain thus far: hospital chains and insurers are raking in the dough while patients are paying higher costs for insurance.

Bloomberg reports that HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA), "the largest for-profit hospital chain," and WellPoint Inc., a for-profit healthcare insurance provider, both raised their forecasts after the two companies made record profits due, they assume, to Obamacare.

Another company, LifePoint Hospitals Inc., reports that their earnings increased $13 million in the second quarter this year.

"Obamacare's turned out to be quite good for health-care companies," healthcare investor Les Funtleyder told Bloomberg.

The business reporters went on to note that several other large healthcare companies, such as UnitedHealth Group, Inc., are also seeing higher profits.

One reason these healthcare companies are raking in record profits is because the insurers are getting new clients forced into the system by Obamacare.

Bloomberg claimed, "Taxpayers too may be benefiting from the law approved in 2010." Yet, reading further into the story, this rosy claim is not buttressed by facts. It seems that there are a lot of assumptions being made on whether or not Obamacare is actually a boon to Americans.

Even as Bloomberg says several times that Obamacare is good for Americans, at the same time the story warns that "it's early in the life of the law" to say for sure and that "questions remain" on whether or not the recent drop in healthcare costs really is attributable to Obama's Affordable Care Act or if it is merely a result of a slow economic recovery.

Further, Americans still don't like the law. "Recent polls indicate that more Americans remain opposed to the health-care law than support it, although that includes people who think it isn't liberal enough," Bloomberg writes.

Others think that the slightly improving economy may be responsible for the increase in healthcare spending by Americans.

"We may need to see a couple more quarters to parse out who's going and why," Funtleyder told Bloomberg. "If it's the individually insured who didn't have insurance going to the hospital, it's Obamacare. If it's everybody, it's probably the economy."

Finally, all this depends on court challenges, further government actions and tinkering with the law, and the stability of government subsidies and state exchanges, all things that are not known quantities and any one of which could upset the apple cart.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter@warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.