The Washington Post writes, “President Obama took sharp aim at critics of the Iran nuclear deal on Wednesday, saying many of those who backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq now want to reject the accord and put the Middle East on the likely path toward another war.” This was in a speech where the president also said, “I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats . . . ” President Obama lamented, “Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism,” then later claimed, “It’s those [Iranian] hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”
AFP notes something else Obama said. “President Barack Obama acknowledged Wednesday that Iran might use cash coming its way under sanctions relief to fund ‘terrorist organizations’ but argued this is preferable to allowing it to develop nuclear arms. ‘The truth is, that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts,” Obama said, in a speech to defend the Iran nuclear deal. And whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.’”
“‘The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,’ Kerry said. ‘This’—a congressional rejection—‘will be the ultimate screwing.’ He went on to argue that ‘the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.’”
Meanwhile, the administration still can’t seem to get its story straight on the side deals between Iran and the IAEA. According to The Hill, “The only Obama administration official to view confidential ‘side deals’ between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admitted Wednesday she and her team have only seen rough drafts.
‘I didn’t see the final documents. I saw the provisional documents, as did my experts,’ said Wendy Sherman, a lead U.S. negotiator for the deal, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing. Sherman, undersecretary of State for political affairs, said she was only allowed to see the confidential deals ‘in the middle of the negotiation’ when the IAEA ‘wanted to go over with some of our experts the technical details.’
“She maintained the deals — which focus on with Iran’s prior work on a bomb and access to Iran’s Parchin military site — are still confidential and can’t be submitted to Congress.
“Sherman said the U.S. did not protest to the confidentiality of the agreements, despite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act demanding all related agreements, because the administration wanted the IAEA to respect the confidentiality of their agreements with the U.S. . . .
“However, later in the hearing, she walked back her comments about not seeing the final arrangements. ‘I was shown documents that I believed to be the final documents, but whether there were any further discussions…’ she added before being cut off by another question by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Later, she said responded, ‘I have’ when asked whether she saw the final versions of the deals.
“She also argued they could not be submitted to Congress because the administration does not have the deals, and that the Senate had ‘every single document’ the administration has.”
What is clear is that opposition to this deal has been growing. A Quinnipiac poll this week found “American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released [Monday]. Voters say 58 – 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds.”
And today, The Hill reports, “The highest-ranking Jewish Democrat in the House announced his opposition to the nuclear accord with Iran on Tuesday, in a blow to the Obama administration’s lobbying efforts.
“‘I’m going to vote against the Iran deal,’ Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) — the former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — told Newsday. ‘I tried very hard to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it.’
“In addition to Rep. Israel, Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) also came out against the deal on Tuesday, saying that the multinational agreement did not include enough safeguards to prevent Iran from cheating on its commitments or limit it from supporting extremist groups such as Hezbollah.”
Is it the president’s contention that these influential House Democrats and 57% of American voters are in favor of “some form of war,” as he suggested in his speech today?
I am a St. Louis resident and one of the parties to the first Frozen Embryo case in Missouri to go to the Appellate Court. My Notice of Appeal was filed on June 25. This case will make law in regards to how frozen embryos are disposed of in divorce. My case was on the local news In April but did not specifically state who the parties were.
My case is simple: During our marriage, my ex and I signed an agreement stating that I would get the embryos upon divorce or legal separation. He admitted to signing the document during the trial and the trial court erroneously decided to not uphold the agreement and not give me the embryos. I might add that I am also an attorney and the court’s decision is not only baseless but outrageous. Now my two unborn children (siblings of my two current twin boys) are now forced sit in cryofreeze waiting for their fate. My ex says he does not want them to see the light of day and I cannot reach them without his consent.
At the same time (being so outraged) I, along with my co-founder Rebecca Keissling (Michigan resident), organized a Missouri non-profit called Embryo Defense (whose main mission is to help connect and provide resources for people like me). It will be the first of its kind in the nation. My organization made international headlines when we organized and participated in the protest against Sofia Vergara on Hollywood Blvd at the Magic Mike XXL Premiere which was held on Thursday, June 25.
The Wall Street Journal editors unload today on President Obama and his EPA for the costly power grab on power plant emissions the agency announced yesterday. They write, “Rarely do American Presidents display the raw willfulness that President Obama did Monday in rolling out his plan to reorganize the economy in the name of climate change. Without a vote in Congress or even much public debate, Mr. Obama is using his last 18 months to dictate U.S. energy choices for the next 20 or 30 years. This abuse of power is regulation without representation.
“The so-called Clean Power Plan commands states to cut carbon emissions by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030. This final mandate is 9% steeper than the draft the Environmental Protection Agency issued in June 2014. The damage to growth, consumer incomes and U.S. competitiveness will be immense—assuming the rule isn’t tossed by the courts or rescinded by the next Administration.”
The WSJ editors explain, “[T]he point is to bull-rush states into making permanent changes to their energy systems. The investments and lead times in new power plants and transmission lines on this scale are generational. Yet state compliance plans are due in September 2016, and most of the carbon reductions must be complete by 2022.
“The White House and EPA know they are distorting the law beyond recognition and that this rule will be litigated for years. But they figure that if they can intimidate the states into enacting as much change as fast as possible, a legal defeat won’t matter because the outcome will be a fait accompli. . . .
“The High Court has rebuked the agency twice in the last two years for exceeding its statutory powers. ‘When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism,’ the Court warned last year. ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.’
“Congress did no such thing with the Clean Power Plan, which is a new world balanced on a fragment of the Clear Air Act called Section 111(d). This passage runs a couple hundred words and was added to the law in 1977, well before the global warming stampede.”
The Journal editors add, “Meantime, states can help the resistance by refusing to participate. The Clean Air Act is a creature of cooperative federalism, and Governors have no obligation to craft a compliance plan. The feds will try to enforce a fallback, but they can’t commandeer the states, and they lack the money, personnel and bandwidth to overcome a broad boycott. . . . The states have good reason to avoid collaborating in a scheme that will result in higher prices for consumers and business as the EPA mandates are passed down the energy chain. The plan also endangers electric reliability, and the strains to the grid could lead to brownouts or worse.”
The Wall Street Journal editors sum up the situation well: “This plan is essentially a tax on the livelihood of every American, which makes it all the more extraordinary that it is essentially one man’s order. Mr. Obama’s argument is that climate change is too important to abide by relics like the rule of law or self-government. It is an important test of the American political system to prove that he is wrong.”
Of course it is! Where else is a woman going to go for an abortion except to the largest abortion provider in the country?
“I don’t think you realize how many women that Planned Parenthood is their go-to resource,” McCaskill replied. “I’m not saying that they are the only ones that should. I’m saying, investigate them, make sure they haven’t broken the law, don’t give them tax money for abortions — but don’t cut off the very way we avoid abortion in this country.”
McCaskill was dis-invited to speak at her daughter’s High school commencement last spring due to her stances on abortion and stem cell research.
The Hill reports, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is fast-tracking a bill to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, after senators huddled in his office Tuesday to work out the details of a bill.
“Speaking on the Senate floor, the Republican leader started the process, known as Rule 14, which allows the bill to skip over being sent to a committee and go directly to the Senate floor for a vote. ‘The horrendous videos of senior executives from Planned Parenthood discussing in callous tones and shocking detail their role in a national scandal requires a congressional response,’ the Republican leader said in a statement. ‘This legislation would ensure taxpayer dollars for women’s health are actually spent on women’s health — not a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant.’
“McConnell is expected to finish the fast-track process Wednesday. . . . The Republican leader told reporters earlier Tuesday that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would be leading a working group of senators, which also included Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), to come up with a new bill. The group huddled in McConnell’s office Tuesday afternoon.”
Earlier this afternoon, Leader McConnell joined Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), Rand Paul (R-KY), James Lankford (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Thune (R-SD), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) at a press conference to introduce the legislation, S. 1881.
All are cosponsors of the bill, as are Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John McCain (R-AZ), Jerry Moran (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Ben Sasse (R-NE).
At the press conference, Leader McConnell said, “By now we’ve all seen those Planned Parenthood videos that absolutely shock the conscience. I want to thank Senator Joni Ernst, Senator Rand Paul, Senator James Lankford, and others you see behind me for leading the effort to put together legislation we’ll vote on next week to address the issue.
“But before I turn it over to Senator Ernst, I want to make the point that I’m sure others will make repeatedly, this bill would ensure tax payer dollars for women’s health are spent on women’s health. This will ensure tax payer dollars that are supposed to be spent on women’s health are in fact spent on women’s health. It would ensure we’re funding that and not subsidizing some scandal-plagued organization.”
Sen. Ernst said, “The recent footage depicting Planned Parenthood’s role in the harvesting of organs . . . of unborn babies is morally reprehensible and vile. The American people—Republicans and Democrats alike—are horrified by the utter lack of compassion shown by Planned Parenthood for these women and their babies. In fact, now, Hillary Clinton is calling is calling these Planned Parenthood images, ‘disturbing,’ and I agree.”
And several Democrat senators have also said they find the videos troubling, including Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).
Politico adds, “The Senate GOP bill would strip the roughly $540 million in funding that Planned Parenthood is scheduled to receive and steer it toward other women’s health programs, a bid to undermine Democratic complaints about the measure. ‘Funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be offered to other eligible entities to provide such women’s health care services,’ said a statement from Senate Republicans on the new legislation.”
And the AP notes, “The Senate will vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood, GOP leaders said Tuesday, as anti-abortion groups clamored for action by lawmakers. . . .
“The positioning came as an anti-abortion group released a third covertly recorded video of Planned Parenthood officials discussing procedures for obtaining tissue from aborted fetuses for research and showing stark close-ups of what it said was fetal tissue in a Planned Parenthood lab.”
As Sen. Tim Scott said, “To me, this is not a political issue, it is not a partisan issue, it’s not even if whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. This is an issue about our humanity. . . . Without any question, I think the right thing for us to do is to defund Planned Parenthood and to make sure that we see that every single dollar goes to provide women’s health services.”
Is it just us or does it seem that whenever there is any kind of national or state controversy brewing, Senator McCaskill always jumps on the bandwagon to gain publicity for herself? Senator of McCaskill has been full aware of the shenanigans going on Jefferson City. Now she finds her voice?
STLPublicRadio:
She was an intern in the Missouri capital 41 years ago. “I am bitterly disappointed that the climate has not changed significantly since 1974,’’ the senator said, recalling her own experiences with off-color jokes and unsolicited sexual comments. And McCaskill remembers the self-doubt of what she should do. “I wanted to be an intern, and I wanted to learn,” she told reporters in a Tuesday conference call. “I was afraid if I told the university they’d decide they didn’t want to do the intern program anymore. So I just tried to handle it myself.” Read more…
CNN writes, “A majority of Americans want Congress to reject the recently-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, even as President Barack Obama’s approval rating continues to stand in net-positive territory for the second month in a row, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. . . . [O]n the President’s biggest accomplishment since [2013] — the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran — most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.
“Some opposition to the deal may be fueled by skepticism. A CNN/ORC poll in late June, conducted as the deal was being worked out, found that nearly two-thirds of adults thought it was unlikely the negotiations would result in an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”
That’s hardly surprising given Iran’s long record of hostile and deceptive behavior, let alone the angry statements that come from leaders in Tehran.
A Reuters report indicates that the Saudis and other countries in the Middle East continue to see this behavior up close. “Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Monday accused Iran of making threats against Riyadh’s ally, Bahrain, which he said showed that the Islamic republic was harboring hostile designs against its Middle Eastern neighbors.
“Speaking at a joint news conference with visiting European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Jubeir said Saudi Arabia had raised the issue with her. He said the comments showed that Tehran was intervening in its neighbors’ internal affairs. ‘It does not represent the desire of a state for good neighborly relations but that of a state which has aspirations in the region and which carried out hostile act like this,’ he added.
“Jubeir did not clarify who made the comments or when, but he said they could be linked to the terms of the agreement with world powers on its nuclear program or to setbacks suffered by Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen and President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria. ‘I don’t know, but we reject their comments and reject the hostility they show towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the countries of the region,’ he said.
“Bahrain on Saturday said it had foiled an arms smuggling plot by two Bahrainis with ties to Iran and recalled its ambassador to Tehran for consultations after what it said were repeated hostile Iranian statements.”
Meanwhile, the AP reports, “Iran wants its own officials to take soil samples at a site where it is alleged to have experimented with ways to detonate a nuclear weapon, and the U.N. agency probing the suspicions may agree provided it is allowed to monitor the process, two officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.
“The investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency is part of the overarching nuclear deal reached earlier this month between Iran and six world powers. Iran denies any such work but has agreed to give the IAEA access to the Parchin military complex.
“Several U.S. senators cited Obama administration officials last week as saying Iran could conduct its own soil sampling at Parchin. . . .
“David Albright, whose Institute for Science and International Security is often consulted by the U.S. government on proliferation issues, said the IAEA ‘could instruct Iran in where and how to take the sample, as they would an inspector. They could try to keep a close watch on how Iran follows the instructions.’
“At the same time, ‘the IAEA could not exclude Iran tampering with the sample in some way,’ he said.
“Iran has refused to give IAEA experts access to people, documents and sites allegedly linked to the suspected weapons work for nearly a decade. But in its quest for the end to nuclear-related sanctions, it agreed earlier this month to work with the agency, and IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has said he expects to be able to deliver a report by December. . . .
“U.S. lawmakers skeptical of the deal see the matter of whether the U.N. agency will receive full cooperation from Iran as a core issue. Congress began a 60-day review of the accord last week.
“The suspected explosives testing at Parchin, south of Tehran, is only one of 11 alleged cases of nuclear weapons-related work listed by the IAEA, based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research.
“Tehran insists Parchin is a conventional military area with no link to nuclear tests. In recent years, it has carried out major construction and paving at the site where the alleged experiments took place, while refusing dozens of IAEA requests for a visit.”
Little wonder, then, that Americans are skeptical of Iran living up to an agreement and aren’t persuaded on the deal the Obama administration has made.
Senator Claire McCaskill, who once said she “wouldn’t want to be alone in an elevator” with Hillary Clinton, is now obviously full in with Clinton after this tweet. Claire gets a threefer with this quote. One, she gets to take a shot at The Donald. Two, she gets to take a dig at the hapless Todd Akin. And three, she gets to play Hillary’s attack dog.
The Wall Street Journal reports today, “An Obama administration assessment of the Iran nuclear deal provided to Congress has led a number of lawmakers to conclude the U.S. and world powers will never get to the bottom of the country’s alleged efforts to build an atomic weapon, and that Tehran won’t be pressed to fully explain its past.
“In a report to Capitol Hill last week, the administration said it was unlikely Iran would admit to having pursued a covert nuclear weapons program, and that such an acknowledgment wasn’t critical to verifying Iranian commitments in the future.
“Details of the report, which haven’t been previously disclosed, indicate the deal reached this month could go ahead even if United Nations inspectors never ascertain conclusively whether Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program—something Tehran has repeatedly denied. . . .
“Under the deal, Tehran is required by mid-October to give U.N. inspectors access to Iranian scientists, military sites and documents allegedly tied to a covert nuclear-weapons program to have international sanctions repealed. Iran has balked at such requirements in the past.
“U.S. lawmakers and outside nuclear experts are skeptical the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to conclusively determine in two months an investigation it has failed to resolve in more than a decade.
“The IAEA is required to publish a report by year-end on Iran’s alleged past military work as part of the deal.”
According to the WSJ, “On Iran’s alleged past weapons work, the Obama administration said it concluded: ‘An Iranian admission of its past nuclear weapons program is unlikely and is not necessary for purposes of verifyingcommitments going forward,’ said a copy of the assessment viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
“‘U.S. confidence on this front is based in large part on what we believe we already know about Iran’s past activities,’ the report said. ‘The United States has shared with the IAEA the relevant information, and crafted specificmeasures that will enable inspectors to establish confidence that previously reported Iranian [weaponization] activities are not ongoing.’
“A senior U.S. official said Sunday the IAEA had already concluded most of its probe into Iran’s alleged weaponization work and that the recently concluded deal in Vienna gives the agency more leverage to complete it. The official added the U.S. intelligence community long ago concluded Tehran had a nuclear-weapons program up until 2003, and that ‘an admission of what Iran did in the past is scientifically not needed to evaluate Iran’s compliance with the [agreement] in the future.’”
Of course, this contradicts what Obama administration officials had been saying prior to the deal reached in Vienna this month. Back in April, PBS’ Judy Woodruff asked Secretary of State John Kerry, “[T]he International Atomic Energy Agency has said for a long time that it wants Iran to disclose past military-related nuclear activities. Iran is increasingly looking like it’s not going to do this. Is the U.S. prepared to accept that?”
Kerry was definitive in his response: “No. They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done. . . . It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be.”
Strangely, last month Kerry actually used language very similar to what appears in the documents The Wall Street Journal reports on today. At the time, Politico wrote, “Kerry suggested that Iran would not have to fully account for any past atomic weapons research as part of reaching a nuclear deal, affirming earlier reports that the U.S. wouldn’t make that a condition. . . . ‘The possible military dimensions, frankly, gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussion, in that we’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another,’ Kerry said. ‘We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward. It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped, and that we can account for that in a legitimate way.’”
One reporter pressed him, “What was reported and what the Secretary said – and I think that the reporting was an accurate reflection of what he said – was that they [the possible military dimensions of Iran’s previous nuclear work] do not have to be resolved for there to be an agreement, or that the inference that one could make – that they don’t have to be resolved before an agreement is made.”
Kirby told him, “And again, I’d tell you that that interpretation of his comments is incorrect. Let me, if I could, read to you what he actually said to you in your question: ‘On something like possible military dimensions’ – this is from yesterday – ‘the JPOA refers to that and says that it’s got to be addressed in the context of the final product. And that remains true; it has to be. And we have to resolve our questions about it with specificity. Access is very, very critical. It’s always been critical from day one; it remains critical. And we defined that at Lausanne, and those are sorts of fundamental outlines, if you will.’ He later declared, ‘I just said ad nauseam that the IAEA’s concerns about possible military dimensions past and present have to be fully addressed before there’s going to be a deal. And if we don’t – if they don’t get the access that they need to address and resolve their concerns, then there’s not going to be a deal.’”
But now the administration is suggesting these won’t be fully resolved and “[a]n Iranian admission of its past nuclear weapons program is unlikely and is not necessary . . . .”
Further, The Journal notes, “Former U.S. intelligence officials have questioned White House claims that it already knows enough about Iran’s overall program to ensure the Vienna agreement is properly verified.
“They said the U.S. and IAEA initially failed to detect major advances in Iran’s nuclear program, such as the construction of a uranium enrichment facility in the city of Natanz and a heavy water reactor in Arak.
“‘We, of course, do not have total knowledge of how much progress the Iranians had made,’ the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, told a recent congressional hearing. ‘I know of no American intelligence officer who could claim that we have absolute knowledge of the Iranian weaponization program.’”
In an email to supporters this morning titled “do your friends know,” presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Koster seems to have changed his mind on Obamacare: “Most folks know that expanding Medicaid will give 260,000 Missourians access to the healthcare coverage they need to keep themselves and their families healthy. But do your friends on Facebook know it will also save our state millions of dollars and help create 22,175 jobs? Take a look at this graphic and then share it with a few friends:”
Amazing! Koster’s campaign teams sends out this email on the same morning another state health exchange closes due to slack enrollment:
DailySignal.com:
Just two years after Obamacare’s implementation, a Louisiana nonprofit insurer that received nearly $66 million in taxpayer-funded loans is closing its doors. On Friday, the Louisiana Department of Insurance announced that the state’s consumer operated and oriented plan, or co-op, would be discontinuing its operations at the end of 2015. Louisiana’s is the second co-op created under to Obamacare to close.Read more…
Related:
Charlie Dooley Calls Obamacare Protesters “Nothing But Haters”
