It’s always a bad sign when something disappears from media coverage — such as any mention about Iran. Recently we reported on the joint naval exercises between Iran and China. We’ve also posited that the Obama administration would defer to Iran to deal with the ISIS crisis in Iraq — but at what price? One of the Constitution’s limits on executive power is that any treaty entered into by the Executive branch must be ratified by the U.S. Senate — but when did limits on executive power as prescribed in the Constitution, our rule of law, mean anything to Barack Hussein Obama?
As the Washington Times reports, “In another example of the White House bypassing Congress to avoid a vote it would lose, the Obama administration will not to seek congressional approval to suspend sanctions against Iran if a deal on the Islamic republic’s nuclear program can be reached, The New York Times reported Sunday night. According to the report by David Sanger, citing American and Iranian officials, Iran has agreed in principle that a “suspension” of sanctions would be enough for them to take away from the negotiating table.”
Why? Why is the Obama administration even considering unilateral action to eliminate the sanctions imposed against the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world? What message does this send to our supposed best ally in the Middle East — the State of Israel? I’m quite certain by now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands he has no friend in the White House — that privilege is reserved for Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
As always the Obama administration carefully terms its actions in order to skirt the rule of law — our Constitution. The Times says, “the difference between a temporary suspension and an outright revocation can keep attorneys up at nights, but there is no immediate-term difference and the Obama administration plans to use that to its advantage. “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official told The New York Times. A deal with Iran probably would not be a formal treaty and thus would not constitutionally require the Senate’s approval, but lawmakers of both parties say that doesn’t matter — they don’t want the administration undermining sanctions Congress has duly passed.”
So when did we get to the point where the president of the United States makes deals with Islamic terrorist states? Oops, I forgot, the precedent was already well established with Obama’s unilateral action to release five senior Taliban members at a time when the Taliban is still fighting our men and women on the battlefield — a violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution.
Thanks to the careful use of words, Obama is redefining language in order to bypass the U.S. Senate, an action that would potentially cause issues even with a Democrat-controlled Senate. And since Obama’s policies are on the ballot – as he himself stated — then Democrat senatorial incumbents and candidates should answer the question about Obama and his “Iranian deal.”
“Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions that passed the Senate in a 99-0 vote,” said Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican.
Indeed, the Times reports that “Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has sponsored legislation that would impose further sanctions on Iran if a nuclear deal isn’t inked by the Nov. 24 deadline set by the negotiating countries — Iran, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, representing the European Union.”
Obama promised the most transparent administration in history, but instead we have the most lawless. This purposeful altering of language to facilitate circumventing the Constitution and the Executive branch responsibility to seek Congressional approval on treaties has to ring alarm bells — unless you share Gwenyth Paltrow’s mindless belief that Obama should have all the power to do anything he wishes. Why would an American president want to see an Islamic totalitarian state with nuclear weapon capability?
Only if that president were an Islamist sympathizer.