Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Friday, February 6, 2015

Congressmen Will Not Attend Netanyahu Speech. Is This The Beginning Of The End Of Support Of Israel

Democrats might skip Benjamin Netanyahu speech

Joe Biden is among those not committed to attending the Israeli prime minister’s address to Congress.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks as he chairs the weekly cabinet meeting at his Jerusalem office on February 1, 2015. AFP PHOTO / POOL / GALI TIBBON (Photo credit should read GALI TIBBON/AFP/Getty Images) — Getty

Vice President Joe Biden won’t commit to attending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress next month.

He’s not the only one.

Dozens of House Democrats are privately threatening to skip the March 3 address, according to lawmakers and aides, in what’s become the lowest point of a relationship between the Israeli prime minister and President Barack Obama that’s never been good.

Democrats have had to balance publicly supporting Israel with backing Obama, who’s trying to close a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear programs over vehement opposition from Netanyahu, who has expressed concerns that the U.S. president is being naive. Negotiations are facing a deadline at the end of March for a political framework.

The speech was devised by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer to provide Netanyahu a prominent Washington platform to warn about the dangers of the proposed deal with Iran. But it also appeared to be based on an Israeli perception that Obama was weakened after midterm elections gave control of both houses of Congress to Republicans, and timed to take place just two weeks before Netanyahu faces reelection on March 17 — and footage of American officials applauding him couldn’t hurt his prospects.

But that reading of Obama seems not to have been updated since November, when Obama’s own poll numbers started moving up again, and — though Netanyahu’s Likud Party is still leading in Israeli polls — miscalculated the backlash in Israel from putting his relationship with the American president on the line.

Netanyahu’s already been denied an Oval Office meeting with Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry has no plans to meet with him while he’s in town, a State Department official told POLITICO on Tuesday.

The showdown puts the White House in a position it isn’t much used to with Netanyahu: appearing to have the political edge. Throughout Obama’s time in office, the prime minister has elbowed his way into American politics to corner and game the president. This time, without much nudging from the White House beyond a complaint about breached protocol, Netanyahu’s speech has sparked criticism across Washington and in the American Jewish community — as well as among diplomats, Israeli officials and domestic political opponents who include his own former ambassador to Washington.

After feeding an anonymous, unquoted complaint about Dermer to The New York Times last week, the White House has stepped out of the way.

The president and his aides won’t tell Democrats to skip the speech. But they aren’t telling Democrats to go, either.

“We defer to Democratic members if they’d like to attend or not,” a White House aide said Tuesday.

Biden’s office wouldn’t comment on the decision-making process about attending the speech. As president of the Senate, he usually takes a seat beside Boehner on the podium behind the lectern for addresses by foreign leaders.

Though some may abandon the threat, as of Tuesday, many Democrats on the Hill — including several Jewish members — said they’re likely to leave the prime minister looking at some empty seats.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said he’s considered not going and has discussed it with his colleagues.

“I just don’t know if it’s the proper response or not,” he said. “But I just think it’s a mistake and it might be a proper protest. But I haven’t made that definite decision.”

Cohen added, “With his election being so soon, and with the negotiations we have going on with Iran, he’s put himself in a political situation here that’s probably adverse to the best interest of Israel.”

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said he “hadn’t thought about” whether he will go or not.

“I don’t even know what else is on my schedule,” he said. “It wouldn’t be an official boycott. I wouldn’t announce that I wasn’t going. But I don’t really blame Netanyahu — although I’m not a fan of Netanyahu — but I don’t blame him for coming.”

Ever since the uproar over the invitation first exploded two weeks ago, the Israelis have worked to try to quash any question of partisan maneuvering. On Tuesday, an Israeli official said they’re hoping the situation will be resolved by the time Netanyahu arrives in Washington.

“We appreciate the great bipartisan support for Israel in Congress and hope that members of Congress will be willing to listen to the prime minister on an issue that threatens America’s national security and Israel’s very survival,” the official said.

Boehner’s office says he doesn’t plan to reschedule the speech, which had already been moved from Feb. 11 to March 3 so Netanyahu can attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Though J Street, the left-leaning Israel advocacy group, has not been telling members of Congress to skip the speech, it has sent two mass emails to members promoting a letter written by Cohen and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) urging Boehner to reschedule the speech until after the Israeli elections.

“Momentum is on our side — and it’s growing,” J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote in an email asking members to get their representatives to sign the Cohen-Ellison letter. “Make it clear that Netanyahu’s speech shouldn’t go forward as planned.”

AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, is backing the speech. “We encourage all members of Congress to attend this important speech by the Israeli prime minister,” said AIPAC’s Marshall Wittmann.

Not all Democrats are backing away from the speech. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who last week criticized Boehner for inviting Netanyahu without first informing the White House, would go, said her spokesman Drew Hammill — though he hedged, holding out the possibility that the speech may yet be canceled.

“The leader attends every joint meeting and, of course, will attend should this speech take place,” Hammill said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he’ll attend. Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said he’ll be there.

“Frankly, the strong U.S.-Israel relationship, bipartisan relationship through the years, is stronger than any perceived slight or dispute,” Engel said. “I care about the U.S.-Israel relationship. It has always been bipartisan and will continue to be.”

Meanwhile, Republican Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Leonard Lance of New Jersey and Lee Zeldin of New York — who’s the only Jewish Republican in Congress — circulated a letter of their own among members Tuesday, backing Boehner’s invitation.

That created a new wave of criticism.

“It’s noteworthy that outside of Congress, Democratic and Republican figures are both saying Netanyahu’s address should be delayed,” said Dylan Williams, J Street’s director of government affairs. “It’s fairly clear this isn’t about honoring the U.S.-Israel special relationship. It’s about abusing it in order to undermine the president and his foreign policy.”

John Bresnahan, Anna Palmer and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Jordan Pilot Murdered By ISIS

ISIS video shows captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive

Jordan vows to avenge the death of Muath Al-Kasaesbeh, who was taken captive in late December when his plane crashed in Syria.

By Reuters and Haaretz | Feb. 3, 2015 | 6:52 PM |

Still from the video purportedly showing the execution of the captive Jordanian pilot by ISIS.

Text size

A U.S. fighter jet launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinso

Obama requests $8.8 billion to fight ISIS, help Iraq and Syria 'moderates'

RELATED TAGS

Syria

ISIS

Middle East

Jordan willing to swap imprisoned terrorist for pilot held by ISIS

By The Associated Press | Jan. 28, 2015 | 3:49 PM |

ISIS asks Twitter followers to suggest ways of killing pilot

By Haaretz | Dec. 29, 2014 | 7:17 PM |

Jordan executes two Iraqi militants in response ISIS killing of pilot

By Suleiman Al-Khalidi | Feb. 4, 2015 | 5:40 AM

The Islamic State insurgent group circulated photos and a video on social media on Tuesday purporting to show captive Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kasaesbeh being burnt alive.

The images showed a burning man standing in a cage. Kasaesbeh was apparently placed in the cage on open ground, draped in the now traditional orange robes, doused in flammable liquid, and set alight. The authenticity of the images has not been confirmed.

Jordanian state TV reported that he had been killed one month ago. A relative of Kaseasbeh told Reuters that the Jordanian armed forces had informed the family that he had been killed.

The Jordanian army said in response to the video that it would avenge Kaseasbeh's death. "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan," army spokesman Colonel Mamdouh al Ameri said in a televised statement. A government spokesman promised a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response.

According to other media reports, Jordan intends to execute a female suicide bomber held in Jordan within hours. Jordan had previously offered to free Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi who participated in the bombing of an Amman hotel in 2005, in return for the pilot's release.

Kaseasbeh, 26, a first lieutenant in Jordan's air force, was captured on Christmas Ebe after his F-16 jet crash-landed near the Syrian city of Raqqa, which is held by ISIS (also known as ISIL).

In the video, Kasaesbeh is shown, with a black bruise under his left eye, at the scene of an apparent western coalition air raid. Watched over by as many as nine uniformed ISIS militants, he is paraded at the rubble-strewn site, while the video flashes back to scenes of destruction from the time of the raid itself.

Subsequently, he is seen standing in the cage, with a cross of flammable material under his feet. A masked executioner lights a long fuse from outside the cage, flame snakes towards Kasaesbeh and he is burned alive. The full duration of the burning is captured on the video.

At the end of the video, English text offers a ransom for other downed pilots, according to the Vocativ website.

ISIS militants seen among the rubble of a building in the clip purportedly showing the execution of the captive Jordanian pilot.

“The Islamic State announces a reward of 100 Gold Dinars to whoever kills a crusader pilot. The diwan for state security has released a list containing the names of Jordanian pilots participating in the campaign. So good tidings to whoever supports his religion and achieves a kill that will liberate him from hellfire."

The video then lists several high-profile Jordanian Air Force figures, with “Wanted” beside their names.

U.S. President Barack Obama reacted to the video by saying that if indeed it is real, it is yet another indication of the group’s barbarity, and would re-double the determination of the global coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS.

Kaseasbeh was carrying out air strikes against the militants when his warplane crashed near the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State group's de facto capital. The group has executed captured Iraqi and Syrian Muslim soldiers in the past — it follows an extremist version of Islam that considers rivals, even some Sunni Muslims, as apostates. Still, the group may want to negotiate a prisoner swap or other concessions from Jordan.

After Al-Kaseasbeh capture, ISIS militants in Syria initiated a Twitter discussion on the best way to kill the "Jordanian pilot pig." The Arabic hashtag “Suggest a Way to Kill the Jordanian Pilot Pig” was retweeted over a thousand times. Some of the ideas shared by ISIS followers included beheading the pilot, burning him alive and running him over with a bulldozer.

Pictures of Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, displayed in his native country (AP)

The "Keep The ObamaCrapCare Credit" Argument

OPINION

High Court's Case on ACA Drastically Raises Stakes

Under the relevant legal standard, which courts have cited 13,000 times, the Supreme Court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law.

After trying time and again to unravel the Affordable Care Act by enacting legislation or winning the presidential election, opponents of the law are again turning to the courts. In just over a month, the Supreme Court will hear the claim that tax credits are available only for health plans sold through marketplaces run by states — not for plans sold through a marketplace run by the federal government on behalf of states.

As congressional staffers involved in drafting the law, we know that the legislative history, intent and text are clear that tax credits are available in all states. If the court blatantly disregards this evidence, the consequences would be immediate and far-reaching.

Before there was the Affordable Care Act, there were two bills: the Senate Finance Committee bill and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill. The Finance Committee bill required all states to set up exchanges, or marketplaces, to sellhealth plans and provided tax credits for plans sold through all exchanges. The HELP Committee bill left it up to each state to decide whether to set up an exchange, but in states that opted out, the federal government would run an exchange for them, and credits would be available for plans sold through all exchanges.

Despite differences in whether an exchange was run by the state or federal government, both bills provided credits to eligible individuals in all 50 states. These two bills were merged to form the Affordable Care Act. It would take an extraordinary leap of imagination to conclude that in the process of this merger, a fundamental feature — the availability of credits in all states — somehow changed.

Such a radical revision would surely have been debated. Senators who championed universal coverage would have strenuously objected. For example, Max Baucus — from the red state of Montana — never would have allowed tax credits for his constituents to be put at risk.

Yet the possibility that residents of some states might not be entitled to tax credits was never raised and never part of any version of the legislation. And tellingly, the estimates of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office consistently reflected the availability of credits in all states.

Opponents of the law argue that Congress and the budget office were certain that all states would set up their own exchanges. But then what would be the point of the federal exchange? Clearly, Congress contemplated that a federal backup would be needed, and provided for tax credits in that case. Creating a federal marketplace with no tax credits — and therefore no customers — would have been nonsensical.

But putting aside legislative history and intent, the merger of the two committee bills also added key text. If a state does not set up the “required Exchange,” the federal government must “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” In other words, the federal exchange would take the place of a state exchange and be its functional equivalent in every way.

Even though this substitution is clear, a lawsuit coordinated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute — which receives substantial funding from conservative activists — is now before the Supreme Court. In their dissent in the last Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act, four Justices signaled their desire to strike down the law entirely, and now they have seized another opportunity to gut the law — taking up the case even before there was any split in the appellate courts.

The stakes are enormous. With this year’s successful open enrollment, the number of people receiving tax credits for plans sold through HealthCare.gov has already grown substantially.

But credit-eligible individuals aren’t the only ones who would be affected. Without tax credits, healthier people would be more likely to drop out of the market, so the insurance pool would become sicker and costlier. According to the Rand Corp., even those who don’t get tax credits would see a premium increase of 47 percent — leading to a “near death spiral” of the market.

All told, Rand estimates that more than 9 million people would lose health coverage because of an adverse Supreme Court decision. Many of these people are receiving lifesaving treatment they could not otherwise afford.

If opponents of the law are to be believed, Congress intended to threaten states that did not set up their own marketplaces with market death spirals — without clearly communicating this threat. But such a threat would amount to unreasonable coercion by the federal government. Believing that tax credits were available in all states, many states made the decision not to set up their own marketplaces. A ruling that punishes these states with higher costs and more dysfunctional markets than existed before the law clearly would not respect their rights and choices.

Under the relevant legal standard, which courts have cited 13,000 times, the Supreme Court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law. To restrict tax credits, the court would need to find that a tortured reading of the law — which would collapse the private market, render the federal exchange pointless and cause disruption for millions — is the only possible interpretation.

That is clearly not the case. Many Americans would perceive such a decision to be politically motivated since it would fly in the face of legislative history, intent and text — upending millions of lives in the process. That outcome would be tragic for patients — and for the Supreme Court.

White House Has The Prettiest, Best Coiferred Spokespeople Ever--At Taxpayer Expense And That's Just The Start Of The Scandal!

by
NICHOLAS BALLASY

Bio

February 2, 2015 - 1:53 pm

Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson said the Obama administration has been producing its own video content to promote “unfiltered” messages with taxpayer-funded staff, including hairstylists, makeup artists and wardrobe consultants.

By cutting out the news media, Attkisson said the White House has figured out how to avoid questions and accountability. She also revealed that the Department of Agriculture has more than 1,200 “media relations employees” nationwide.

“White House officials have exploited non-news media to spoon-feed unfiltered messaging, at times pure propaganda, into the public’s mouth. The Google-sponsored chat I mentioned – that came with a pre-selected audience and questions submitted in advance by the White House’s own YouTube channel – that’s the way they like it,” Attkisson, the author of Stonewalled, said during a speech at Hillsdale College. “They generate their own content, rely on surrogates to help spread partisan blogs, Twitter and Facebook, give lots of interviews to entertainment programs, digital media and feature press.”

Attkisson said the federal government has adopted many public affairs strategies used by large corporations, except the government is using public funds to “advance its propaganda.”

“One way they do it is by self-producing videos and building their very own television production facilities where the upper echelon give interviews and speeches, controlling everything from content to lighting,” she said.

According to Attkisson, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) use millions of taxpayer dollars to expand or create their own television studios. Attkisson said the FDA has a studio that can fit a live audience of 100 people and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has a studio with Hitachi high-definition cameras and LCD-based teleprompters.

“When top officials from those federal agencies appear on camera, naturally they have to look good. So your tax dollars may kick in for the cost of their hairstylists, makeup artists and wardrobe consultants,” she said. “One insider told me that the head of a federal agency even had her fashion colors analyzed at taxpayer expense.”

While the Defense Department criticizes Congress for the sequester, Attkisson said it spends public funds to run its own 24-hour channel, which features military news, interviews with top defense officials and programs such as The Grill Sergeants.

“Taxpayers are paying to produce programs such as a cooking show competition that features mess hall cooks and aides to generals battling it out over dishes like seared ahi tuna and lamb with blueberry wine sauce,” Attkisson said.

“Both the Defense Department and the Centers for Disease Control provide taxpayer-funded advisers to television and Hollywood entertainment producers to promote accuracy or propaganda, depending on your viewpoint,” she also said.

A few years ago, a well-placed insider at the U.S. Department of Agriculture told Attkisson he was surprised to learn there were more than 1,200 “media relations employees” on staff.

“Your tax dollars pay for their salaries but many times they are little more than private publicity agents for their bosses, spinning, avoiding and obfuscating as expertly as any of their corporate counterparts, and too often we let them get away with it,” she said.

Attkisson also told the audience the Obama administration has “found itself making history for its secrecy and assaults on the press.”

“There’s delay, denial, obstruction, intimidation, retaliation, bullying, surveillance and for some, the possible threat of criminal prosecution. In my view and that of other national reporters, this is proving to be the least transparent administration we’ve covered,” she said. “It’s so bad that practically every major news outlet including the CBS News,Washington Post and the New York Times signed a scathing letter to the White House in 2013 objecting to restrictions on the press that are unprecedented, that we have not dealt with before.”

Quoting the letter, Attkisson said, “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”

Attkisson argued that the Obama administration has measured its “supposed transparency accomplishments” by the sheer number of documents published online and the amount of paper turned over to Congress.

“On Benghazi, the president says we’ve had more testimony and more paper than ever before. Nevermind all the paper they’re withholding. The ignored and denied Freedom of Information Act requests or the fact that they still refuse to answer many basic questions more than two years later. The job at getting at the truth has never been harder,” Attkisson said. “I’m still waiting for lawful responses to my FOIA requests on Benghazi, Ebola, Fast and Furious, Healthcare.gov from the FBI.”

She also addressed the difficulty of suing over the government’s lack of proper response to FOIA requests.

”DOJ provides lawyers to defend the withholding of information and they use your tax dollars for the court cases, so there’s no downside for them,” she said.