Growing Concern Over Dems Blocking Over Human Trafficking Bill and The Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal
Today in Washington, D.C. - April 6, 2015
The House and Senate has adjourned for Easter-Passover recess and for District/State Work. They both will return for legislative business on Monday, April 13th.
Time to Pass the Human Trafficking Bill
Another major liberal newspaper editorial page has come out today to call for Senate passage of Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
The Los Angeles Times writes, “If ever there were a piece of legislation that should be able to sail through the fractious, politically polarized Congress, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act would seem to be it. Introduced by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, the bill has 33 co-sponsors, 12 of them Democrats, including California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Who could be against the bill's hallmark feature, the creation of a fund to benefit victims of domestic trafficking, financed by assessments on the traffickers themselves?
“But no. The bill got stopped in its tracks when Senate Democrats belatedly noticed that the victims' fund would be covered by the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal money for abortions.”
Senate Democrats then filibustered this bipartisan bill no less than five times.
In an admission that reveals quite a bit about the Los Angeles Times, the editors note, “This page has never approved of the Hyde Amendment, and we have no desire to see its restrictions imposed on this bill or any other, for that matter.” However, even they say that “the Hyde Amendment has been the law for many years. A fight over whether a fraction of the projected millions of dollars in aid to victims of trafficking and hunters of traffickers can be used on abortion services seems fruitless, and the bill should not be derailed by such a fight.”
No one put it better than Eleanor Gaetan of The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, who told the Dallas Morning News last month, “Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.”
Other editorial pages have admonished, “Democrats, swallow your pride. Vote to move forward with the human trafficking bill,” as the Chicago Tribune did. And another editorial board that apparently dislikes the Hyde Amendment, that of The Baltimore Sun, said, “Senate Democrats can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, “It’s hard to even keep straight anymore why Democrats would filibuster this human-rights bill. The bill Democrats now oppose was introduced months ago by a Democrat and a Republican. The bill Democrats now oppose was originally cosponsored by 13 Democrats. The bill Democrats now oppose was approved by every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. And the bill Democrats now oppose was brought to the floor . . . after Democrats agreed unanimously to do so.”
He also pointed out, “Nearly 70% of Americans support the kind of bipartisan provisions Democrats now claim they object to. And many Democrats have voted for similar bipartisan Hyde language many times before, in both appropriations and authorizing legislation. So our Democratic colleagues obviously lack a rationale for this continued filibustering of anti-slavery legislation.”
Democrats need to stop listening to left-wing lobbyists and listen to sensible voices across the ideological spectrum who say, as the LA Times does, “the bill should not be derailed.
About That Obama/Kerry Nuclear Deal, It's Not Verifiable,; So Who's Happy
Gary Bauer, ARRA News contributing author and president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, provided the following review today of the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal.
Concern about the nuclear agreement negotiated between the Obama White House and the Islamic regime in Iran grew over the weekend. That's not at all surprising given some headlines that emerged following Thursday's announcement.
President Obama was quick to declare this a "good deal" and "our best option," but few are rushing to embrace his view. For example:
It is important to realize that the inspections will be conducted by the United Nations, not the United States. And the U.N. has a long record of accommodating the hostile regimes it is supposedly monitoring.
Moreover, the concept of inspections is based on the flawed assumption that we know where to look. Iran has hidden nuclear facilities in underground bunkers, repeatedly blocked international inspections of known sites and is very likely operating nuclear sites that we don't know about.
Concerns about Iran's previous attempts to weaponize is nuclear program remain unresolved. Politico quotes Jofi Joseph, a former Obama National Security Council aide, as saying, "It doesn't appear as if Iran agreed to do anything specific" regarding military applications of its nuclear research. Thomas Moore, a nonproliferation expert with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adds that the deal "allows Iran to engage in nuclear activities -- like stockpiling low-enriched uranium and operating a plutonium reactor -- that have no civilian necessity."
David Sullivan, a former CIA arms verification expert, asks, "Why are we negotiating for a new agreement, when existing Iranian [Non-Proliferation Treaty] violations remain in effect, ongoing and unresolved, suggesting that Iran is unlikely to comply with any new agreement?"
Unfortunately, even our own intelligence agencies don't have the best record. On August 24, 1949, the CIA predicted that the Russians were at least four years off from testing a nuclear bomb. They detonated one five days later.
As national security expert James S. Robbins wrote in USA Today, "The United States has an abysmal record at predicting when countries will go nuclear. U.S. experts have gotten it wrong every time." In addition to his Soviet example, Robbins notes we were wrong about China, Pakistan and North Korea too.
Who's Happy With This Deal? Those applauding the deal should cause us all to reconsider. Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, reportedly "heaped praiseon the country's negotiating team" in a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Hezbollah is happy too. Nawar Sahli, a leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, called the deal a victory for Iran and "global recognition of Iran as a member of the nuclear club." Meanwhile, the reaction from Jerusalem is understandably grim. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday:
"This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel. The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran's advanced centrifuges. . . . "The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and beyond the region. . . . Just two days ago, in the midst of the negotiations in Lausanne, the commander of the Basij security forces in Iran said this: 'The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.' "Well, I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable. Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period. "In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist." If Iran's nuclear program is truly meant for peaceful purposes, then recognizing Israel's right to exist ought to be a starting point for future talks and an easy thing for Iran to do. But it won't have to. As Fox News noted, t Obama Administration immediately rejected the prime minister's request.
Tags: Washington, D.C. Dems, Blocking, Human Trafficking Bill, Reports, President Obama, Sec. Kerry, Iran Nuclear Deal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The House and Senate has adjourned for Easter-Passover recess and for District/State Work. They both will return for legislative business on Monday, April 13th.
Time to Pass the Human Trafficking Bill
Another major liberal newspaper editorial page has come out today to call for Senate passage of Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
The Los Angeles Times writes, “If ever there were a piece of legislation that should be able to sail through the fractious, politically polarized Congress, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act would seem to be it. Introduced by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, the bill has 33 co-sponsors, 12 of them Democrats, including California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Who could be against the bill's hallmark feature, the creation of a fund to benefit victims of domestic trafficking, financed by assessments on the traffickers themselves?
“But no. The bill got stopped in its tracks when Senate Democrats belatedly noticed that the victims' fund would be covered by the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal money for abortions.”
Senate Democrats then filibustered this bipartisan bill no less than five times.
In an admission that reveals quite a bit about the Los Angeles Times, the editors note, “This page has never approved of the Hyde Amendment, and we have no desire to see its restrictions imposed on this bill or any other, for that matter.” However, even they say that “the Hyde Amendment has been the law for many years. A fight over whether a fraction of the projected millions of dollars in aid to victims of trafficking and hunters of traffickers can be used on abortion services seems fruitless, and the bill should not be derailed by such a fight.”
No one put it better than Eleanor Gaetan of The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, who told the Dallas Morning News last month, “Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.”
Other editorial pages have admonished, “Democrats, swallow your pride. Vote to move forward with the human trafficking bill,” as the Chicago Tribune did. And another editorial board that apparently dislikes the Hyde Amendment, that of The Baltimore Sun, said, “Senate Democrats can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, “It’s hard to even keep straight anymore why Democrats would filibuster this human-rights bill. The bill Democrats now oppose was introduced months ago by a Democrat and a Republican. The bill Democrats now oppose was originally cosponsored by 13 Democrats. The bill Democrats now oppose was approved by every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. And the bill Democrats now oppose was brought to the floor . . . after Democrats agreed unanimously to do so.”
He also pointed out, “Nearly 70% of Americans support the kind of bipartisan provisions Democrats now claim they object to. And many Democrats have voted for similar bipartisan Hyde language many times before, in both appropriations and authorizing legislation. So our Democratic colleagues obviously lack a rationale for this continued filibustering of anti-slavery legislation.”
Democrats need to stop listening to left-wing lobbyists and listen to sensible voices across the ideological spectrum who say, as the LA Times does, “the bill should not be derailed.
About That Obama/Kerry Nuclear Deal, It's Not Verifiable,; So Who's Happy
Gary Bauer, ARRA News contributing author and president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, provided the following review today of the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal.
Concern about the nuclear agreement negotiated between the Obama White House and the Islamic regime in Iran grew over the weekend. That's not at all surprising given some headlines that emerged following Thursday's announcement.
President Obama was quick to declare this a "good deal" and "our best option," but few are rushing to embrace his view. For example:
- The Wall Street Journal reported last week headlined, "Concessions Fueled Iran Nuclear Talks." Those would be U.S., not Iranian, concessions. The talks were meant, the Journal writes, "to dismantle most of the country's nuclear infrastructure." But Olli Heinonen, a former U.N. inspections official, said, "I'm a little puzzled by the political agreement. You're going to leave Iran as a [nuclear] threshold state."
- The Washington Free Beacon reported, "Iran Brags About Nuke Concessions." According to the Beacon, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, "None of those measures include closing any of our facilities. We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development."
- Within hours of Mr. Obama's White House press conference announcing this "good deal," Tthe Iranians accused the president of lying. They've done that before. Zarif tweeted, "There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on." He then issued a series of tweets suggesting that U.S. and European sanctions would be lifted immediately, not gradually as Obama suggested.
- Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote, "Outline Of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side." There are "some noteworthy differences," according to the Times, between the Iranian and U.S. versions of the agreement "which have raised the question of whether the two sides are entirely on the same page." One foreign policy expert warned that these "noteworthy differences" will allow the Iranians to "exploit all ambiguities with creative interpretations."
- Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes that Obama's deal "leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it resolves. . . . It is closer to the truth to say the real debate about the Iran nuclear accord is just beginning."
It is important to realize that the inspections will be conducted by the United Nations, not the United States. And the U.N. has a long record of accommodating the hostile regimes it is supposedly monitoring.
Moreover, the concept of inspections is based on the flawed assumption that we know where to look. Iran has hidden nuclear facilities in underground bunkers, repeatedly blocked international inspections of known sites and is very likely operating nuclear sites that we don't know about.
Concerns about Iran's previous attempts to weaponize is nuclear program remain unresolved. Politico quotes Jofi Joseph, a former Obama National Security Council aide, as saying, "It doesn't appear as if Iran agreed to do anything specific" regarding military applications of its nuclear research. Thomas Moore, a nonproliferation expert with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adds that the deal "allows Iran to engage in nuclear activities -- like stockpiling low-enriched uranium and operating a plutonium reactor -- that have no civilian necessity."
David Sullivan, a former CIA arms verification expert, asks, "Why are we negotiating for a new agreement, when existing Iranian [Non-Proliferation Treaty] violations remain in effect, ongoing and unresolved, suggesting that Iran is unlikely to comply with any new agreement?"
Unfortunately, even our own intelligence agencies don't have the best record. On August 24, 1949, the CIA predicted that the Russians were at least four years off from testing a nuclear bomb. They detonated one five days later.
As national security expert James S. Robbins wrote in USA Today, "The United States has an abysmal record at predicting when countries will go nuclear. U.S. experts have gotten it wrong every time." In addition to his Soviet example, Robbins notes we were wrong about China, Pakistan and North Korea too.
Who's Happy With This Deal? Those applauding the deal should cause us all to reconsider. Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, reportedly "heaped praiseon the country's negotiating team" in a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Hezbollah is happy too. Nawar Sahli, a leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, called the deal a victory for Iran and "global recognition of Iran as a member of the nuclear club." Meanwhile, the reaction from Jerusalem is understandably grim. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday:
Tags: Washington, D.C. Dems, Blocking, Human Trafficking Bill, Reports, President Obama, Sec. Kerry, Iran Nuclear Deal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
1 Comments:
Why is that? Politics? I thought only Repubs did that?
Post a Comment
<< Home