Tag Archives: Obama

Featured, Foreign Policy, International, Politics, US

Snowden Explains Deep State’s Influence on Presidents Obama, Trump

Leave a comment

Famed whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian publication La Repubblic. The publication noted the 5-year mark of Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s expansive surveillance programs and that “many thought he would end up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”

In an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Stefania Maurizi: We saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?

Edward Snowden: Obama is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States, he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and once he became the president, he expanded the program.  He said he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.

As for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.

It is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.

This is what we saw quite clearly happen in the case of Barack Obama: when this story [of Snowden exposing the NSA’s mass surveillance] came forward in 2013, when Obama had been president for five years, one of the defences for this from his aides and political allies was: oh, Obama was just about to fix this problem!  And sure enough, he eventually was forced from the wave of criticism to make some limited reforms, but he did not go far enough to end all of the programs that were in violation of the law or the constitution of the United States. That too was an intentional choice: he could have certainly used the scandal to advocate for all of the changes that he had campaigned on, to deliver on all of his promises, but in those five years he had become president, he discovered something else, which is that there are benefits from having very powerful intelligence agencies, there are benefits from having these career bureaucrats on your side, using their spider web over government for your benefit.

[RELATED: Snowden Documents: NSA Worked to Track Bitcoin Users]

Imagine you are Barack Obama, and you realise – yes, when you were campaigning you were saying: spying on people without a warrant is a problem, but then you realise: you can read Angela Merkel’s text messages. Why bother calling her and asking her opinion, when you can just read her mind by breaking the law? It sounds like a joke, but it is a very seductive thing. Secrecy is perhaps the most corrupting of all government powers, because it takes public officials and divorces them from accountability to the public.

When we look at the case of Trump, who is perhaps the worst of politicians, we see the same dynamic occurring. This is a president who said the CIA is the enemy, it’s like Nazi Germany, they’re listening to his phone calls, and all of these other things, some claims which are true, some claims which are absolutely not.  A few months later, he is authorizing major powers for these same agencies that he has called his enemies.

And this gets to the central crux of your question, which is: can any president oppose this?  The answer is certainly. The president has to have some familiarity going in with the fact that this pitch is going to be made, that they are going to try to scare him or her into compliance. The president has to be willing to stand strongly on line and say: ‘I was elected to represent the interests of the American people, and if you’re not willing to respect the constitution and our rights, I will disband your agency, and create a new one’. I think they can definitely be forced into compliance, because these officials fear prison, just like every one of us.

Civil Liberties, Government Accountability, Politics, Privacy, US

Rand Paul: Deep State Exists, Uses Intelligence for Political Purposes

Leave a comment

Washington, D.C.— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said Tuesday during an appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show podcast that the term “deep state” accurately describes how an unelected bureaucracy of national security officials in positions of power exert influence without Congressional oversight.

“Absolutely, there is a deep state, because the deep state is the intelligence agencies that do not have oversight,” he said. “Only eight people in Congress know what they’re doing, and traditionally, those eight people have been a rubber stamp to let the intelligence communities do whatever they want. There is no skeptic among the eight people that are supposedly overseeing the intelligence community.”

The “Gang of Eight”  that Paul referenced is made up of the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate, along with the chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees, and are the select few members of Congress with real-time access to America’s most sensitive intelligence.

[RELATED: Reality Check: Ex CIA Director Says U.S. Meddles for a ‘Good Cause’]

Paul pointed out that he believed Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others used intelligence collected “without any judicial warrants” for political purposes, in addition to “try to bring Trump down.”

“John Brennan and James Clapper were doing whatever the hell they wanted, without any judicial warrants, and I think there were numerous people in the Obama administration who were using intelligence — one, to try to bring Trump down; but two, also, they were using it for political purposes,” he said. “And this is very, very worrisome.”

Paul evidenced his point by noting Brennan’s politicized tweet over the weekend calling Trump a corrupt demagogue, and promising that America would “triumph” over him.

“This is the real problem,” Paul said. “And [founding father James] Madison warned about this from the beginning. Madison said that men are not angels. And all you gotta do is look at John Brennan’s tweet to know that he’s not an angel. And listen to James Clapper lying to the Senate about whether they were spying on Americans.”

Paul previously tweeted that Brennan’s attacks on the “Bill of Rights” and “freedoms of every American” while running the CIA were “disgraceful.”

Further solidifying Paul’s point about “men are not angels,” Samantha Power, former UN Ambassador under President Obama, issued an ominous tweet: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Many took this tweet by Powers as an implicit threat on behalf of Brennan. After strong social media backlash following her tweet, Powers sent a follow-up tweet that aimed to walk back the implied threat she had first issued.

Rand Paul’s commentary starts at roughly 21:30 in the podcast below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E7BPxqTitg

Polls

Vote: Do You Believe Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Actions Fueled The Libyan Slave Markets?

Video Leave a comment
    Please pick one. Participation in this poll will enroll you in Ben Swann Truth In Media's free newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Featured, Government Accountability, Government Corruption

In Comments Criticizing the Media, Obama Ignores His Administration’s History of Censoring Journalists

Leave a comment

President Obama unleashed a new series of critical comments regarding the media Monday night, claiming journalists should “maintain certain standards,” and should not be “government-controlled.”

During a speech at the “2015 Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting” ceremony at Syracuse University, Obama began by discussing the accomplishments of Robin Toner, the first woman to be the national correspondent for the New York Times, who died in 2008.

The president then took the time to criticize the current state of political journalism, and said he believes “it’s worth asking ourselves what each of us—as politicians or journalists, but most of all, as citizens—may have done to contribute to this atmosphere in our politics.”

[pull_quote_center]The divisive and often vulgar rhetoric that’s aimed at everybody, but often is focused on the vulnerable or women or minorities. The sometimes well-intentioned but I think misguided attempts to shut down that speech. The violent reaction that we see, as well as the deafening silence from too many of our leaders in the coarsening of the debate. The sense that facts don’t matter, that they’re not relevant. That what matters is how much attention you can generate. A sense that this is a game as opposed to the most precious gift our Founders gave us—this collective enterprise of self-government.[/pull_quote_center]

Obama went on to say that the “Fourth Estate” journalist should not be “government-controlled” and should “maintain certain standards” that do not “dumb down the news.”

[pull_quote_center]Part of the independence of the Fourth Estate is that it is not government-controlled, and media companies thereby have an obligation to pursue profits on behalf of their shareholders, their owners, and also has an obligation to invest a good chunk of that profit back into news and back into public affairs, and to maintain certain standards and to not dumb down the news, and to have higher aspirations for what effective news can do. Because a well-informed electorate depends on you. And our democracy depends on a well-informed electorate.[/pull_quote_center]

Obama also said that in the years to come, people will look back at this time and they will look for “the smartest investigative journalism” where journalists “asked the hard questions and forced people to see the truth even when it was uncomfortable.”

[pull_quote_center]But 10, 20, 50 years from now, no one seeking to understand our age is going to be searching the Tweets that got the most retweets, or the post that got the most likes. They’ll look for the kind of reporting, the smartest investigative journalism that told our story and lifted up the contradictions in our societies, and asked the hard questions and forced people to see the truth even when it was uncomfortable.[/pull_quote_center]

[RELATED: Obama Has Sentenced Whistleblowers to 10x the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents Combined]

While Obama criticized the current climate in journalism, he did not mention the fact that his administration has prosecuted 12 individuals under the Espionage Act—with a case still pending against Edward Snowden—which is more than four times the three whistleblowers who were prosecuted prior to his presidency.

According to ACLU Washington’s Gabe Rottman, “By my count, the Obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers, versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the American Revolution.”

“The last and best source of that accountability is a free press. Tragically, that free press now has a 526-month sentence to serve,” Rottman added.

Obama also did not credit the fact that his administration has set the record for withholding Freedom of Information Act requests, and that in 77 percent of cases, requests are met with empty or redacted files.

The Associated Press noted that, “In some high-profile instances, usually after news organizations filed expensive federal lawsuits, the Obama administration found tens of thousands of pages after it previously said it couldn’t find any.”

Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured, Politics, US

Biden Criticizes ‘Biden Rule’ Used by McConnell On Supreme Court Nomination

Leave a comment

Vice President Joe Biden criticized Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for using a speech he made in 1992 to justify waiting to confirm the next Supreme Court nominee until after President Obama is out of office.

In a speech at Georgetown Law School on Thursday, Biden touted his record, saying that he was “responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees,” which he claimed is more than “anyone alive.” 

“There is no Biden rule. It doesn’t exist,” Biden said. “There is only one rule I ever followed in the Judiciary Committee. That was the Constitution’s clear rule of advice and consent.” 

Biden referenced a speech McConnell made on the Senate floor on March 16, in which he claimed that he was invoking the “Biden Rule,” and quoted Biden’s words from 1992, to counter filling the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

“As Chairman Grassley and I declared weeks ago, and reiterated personally to President Obama, the Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision,” McConnell said.

[RELATED: President Obama Selects Merrick Garland as Supreme Court Nominee]

The speech that created the “Biden Rule” referenced by McConnell was one Biden made on the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and George H. W. Bush was president.

“Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the [Clarence] Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best,” Biden said.

Politifact noted that at the time of Biden’s speech, there was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill and no nominee to consider. However, Biden took to the Senate floor to “urge delay if a vacancy did appear,” and rather than arguing for a delay until the next president was in office, he argued that the nomination process should be “put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.” 

“They completely ignore the fact at the time I was speaking of the time of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation,” Biden said on Thursday. “I made it absolutely clear I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman, even a few months ahead of a presidential election.”

Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.

Foreign Policy, Government Accountability, International, Opinion

Federal Judge May Release New Documents Related to Obama’s Targeted Assassination Program

Leave a comment

NEW YORK— On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Obama Administration to hand over three documents related to the targeted assassination program for the court’s review and possible release to the public. The three documents relate to the law and policy that govern the controversial program.

Judge McMahon said she will give the government “time to vet opinions and orders for classification issues that might escape the notice of a reader of news media in which information that the Government considers to be classified routinely appears.”

The first document relates to the Presidential Policy Guidance, or PPG, “a classified record that sets out the law and policy that the government must follow when it carries out targeted killings,” according to the ACLU. President Obama issued the PPG in May 2013, but did not make the document public, instead only releasing some of its most general standards.

The ACLU writes:

“Those vague standards raise as many questions as they answer: When does an individual pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to the United States? How does the government decide when capture of a target is “feasible”? What informs the government’s determination that there is a “near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed”? As the government has described it, the PPG answers these questions. And as we’ve argued to the court, the government has no right to withhold this kind of document — one that regulates government officials by providing substantive and procedural rules that govern their actions — from the public.”

The other two documents are reports from the Department of Defense which were submitted to Congress in 2014. The two reports detail the legal and policy standards of the PPG, as well as an assessment of groups that the U.S. government is waging war against. The reports also explain the legal differences between “associated forces,” “affiliates,” and “adherents” of al-Qaeda.

The ACLU was provided these documents in the past, albeit heavily redacted versions, and is now seeking to learn more about what the Obama Administration is hiding.

Without being able to read the standards by which the U.S. government is running their lethal program the public will remain in the dark. The public also deserves to know under which legal authority the U.S. government believes it is operating.

The ACLU states that Judge McMahon indicated that “a final decision would likely arrive in the next several months.”

Interestingly, McMahon has previously called out the federal government for creating acts of terrorism. In the case of the “Newburgh Four” terrorists, Judge McMahon wrote that the FBI “created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true.”

The ACLU has also been fighting to uncover new information related to the Presidential Kill List, also known as the disposition matrix. The Washington Post first reported on the disposition matrix in 2012:

“Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix.’

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

“Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.”

For the last four years, New York Times journalist Charlie Savage has waged a legal battle against the Obama administration, seeking to reveal the government’s legal justifications for assassinating terror suspects without a trial. Specifically, Savage sued the Obama administration in an attempt to obtain details about the murder of al-Qaeda affiliated cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and eventually found himself on the U.S. government’s radar under suspicion of terrorism.

On September 30, 2011, drones sent by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command flew into Yemen and bombed al-Awlaki and al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan. The case drew public criticism not only because al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but because several weeks after his death, another American drone killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman. He was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen.

A 2014 ruling by Second Circuit court forced the release of a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the release of 11 other OLC memos, but the court protected 10 of them from release. The Times and the ACLU appealed the decision, but a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit recently denied the release of the documents.

What this means is that the public continues to live in ignorance when it comes to understanding how the U.S. government is waging its War on Terror. The average U.S. citizen is likely unaware that the President operates a targeted assassination program and maintains a kill list. This is because the corporate media is doing their best to keep you in the dark.

However, we must remember that all truth eventually comes to light and the targeted drone assassination program and disposition matrix are no different. While the U.S. government would like to maintain a veil of secrecy over the American people— it is simply no longer feasible. The American people are waking up and with that new awareness tyrants will find it difficult to continue their march towards secrecy and control.

Election, Featured, Foreign Policy

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Claims Russia Has ‘Not Gone After ISIS’

Leave a comment

During the latest Democratic Debate Thursday, Hillary Clinton defended her reservations towards Russia by claiming that the Russians “have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

Clinton’s statement was in response to comments made by rival Bernie Sanders when he was asked if he was prepared to “move militarily” against Russia, or to “institute further economic sanctions.”

Sanders called the United States’ relationship with Russia “complicated,” and said that although he believes the U.S. should “do our best in developing positive relations with Russia,” he also stands by President Obama in believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to be shown that his “aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched.”

Clinton replied that she believes an agreement on a cease-fire is “something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the Russians agreed to.”

[pull_quote_center]You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime to further decimate what’s left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire?[/pull_quote_center]

Clinton also said she is worried that the Russians are doing “everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition,” and she claimed that “the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

[pull_quote_center]So let’s support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let’s hope that we can accelerate the cease-fire, because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition. And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.[/pull_quote_center]

Russia began launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria in Sept. 2015. Syrian State media claimed the airstrikes began after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad requested help, and that the move was criticized by the U.S.

[RELATED: Russian-Backed Syrian Army Defeats ISIS at Aleppo]

A report from Reuters on Jan. 20 claimed that Russian airstrikes in Syria are gradually weakening both ISIS militants and the Free Syrian Army, allowing Assad to gain more power and to make “one of its most significant gains since the start of the Russian intervention,” by capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.

The report noted that out of the “3,000 people killed by Russian air strikes in Syria since they began in September, nearly 900 were members” of ISIS. The group lost control of the city of Ramadi in December, and has cut fighters’ pay since its “oil-smuggling operations are hit by plunging prices.”

However, the report also noted that Russia’s operation has harmed rebel groups in the area, who are “reporting intensified air strikes and ground assaults in areas of western Syria that are of greatest importance to Assad.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria]

Investigative journalist Ben Swann reported on the origin of ISIS in March 2015, and he noted that ISIS grew out of a group of U.S.-backed rebels who were attempting to defeat Assad.

However, Swann said that even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS was capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing, “because ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY

For more election coverage, click here.

Featured, International, Politics, US

TransCanada Files $15 Billion Suit Against U.S. Government Over Keystone Rejection

Leave a comment

On Wednesday, TransCanada Corp sued the U.S. government in an attempt to overturn President Obama’s Keystone XL pipeline rejection. In a second claim, TransCanada is seeking $15 billion in damages under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Keystone XL pipeline was dealt a blow last year after President Obama vetoed legislation that had been approved by Congress. The Senate later failed to override the veto. The pipeline would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to pipelines in refineries in Houston and other locations on the Gulf of Mexico.

Reuters reports that TransCanada filed the the lawsuit in a federal court in Houston, Texas, calling the rejection of its permit to build the pipeline “unconstitutional.” The company is asking the court to overturn Obama’s permit denial to complete the pipeline and a ruling that would block any future president from stopping the pipeline completion.

The Houston lawsuit names several officials as defendants, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Department of Interior.

Under the NAFTA claim, TransCanada is requesting $15 billion to recover its investment in the pipeline. TransCanada said it “had every reason to expect its application would be granted.” Chapter 11 of the NAFTA trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States gives investors the right to make claims against governments.

TransCanada told Reuters it was “prepared for a lengthy process that could take several years.”

Despite President Obama’s rejection of the project, lawmakers in some states still support the planned pipeline. South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission recently approved TransCanada’s permit to cross into the state.

On Monday Commissioner Gary Hanson said, “If the company secures a presidential permit and the pipeline is built, the PUC will monitor the progress to ensure the construction conditions are met.”

TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper told Courthouse News: “This decision in South Dakota further strengthens our commitment to Keystone XL, the safest and most environmentally sound way to transport needed Canadian and American oil to the people of the United States.”

The pipeline has been resisted by landowners in Nebraska, as well as indigenous communities. Critics also say the pipeline’s purported increasing of jobs is false.

There have also been disputes over official documents related to the permitting of the pipeline. For example, in early July, Truth In Media reported that Secretary of State John Kerry was issued a subpoena seeking the release of all “reports, recommendations, letters and comments received by the State Department from the advising agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13337 regarding the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.”

In a statement accompanying the subpoena, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz stated that the State Department has been “uncooperative” and “shown an unwillingness to recognize the Committee’s legitimate interest in obtaining information.”

Featured, Foreign Policy, International, Politics

Report: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl-Taliban Swap

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON— A new report by the House Armed Services Committee claims that the Obama administration broke the law during the process of releasing five Taliban prisoners in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2014.

The report also stated the administration should have notified Congress sooner, a finding also shared by a similar report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office released last year.

“Our report finds that the Administration clearly broke the law in not notifying Congress of the transfer,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “Leading up to the transfer, DOD officials misled Congress as to the status of negotiations. Pentagon officials best positioned to assess the national security risks were left out of the process, which increases the chances of dangerous consequences from the transfer. It is irresponsible to put these terrorists that much closer to the battlefield to settle a campaign promise and unconscionable to mislead Congress in the process.”

“The president believes strongly in the principle of ensuring that anybody who puts on the military uniform of the United States is not somebody who is going to be left behind by the commander-in-chief,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “There was a unique opportunity that was presented to safely recover Sgt. Bergdahl and that’s exactly what we did.”

The five Taliban members were being held in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prior to the exchange. Following the exchange, Sgt. Bergdahl was charged with desertion for the actions resulting in his capture by Taliban affiliates in June 2009.

The chairwoman of the Armed Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Re. Vicky Hartzle (R-Mo.), stated that “After rigorous investigation, there are still some unknowns. We still do not know if we negotiated for less than five detainees. We do not know how five was determined to be the ‘right’ number in this exchange. However, we now know to what extent this Administration is willing to go to achieve political goals.”

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Education, Featured, Government Accountability

Obama Signs ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’

Leave a comment

After approval from the United States House of Representatives, the Senate passed the Every Student Succeeds Act on Wednesday, a federal education bill that would replace No Child Left Behind. President Obama signed the bill Thursday.

The bill, which was introduced on April 30, is described as “an Act to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.”

The Department of Education presented the bill as one that in addition to providing “federal grants to state educational agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education,” would also offer “grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for text and library books,” and would create special education centers and scholarships for low-income college students.

This bill, consisting of 1,061 pages, would replace “No Child Left Behind,” which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, and looked to close “achievement gaps” by mandating standardized testing.

ESSA is supposed to repeal annual federal progress reports, replacing them with a individual statewide accountability system that prohibits federal interference.

At the state level, ESSA will still require statewide assessments in reading and math for students in the 3rd to the 8th grades and once in high school, along with science tests given three times between the 3rd and the 12th grade.

In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan on Dec. 2, Republican Georgia State Sen. William Ligon questioned “why we need a 1061-page federal bill dealing with education policy.”

[pull_quote_center]I have been told by a member of our congressional delegation that bill’s length was needed to repeal many existing federal laws dealing with education. Unfortunately, a review of the bill reveals not much in the way of repeal but that once again the federal government is driving education policy in every State in the Union through grants and waivers.[/pull_quote_center]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised the bill, calling it “another bipartisan achievement for our country.”

While he did not vote on Wednesday, GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) released a statement saying that he does not support the bill.

Cruz said the bill “unfortunately continues to propagate the large and ever-growing role of the federal government in our education system,” which is the “same federal government that sold us failed top-down standards like Common Core.”

[pull_quote_center]We should be empowering parents and local school districts instead of perpetuating the same tired approach that continues to fail our nation’s children. In many ways, the conference report was worse than the original Senate bill—removing the few good provisions from the House bill that would have allowed some Title I portability for low-income students as well as a parental opt-out from onerous federal accountability standards.[/pull_quote_center]

Presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also did not vote on the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted against it.

Civil Liberties, Featured, Foreign Policy, Gun Rights, International

Obama Urges Congress to Authorize ISIS War

Leave a comment

by Jason Ditz

During his brief but heavily-anticipated prime time address, President Obama insisted simultaneously that the San Bernardino attack last week was not connected to any terrorist group, but that it represented a “new phase” of terrorism, in which groups are turning to “less complicated” acts.

He spent much of the address, despite having insisted there was no connection to ISIS, in defending the ongoing strategy in the ISIS war, and insisting he doesn’t want a major ground war in Iraq or Syria that would last a decade or more.

Adding to the conflicting messages of his address, Obama then urged Congress to grant him an authorization for the ISIS war, saying it was time for them to demonstrate America’s “unity” and that they are “committed to this fight.”

President Obama also confirmed US special forces were being sent into both Iraq and Syria in growing numbers, trying to contrast that to the larger occupations of previous wars, though as he continues to slowly escalate his numbers that distinction may be less and less significant.

Beyond this, Obama also urged Congress to ban anyone on any no-fly list from buying a gun, and to heavily restrict the buying of more advanced assault weapons by everyone, insisting US intelligence agencies can’t catch all attackers, but they can make it harder for them to obtain weapons.

He also promised to seek more unity among countries fighting in Syria, saying the US would call on their allies and also Russia to step up the battle, while suggesting that some sort of diplomatic settlement of the Syrian Civil War could be on the horizon.

Foreign Policy, Politics

Rand Paul Says Obama’s Foreign Policy Is ‘Idiotic’

Leave a comment

Fresh off of a strong performance in this week’s Fox Business News / Wall Street Journal debate, Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered some strong words aimed at President Obama’s foreign policy while addressing a crowd in Altoona, Iowa.

“What kind of idiot sends four people to war?” Paul asked supporters while referring to the $500 million Department of Defense program set up to train Syrian rebels. The Obama administration abandoned the program after only a small handful of trained rebels actually showed up to fight. In total, the Department of Defense spent $2 million for every one rebel trained.

“If you go to war, you don’t go with underwhelming force, you go to war with overwhelming force,” Paul said.

According to Huffington Post, Paul also criticized Obama’s move to deploy 50 special forces troops to Syria with Congress’ approval.

“If you want to send troops over there, we don’t send 50,” Paul said. “We have a declaration of war and we vote on it in Congress.”

Paul’s debate performance also bolstered his fundraising. According to the Des Moines Register, the moment Paul challenged U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on military spending, Paul’s fundraising went up 600 percent.

Nationally, Paul is tied for 6th place with Ohio Governor John Kasich and former HP executive Carly Fiorina. However, the most recent round of polling shows Paul steadily gaining some momentum. In Fox News’ latest poll, Paul was tied for 5th with Jeb Bush. A state-wide poll in Iowa mirrors those results with Paul tying Bush for 5th.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Election, Politics

BREAKING: Vice President Joe Biden Will Not Run For President

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, October 21, 2015– From the White House rose garden, flanked by President Obama on one side and wife Jill on the other, Vice President Joe Biden announced that he will not run for the presidency ending months of speculation.

“As my family and I have worked through the grieving process, I’ve said all along what I’ve said time and again to others, that it may very well be that the process by the time we get through it closes the window,” Biden said. “I’ve concluded it has closed. We are out of time.”

Although he has bowed out of the race, Biden took yet another jab at Hillary Clinton.

“I’m not naive. We must talk to our opponents,” said Biden. “Republicans are not our enemies.” Biden has already taken aim at Clinton for calling Republicans the enemy after she made the remarks in the first Democratic debate.

Biden said he was dedicated to spending the next 15 months as Vice President fighting for gay rights, tax-payer paid college tuition, and other liberal policies.

The President and Vice President walked away without taking questions.

The timing of Biden’s announcement is interesting. Had he wanted to help Clinton, he likely would have made the announcement tomorrow during Clinton’s Benghazi congressional committee to take the attention and heat off of her. However, the announcement was made the day before.

With Biden out, the democratic party will now rally behind Clinton or Sanders. However, Sanders has already shown that he is not willing to throw a punch at Clinton when he defended her from criticism over her email scandal during the first Democratic debate, which all but guarantees Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

For more election coverage, click here.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

 

Featured, Politics, States Rights, US

Federal Court Blocks Obama’s EPA Rule Nationwide

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, October 9, 2015–  On Friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based in Cincinnati issued a nationwide stay blocking the Obama administration’s highly controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.

State legislators from across the country believe the rule violates the Tenth Amendment and sets a dangerous precedent for federal intrusion. In total, more than 30 states have sought legal action against the rule.

“A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing,” the court said.

In July, Tennessee State Representative Sheila Butt (R-Columbia) led a successful campaign to join Tennessee to the case presented to the Sixth Circuit.

[pull_quote_center]”It’s important to realize that this rule would give the federal government unprecedented powers over property owners, farmers and businesses. Even a puddle of water in your driveway could be subject to federal investigation. In addition, this rule presents a massive negative impact to our states’ economy and sovereignty,” said Butt. “I’m thankful for the Court’s ruling, but the fight isn’t over just yet.”[/pull_quote_center]

This isn’t the first federal ruling against the EPA’s new rule. In August, U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson issued an injunction against the rule one day before it was set to begin. However, the EPA largely ignored the ruling and charged ahead with implementation regardless of the Court’s ruling. The EPA claimed the ruling didn’t apply nationwide, even though legal scholars and legislators around the country disagreed. Thursday’s ruling sought to make clear to the EPA that the WOTUS rule could no longer be implemented until further legal ruling had settled the petitioners’ concerns.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Health, US

Federal Court: Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate Violates Religious Freedom

Leave a comment

A federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled on Thursday that the contraception coverage mandate required by the Affordable Care Act and paid for by a government subsidy, as well as the opt-out process for religiously affiliated employers, violates the employers’ religious freedom.

That coverage, which is paid for by a government subsidy, was struck down by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals after four Christian nonprofits- Heartland Christian College, CNS International Ministries Inc, Dordt College and Cornerstone University- filed lawsuits against it, noting that they object to emergency contraceptives.

The court ruled that the employers should not have to include contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans, and that forcing the employees to seek individual exemptions to the law, puts a “substantial burden” on their religious rights.

The Hill reported that the court’s ruling “includes 30 references to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the 2014 Supreme Court case that allowed certain for-profit companies to opt out of the mandate,” which led to several nonprofits filing lawsuits seeking the same permission.

[RELATED: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby]

The current law states that employers must provide contraceptive coverage for their employees or they must pay a fine, and if they choose to go through the process of opting out of the requirement, the coverage has to be provided by the insurers.

The Associated Press reported that since Obamacare was signed into law in 2010, “roughly 100 lawsuits from businesses and religiously affiliated colleges, hospitals and other not-for-profit organizations” have been filed, challenging the contraceptives requirement.

[RELATED: Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By Supreme Court]

In response to the ruling, a spokeswoman for the White House said that the Obama administration is “disappointed” and claimed that “as all of the other seven courts of appeals to address this issue have held,” the current process “strikes the proper balance between ensuring women have equal access to health care and protecting religious beliefs.”

Reuters noted that this court’s decision differs from all other appeals courts that have considered the issue, which makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling at some point in its coming term, between October and June.

Editor’s Pick, Election, Featured, Politics

Obama Gives Biden Blessing For 2016 Presidential Run

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, August 25, 2015– On Monday, Vice President Biden enjoyed lunch at the White House with President Obama. The two apparently discussed a Biden run for the White House. A short while after their lunch ended, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced that President Obama has given Biden the green light and his blessing to run for President.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: So you have the development over the weekend that the vice president came back and met with Elizabeth Warren. How does the president deal with this if Biden actually decides to run? You have his current vice president versus the former Secretary of State.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Well, that’s not an insignificant if in that question. And I think that’s what everybody is pretty interested in finding out is what decision the vice president is going to make. The president has indicated that his view that the decision that he made, I guess 7 years ago now, to add Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into Vice President’s aptitude for the top job.

KARL: So, I’d assume that means the president would support Vice President Biden if were to run? And this is obviously, you know, a better decision than the secretary of state he choose. So, uh — well you said it was the best decision he ever made.

EARNEST: Yeah, it was…

EARNEST: The president has spoke at quite some length about the appreciation and respect and admiration he has for the service of Secretary Clinton, particularly in her four years as Secretary of State.

KARL: Just not his best decision.

EARNEST: Well, he, again, I think all of you and your coverage of some of the president’s comments about Secretary Clinton have noted how warm those comments were. I’ll just say that the vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. He’s been on a national ticket through two election cycles now, both in 2008 and the reelection of 2012. So, I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign. That means he’s going to collect all the information that he needs to make a decision.

As Hillary Clinton continues to decline in the polls, even losing to billionaire reality TV star Donald Trump in a key swing state, Democrats seem to be scrambling to find a palatable alternative to a Clinton nomination.

Only three weeks ago, Earnest refused to answer when asked by reporters on whether or not President Obama would support Vice President Biden if he ran for the presidency. Earnest did expound on Obama’s admiration for Biden, and added that Biden would make a decision by the end of the Summer.

Biden is said to be reaching out to top Democrat donors across the country.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

For more election coverage, click here.

Foreign Policy

Obama, Congress Dispute Renewal of Iran Sanctions Law

Leave a comment

Obama Wants Delay in Renewal of Expiring Law

by Jason Ditz, August 12, 2015

The White House and Congress have spent so much time fighting over the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran recently, that another issue has almost completely slipped everyone’s minds. The Iran Sanctions Act  is set to expire in late 2016.

That’s set to be the new Obama vs. Congress battle, as while both sides agree the act can be extended and just ignored by the White House, to allow more ease of “snap back” sanctions against Iran in the future, the biggest hawks in Congress are hoping for a big extension, and quick, to show how much they oppose Iran.

The White House is urging caution, believing such a move would risk provocation a reaction from Iran, and an international perception that the US Congress is trying to renege on the nuclear deal, even though that vote isn’t coming until next month.

Though the Republican leadership in Congress is expected to virtually uniformly vote against the nuclear deal, it is not expected to be enough to block it. The votes on the extension of the Sanctions Act are unclear, but there is concern it will have added amendments from hawks aimed at harming the nuclear deal.

Editor’s Pick, Featured, Foreign Policy

White House Legal Justification for Syria War Nebulous as War Broadens

3 Comments

Officials Cite ‘Article II’ Without Providing Specifics

by Jason Ditz, August 09, 2015

At one point, the Obama Administration wanted a Congressional authorization for their war against ISIS. They openly bragged about the vague language allowing them to do more or less anything, and never got Congress to agree. Still, the war continued.

Instead of worrying about what the legal justification of the war might well be if the law was different, however, people are increasingly asking what the current justification is, particularly as the Syrian part of the war broadens, with more targets and more enemies. The answer is complicated, and unsatisfying.

When they’re attacking al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, the justification is the 2001 AUMF for the Afghan War, because it’s al-Qaeda. When they’re fighting ISIS, it’s sort of the same, on the grounds that ISIS is sort of al-Qaeda, even though they’re actually not.

Then there’s talk of attacking Syria’s own military. The justification there is even less obvious, and the administration is claiming Article II of the US Constitution allows them to defend “assets,” and that they consider the rebels they’re trying to create in Syria assets, and therefore they can do whatever they want to any conceivable enemy of those rebels.

Constitutional scholars are spurning this argument, noting that Article II isn’t nearly specific enough to justify anything, and that with such an overbroad interpretation the US could declare whatever it wants in whatever country to be an “asset” and then fight a war on that basis.

Activism, Government Accountability

“Apache Stronghold” Arrives in Washington D.C. to Protest Sale of Sacred Land

5 Comments

On Tuesday the Apache Stronghold activist community arrived in Washington D.C. for two days of ceremony and protest in front of the White House. The Apache Stronghold is made up of members of the San Carlos Apache tribe as well as supporters from across the country.

The tribal members are protesting the sale of 2400 acres of sacred land at the Oakflat campground in Arizona. The sale was done under the Southeast Arizona land exchange, a bill that has failed several times over the last few years but was ultimately attached to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. The NDAA 2015 was passed into law by the U.S. House and Senate with the support of Arizona Representatives Paul Gosar and Ann Kirkpatrick, as well as Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake.

Under the NDAA 2015 a land exchange was approved which will allow a new project by Australian company Resolution Copper Mining. The Apache Stronghold is determined to stop the sale and destruction of land that they consider to be sacred to their people and way of life. The group says the copper mine would leave a crater nearly 2 miles wide and threaten streams, springs and wildlife habitats.

Earlier this month the activists began a cross-country caravan from Arizona to New York and Washington D.C. The group stopped at Native reservations along the way to drum up support for their cause.

On Tuesday they gathered in front of the White House and marched to the capitol for a “spiritual run” and ceremonial prayers and songs. Wednesday morning a second round of protests and demonstrations were underway.

“Today is our day. Today is our ceremony. We’re not here looking at this Capitol like it’s in charge of us,” tribe councilman Wendsler Nosie told Reuters.

Resolution spokeswoman Jennifer Russo told Reuters that they are committed to working with tribal members. The company claims the project will bring about 3,700 jobs to the area.

The Oakflat area is especially important to the San Carlos Apaches as it is near the Apache Leap cliffs where Apaches jumped to their death to avoid capture by American troops during the 1870’s. Protesters set up camp on the site in February, promising not to leave until the deal is repealed.

Health, Politics

New Bill Could Ban Genetically Engineered Labeling Laws

9 Comments

Recently the House Agriculture Committee approved a controversial bill that would ban states from enacting mandatory labeling laws  as well as regulations on genetically engineered foods.

House Resolution 1599, known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to supporters and the DARK act by critics, would overturn current state laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as well as prevent future labeling laws from being passed on the state or local level.

Now that the Committee has approved the bill it moves towards a full vote in the House before moving on to the Senate where it will likely face opposition from Democrats. The bill currently has 106 cosponsors, 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats.

After the committee approved the measure Pamela Bailey, CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), released a statement claiming that the legislation will ensure that Americans have accurate, consistent information about their food rather than a 50 state patchwork of labeling laws that will only prove costly and confusing for consumers, farmers and food manufacturers.”

The GMA is calling on the House to approve the measure before the coming August recess.

Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It, said the fight has just begun. “The real fight will be in the Senate. This is from over.”

Currently three states have passed GE labeling bills, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut. Maine and Connecticut’s laws do not go into effect unless their surrounding neighbor states also pass similar legislation.

Supporters of labeling say that consumers have a right to know if their food is genetically engineered. Some critics also fear the increasing use of herbicides and pesticides resulting from the proliferation of genetic engineering. The crowds are split between blanket opposition to genetically engineered foods and those who are calling for more studies to trace the effect on human consumption. Others oppose the GMO industry for limiting research and questionable business practices.

Supporters of the bill say that the labels will cause food prices to rise and cause confusion about the safety of GE food. At the committee hearing, Gregory Jaffe, Biotechnology Project Director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stated that since there were no known nutritional or safety issues connected to GE food, there should be no need for labels.

What are your thoughts? Are GMOs safe? Should they be labeled? Should the government ban labeling?