Kim equates the power grab by Obama to Orwell's "Animal Farm," in which, under the guise of fairness, the government assumes all power.
The 'skunk works' usually refers to Lockheed's stealth manufacturing facility but it could also be another name for Obama's White House!!! (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer urges Congress to stop the insurance bailout which is designed to create the appearance that Obamacare is affordable by sticking the tax payer with the deficit created by this legislative monstrosity. (See 1a and 1b below.)
Both articles above support what I and many others have been writing about for years.
Obama his presidency began using stealth arguments to increase government power and take freedom away from Americans. Then the attack on the Constitution continued but in a more open and aggressive manner. Now Obama is openly blatant and it is up the The Supreme Court to reverse course. (See 1c below.)
===
This politician has become one of my favorites:Hard questions. No answers. Nobody cares.
Click HERE.
===
It's only more tax payer money pissed away! But what difference does it make? (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
U.S. Saudi Relations! (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Year of the Washington Power Grab
The 'skunk works' usually refers to Lockheed's stealth manufacturing facility but it could also be another name for Obama's White House!!! (See 1 below.)
This politician has become one of my favorites:Hard questions. No answers. Nobody cares.
===Click HERE.
It's only more tax payer money pissed away! But what difference does it make? (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
U.S. Saudi Relations! (See 3 below.)
===
In ObamaWorld, winners and losers are chosen by the federal government.
By Kim Strassel
By Kim Strassel
This past year will be remembered for many things, but let 2013 be hailed mainly for this: It was the year that the genius of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" became clear in America. Efforts to centralize control in the name of "fairness" have led to a society that is ever more at the mercy of a federal power—one that decides who does and does not succeed. The winners are favored special interests, political cronies and wealthy lobbyists. The losers are everyone else.
Consider: Maryland authorities last week launched an investigation into the shootings of two bald eagles in Montgomery County. It isn't clear if the federally protected birds were shot on purpose, or if some poor soul mistook them for vultures. No matter. The Maryland Natural Resources Police (there is such a thing) has gone full vice squad—publicizing a hotline number, dangling a reward, and reminding folks that the federal penalty is a fine of $5,000 per eagle and up to a year in prison.
The president briefs White House reporters on ObamaCare, Nov. 14. Getty Images
This behavior contrasts with a very different headline, from a month ago. "U.S. to Allow Eagle Deaths—to Aid Wind Power," read a Dec. 6 Associated Press story about a new federal rule that allows wind companies favored by the Obama administration to avoid the law. These select companies can kill bald and golden eagles, free of prosecution, for 30 years.
Within minutes of 2013's beginning, Congress had passed its huge new tax-cliff increase, which President Obama crowed would ensure that "millionaires and billionaires" will "pay their fair share." Yet included in that bill was $40 billion in exemptions for the politically powerful—Michigan Nascar-track owners, rum distillers, renewable energy firms, and so on.
ObamaCare was passed in the name of equalizing health care. Yet it was Congress and its staffers who got special dispensation to keep a generous health subsidy—when no other Americans did. It was powerful corporate America, with its influential lobbyists, that got an additional year to meet the insurance mandate—when individuals did not. It was the unions that got a reprieve from a health-insurance tax—when individuals and small businesses were left to pick up the tab.
In August, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new ethanol mandate, though it exempted one lucky refinery in Louisiana, out of 143 nationwide. That refinery happens to be under the patronage of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, up for re-election this year.
Congressional Democrats advanced measures in 2013 to pile new taxes on fossil fuel companies. This, as the Energy Department continued to absorb the losses of Solyndra, A123 Systems, and other taxpayer-funded green-energy firms, some of which are owned by political donors to Mr. Obama.
The Justice Department in November settled with J.P. Morgan JPM +0.76% for $13 billion, for the sin of dealing in "toxic" mortgage-backed securities. Some of that payout will go toFannie Mae FNMA -1.34% and Freddie Mac, FMCC -1.74% sources of the housing collapse that are nonetheless wards of the state—and thus, apparently, safe from Justice lawsuits. Citibank, so immersed in subprime as to require a bailout, also escaped Obama prosecutors. But Citibank is the producer of—and landing spot for—key Obama appointees, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
In April, the IRS was outed for targeting conservative political groups. The Obama administration in December issued new rules that will institutionalize this silencing of conservative free speech under the guise of regulating 501(c)(4) organizations. Unions, which file under a different IRS nonprofit category, will continue unmolested.
The EPA this summer conducted an armed raid of a mining facility in Alaska, over putative violations of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Trade Commission harassed a nonprofit representing piano teachers, over ginned up antitrust violations. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration began cracking down on small, family farms, operations meant to be exempt from that agency's regulation. By contrast, the administration has yet to announce a single prosecution of a single individual at the IRS. Mr. Obama explained in December that IRS employees were simply victims of a "difficult law to interpret." Maybe like the Clean Water Act, or antitrust laws, or OSHA rules? Maybe not.
There's plenty more, but you get the picture. In "Animal Farm" George Orwell set out to show how power inevitably corrupts, no matter how noble the intention. A group of animals initially centralize control over the farm to ensure that "All animals are equal." Yet the novel ends with the barnyard commandants—high on their righteousness—reducing the commandments to just one: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Indeed, in ObamaWorld, many millionaires, health-care buyers, energy companies, subprime dealers, political groups, and bird killers are more equal than others. Our new elite is ever more defined by who has the best pull with the administration. So long as government grows, so too will this government-created inequality.
1a) Stop the bailout — now
The president briefs White House reporters on ObamaCare, Nov. 14. Getty Images
By Charles Krauthammer
First order of business for the returning Congress: The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014.
Make it one line long: “Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.”
End of bill. End of bailout. End of story.
Why do we need it? On Dec. 18, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers was asked what was the administration’s Plan B if, because of adverse selection (enrolling too few young and healthies), the insurance companies face financial difficulty.
Jason Furman wouldn’t bite. “There’s a Plan A,” he replied. Enroll the young.
But of course there’s a Plan B. It’s a government bailout.
Administration officials can’t say it for political reasons. And they don’t have to say it because it’s already in the Affordable Care Act, buried deep.
First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.
Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses.
Never heard of these? That’s the beauty of passing a bill of such monstrous length.
You can insert a chicken soup recipe and no one will notice.
Nancy Pelosi was right: We’d have to pass the damn thing to know what’s in it. Well, now we have and now we know.
The whole scheme was risky enough to begin with — getting enough enrollees and making sure 40 percent were young and healthy. Obamacare is already far behind its own enrollment estimates. But things have gotten worse. The administration has been changing the rules repeatedly — with every scrimmage-line audible raising costs and diminishing revenue.
First, it postponed the employer mandate. Then it exempted from the individual mandate people whose policies were canceled (by Obamacare). And for those who did join the exchanges, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is “strongly encouraging” insurers — during the “transition” — to cover doctors and drugs not included in their clients’ plans.
The insurers were stunned. Told to give free coverage. Deprived of their best customers. Forced to offer stripped-down “catastrophic” plans to people age 30 and over (contrary to the law). These dictates, complained an insurance industry spokesman, could “destabilize” the insurance market.
Translation: How are we going to survive this? Shrinking revenues and rising costs could bring on the “death spiral” — an unbalanced patient pool forcing huge premium increases (to restore revenue) that would further unbalance the patient pool as the young and healthy drop out.
End result? Insolvency — before which the insurance companies will pull out of Obamacare.
Solution? A huge government bailout. It’s Obamacare’s escape hatch. And — surprise, surprise — it’s already baked into the law.
Which is why the GOP needs to act. Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg machine with hundreds of moving parts. Without viable insurance companies doing the work, it falls apart. No bailout, no Obamacare.
Such a bill would be overwhelmingly popular because Americans hate fat-cat bailouts of any kind. Why should their tax dollars be spent not only saving giant insurers but also rescuing this unworkable, unbalanced, unstable, unpopular money-pit of a health-care scheme?
The GOP House should pass it and send it to Harry Reid’s Democratic Senate. Democrats know it could be fatal for Obamacare. The only alternative would be single-payer. And try selling that to the country after the spectacularly incompetent launch of — and subsequent widespread disaffection with — mere semi-nationalization.
Do you really think vulnerable Democrats up for reelection will vote for a bailout? And who better to slay Obamacare than a Democratic Senate — liberalism repudiating its most important creation of the last 50 years.
Want to be even bolder? Attach the anti-bailout bill to the debt ceiling. That and nothing else. Dare the president to stand up and say: “I’m willing to let the country default in order to preserve a massive bailout for insurance companies.”
In the past, Republicans made unrealistic and unpopular debt-ceiling demands — and lost badly. They learned their lesson. Last year, Republicans presented one simple unassailable debt-ceiling demand — that the Senate pass its first budget in four years.
Who could argue with that? The Senate capitulated within two days.
Who can argue with no bailout? Let the Senate Democrats decide: Support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare.
Happy New Year.
1b) 11 State AGs Say Obama Breaks Law With Healthcare Changes
Eleven GOP state attorneys general charge that the Obama administration is breaking the law by sidestepping Congress to change the healthcare law, The Hill reports.
In particular, the Republican attorneys general claim the president’s executive action that allows health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare rules is "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop."
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was co-signed by his peers in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Another change in the Affordable Health Care Act law by the executive office included the decision to delay the employer insurance mandate for a year, which many lawmakers said should have required a congressional vote.
That change, the attorneys general insist, defies a Supreme Court decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the court concluded that some enforcement of laws might be subject to judicial review first.
That case had to do with lethal injection. Lawyers for two condemned killers argued the Food and Drug Administration had not certified that the lethal drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and should be barred. At issue was whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested and, if it did have jurisdiction, whether its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review.
Obama has come under blistering fire after millions of people found out their plans were no longer being offered despite his repeated assurance that, under Obamacare, people would be able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them.
The attorneys general argue the Obama action violates precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The AGs' letter also focused on security concerns on the state and federal health insurance exchanges.
HHS continues to "ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information on exchanges," they wrote.
They added that they’re concerned about the administration's decision to "not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel."
1c)
First order of business for the returning Congress: The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014.
Make it one line long: “Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.”
End of bill. End of bailout. End of story.
Why do we need it? On Dec. 18, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers was asked what was the administration’s Plan B if, because of adverse selection (enrolling too few young and healthies), the insurance companies face financial difficulty.
Jason Furman wouldn’t bite. “There’s a Plan A,” he replied. Enroll the young.
But of course there’s a Plan B. It’s a government bailout.
Administration officials can’t say it for political reasons. And they don’t have to say it because it’s already in the Affordable Care Act, buried deep.
First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.
Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses.
Never heard of these? That’s the beauty of passing a bill of such monstrous length.
You can insert a chicken soup recipe and no one will notice.
Nancy Pelosi was right: We’d have to pass the damn thing to know what’s in it. Well, now we have and now we know.
The whole scheme was risky enough to begin with — getting enough enrollees and making sure 40 percent were young and healthy. Obamacare is already far behind its own enrollment estimates. But things have gotten worse. The administration has been changing the rules repeatedly — with every scrimmage-line audible raising costs and diminishing revenue.
First, it postponed the employer mandate. Then it exempted from the individual mandate people whose policies were canceled (by Obamacare). And for those who did join the exchanges, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is “strongly encouraging” insurers — during the “transition” — to cover doctors and drugs not included in their clients’ plans.
The insurers were stunned. Told to give free coverage. Deprived of their best customers. Forced to offer stripped-down “catastrophic” plans to people age 30 and over (contrary to the law). These dictates, complained an insurance industry spokesman, could “destabilize” the insurance market.
Translation: How are we going to survive this? Shrinking revenues and rising costs could bring on the “death spiral” — an unbalanced patient pool forcing huge premium increases (to restore revenue) that would further unbalance the patient pool as the young and healthy drop out.
End result? Insolvency — before which the insurance companies will pull out of Obamacare.
Solution? A huge government bailout. It’s Obamacare’s escape hatch. And — surprise, surprise — it’s already baked into the law.
Which is why the GOP needs to act. Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg machine with hundreds of moving parts. Without viable insurance companies doing the work, it falls apart. No bailout, no Obamacare.
Such a bill would be overwhelmingly popular because Americans hate fat-cat bailouts of any kind. Why should their tax dollars be spent not only saving giant insurers but also rescuing this unworkable, unbalanced, unstable, unpopular money-pit of a health-care scheme?
The GOP House should pass it and send it to Harry Reid’s Democratic Senate. Democrats know it could be fatal for Obamacare. The only alternative would be single-payer. And try selling that to the country after the spectacularly incompetent launch of — and subsequent widespread disaffection with — mere semi-nationalization.
Do you really think vulnerable Democrats up for reelection will vote for a bailout? And who better to slay Obamacare than a Democratic Senate — liberalism repudiating its most important creation of the last 50 years.
Want to be even bolder? Attach the anti-bailout bill to the debt ceiling. That and nothing else. Dare the president to stand up and say: “I’m willing to let the country default in order to preserve a massive bailout for insurance companies.”
In the past, Republicans made unrealistic and unpopular debt-ceiling demands — and lost badly. They learned their lesson. Last year, Republicans presented one simple unassailable debt-ceiling demand — that the Senate pass its first budget in four years.
Who could argue with that? The Senate capitulated within two days.
Who can argue with no bailout? Let the Senate Democrats decide: Support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare.
Happy New Year.
1b) 11 State AGs Say Obama Breaks Law With Healthcare Changes
Eleven GOP state attorneys general charge that the Obama administration is breaking the law by sidestepping Congress to change the healthcare law, The Hill reports.
In particular, the Republican attorneys general claim the president’s executive action that allows health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare rules is "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop."
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was co-signed by his peers in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Another change in the Affordable Health Care Act law by the executive office included the decision to delay the employer insurance mandate for a year, which many lawmakers said should have required a congressional vote.
That change, the attorneys general insist, defies a Supreme Court decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the court concluded that some enforcement of laws might be subject to judicial review first.
That case had to do with lethal injection. Lawyers for two condemned killers argued the Food and Drug Administration had not certified that the lethal drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and should be barred. At issue was whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested and, if it did have jurisdiction, whether its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review.
Obama has come under blistering fire after millions of people found out their plans were no longer being offered despite his repeated assurance that, under Obamacare, people would be able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them.
The attorneys general argue the Obama action violates precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The AGs' letter also focused on security concerns on the state and federal health insurance exchanges.
HHS continues to "ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information on exchanges," they wrote.
They added that they’re concerned about the administration's decision to "not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel."
1b) 11 State AGs Say Obama Breaks Law With Healthcare Changes
Eleven GOP state attorneys general charge that the Obama administration is breaking the law by sidestepping Congress to change the healthcare law, The Hill reports.
In particular, the Republican attorneys general claim the president’s executive action that allows health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare rules is "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop."
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was co-signed by his peers in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Another change in the Affordable Health Care Act law by the executive office included the decision to delay the employer insurance mandate for a year, which many lawmakers said should have required a congressional vote.
That change, the attorneys general insist, defies a Supreme Court decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the court concluded that some enforcement of laws might be subject to judicial review first.
That case had to do with lethal injection. Lawyers for two condemned killers argued the Food and Drug Administration had not certified that the lethal drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and should be barred. At issue was whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested and, if it did have jurisdiction, whether its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review.
Obama has come under blistering fire after millions of people found out their plans were no longer being offered despite his repeated assurance that, under Obamacare, people would be able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them.
The attorneys general argue the Obama action violates precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The AGs' letter also focused on security concerns on the state and federal health insurance exchanges.
HHS continues to "ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information on exchanges," they wrote.
They added that they’re concerned about the administration's decision to "not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel."
The President vs. the Senate
Now the Supreme Court will weigh in on Obama's power play to stock the National Labor Relations Board.
Later this month the Supreme Court will hear a case that should resolve how much latitude presidents have to make recess appointments to federal offices that otherwise require Senate confirmation. The boundary of this power has never been decided by the high court. Yet the entire scheme of the U.S. Constitution—which is based on a separation of powers, enforced through checks and balances to safeguard individual liberty—is at stake.
Noel Canning v. NLRB involves several recess appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board on Jan. 4, 2012. The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., correctly held that these appointments were unconstitutional both because they filled vacancies when the Senate was not in a true "recess" between Congress's annual sessions, and because the vacancies had not actually opened up during the purported recess.
Associated Press
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "The president shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." The federal appellate court's decision hewed closely to the text and original meaning of this so-called recess appointments clause. Yet the ruling stunned many constitutional lawyers. That's because the original limitations on the president's power to make these appointments had long since been effectively discarded.
While this challenge to presidential power touched off considerable controversy, some political observers say that the recess-appointments issue will fade because Senate Democrats recently did away with the traditional filibuster rule, requiring a "super-majority" of at least 60 senators to allow a contentious nomination to proceed to a vote. This rules change, however, does not moot Noel Canning v. NLRB or the issues it raises. Indeed, limiting filibusters will only grease the wheels of a nomination when a Senate majority approves of a particular nominee.
Even when a president's own party controls the Senate, there are individuals who for one reason or another cannot get the nod. For example, a nominee unacceptable to his or her home-state senator can be subject to a "hold"—a still-respected senatorial courtesy. Recess appointments are not a proper means of avoiding such roadblocks.
The Constitution's Framers considered and rejected the notion that the president should be able to staff federal offices without congressional oversight. That's why the president must have Senate "advice and consent" for the most important appointments. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76, the Senate's participation "would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
The Framers believed that vesting the entire appointment authority in the president would have made him too powerful, contrary to their key goal of safeguarding individual liberty by dividing power among the three branches of government.
The need for a presidential power to make recess appointments arose from the assumption that Congress would meet infrequently and that there would be long periods—running to many months—when critical federal offices might remain vacant because the Senate was unavailable to discharge its advice and consent function. Recess appointments are a necessary exception to the normal appointments procedures, but they are an exception.
In more recent years, however, as attitudes in Washington have hardened and become more ideological, presidents of both parties have used recess appointments to put individuals in office who the Senate either had already refused to confirm or would likely turn down if given the chance. Such individuals may serve for up to two years. Although presidential frustration may be understandable, since many nominees never even get a Senate vote, overcoming this roadblock is not the constitutional purpose of recess appointments.
To avoid being in recess, Senate Democrats began to hold pro forma sessions in the last years of the George W. Bush administration. These involved tasking, by unanimous consent, one senator from each party to "convene" the Senate for brief periods in order to "receive" presidential nominations. These pro forma sessions are not fundamentally different from the way the Senate routinely conducts its core legislative business, which also can involve passing bills by unanimous consent with few senators in attendance.
Mr. Obama made the appointments that are being challenged in Noel Canning during one of these pro forma Senate sessions. The president determined that for the purpose of considering his nominees, the Senate was not properly in session because, according to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, the Senate was "unavailable to fulfill its function." This, of course, raised another critical constitutional question, since the Constitution vests each congressional house with the power to determine how to operate.
Permitting any president to resolve when the Senate is or is not in session upsets the constitutional balance of power among the executive and legislative branches even further. Most dangerously, a president could potentially claim that the Senate was not "in session" when certain legislation was enacted, and then refuse to enforce it on the grounds that it was invalid.
The specific issue of pro forma Senate sessions was not addressed by the lower court. But given the key constitutional prerogatives involved, the Supreme Court asked lawyers representing Senate Republicans to participate in the oral argument. This signals that the court may determine the extent of the president's recess appointment power and decide whether the Senate's power to determine its own rules precludes the president from questioning the constitutionality of the pro forma sessions.
The Supreme Court should affirm the court of appeals, limiting recess appointments to filling vacancies actually arising during a true Senate recess, and decisively rejecting the Obama administration's position that the president can determine when the Senate is or is not in session regardless of the Senate's own view. This will restore the proper separation of powers between the two political branches that the Framers clearly intended.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the affirmance of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Later this month the Supreme Court will hear a case that should resolve how much latitude presidents have to make recess appointments to federal offices that otherwise require Senate confirmation. The boundary of this power has never been decided by the high court. Yet the entire scheme of the U.S. Constitution—which is based on a separation of powers, enforced through checks and balances to safeguard individual liberty—is at stake.
Noel Canning v. NLRB involves several recess appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board on Jan. 4, 2012. The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., correctly held that these appointments were unconstitutional both because they filled vacancies when the Senate was not in a true "recess" between Congress's annual sessions, and because the vacancies had not actually opened up during the purported recess.
Associated Press
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "The president shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." The federal appellate court's decision hewed closely to the text and original meaning of this so-called recess appointments clause. Yet the ruling stunned many constitutional lawyers. That's because the original limitations on the president's power to make these appointments had long since been effectively discarded.
While this challenge to presidential power touched off considerable controversy, some political observers say that the recess-appointments issue will fade because Senate Democrats recently did away with the traditional filibuster rule, requiring a "super-majority" of at least 60 senators to allow a contentious nomination to proceed to a vote. This rules change, however, does not moot Noel Canning v. NLRB or the issues it raises. Indeed, limiting filibusters will only grease the wheels of a nomination when a Senate majority approves of a particular nominee.
Even when a president's own party controls the Senate, there are individuals who for one reason or another cannot get the nod. For example, a nominee unacceptable to his or her home-state senator can be subject to a "hold"—a still-respected senatorial courtesy. Recess appointments are not a proper means of avoiding such roadblocks.
The Constitution's Framers considered and rejected the notion that the president should be able to staff federal offices without congressional oversight. That's why the president must have Senate "advice and consent" for the most important appointments. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76, the Senate's participation "would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
The Framers believed that vesting the entire appointment authority in the president would have made him too powerful, contrary to their key goal of safeguarding individual liberty by dividing power among the three branches of government.
The need for a presidential power to make recess appointments arose from the assumption that Congress would meet infrequently and that there would be long periods—running to many months—when critical federal offices might remain vacant because the Senate was unavailable to discharge its advice and consent function. Recess appointments are a necessary exception to the normal appointments procedures, but they are an exception.
In more recent years, however, as attitudes in Washington have hardened and become more ideological, presidents of both parties have used recess appointments to put individuals in office who the Senate either had already refused to confirm or would likely turn down if given the chance. Such individuals may serve for up to two years. Although presidential frustration may be understandable, since many nominees never even get a Senate vote, overcoming this roadblock is not the constitutional purpose of recess appointments.
To avoid being in recess, Senate Democrats began to hold pro forma sessions in the last years of the George W. Bush administration. These involved tasking, by unanimous consent, one senator from each party to "convene" the Senate for brief periods in order to "receive" presidential nominations. These pro forma sessions are not fundamentally different from the way the Senate routinely conducts its core legislative business, which also can involve passing bills by unanimous consent with few senators in attendance.
Mr. Obama made the appointments that are being challenged in Noel Canning during one of these pro forma Senate sessions. The president determined that for the purpose of considering his nominees, the Senate was not properly in session because, according to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, the Senate was "unavailable to fulfill its function." This, of course, raised another critical constitutional question, since the Constitution vests each congressional house with the power to determine how to operate.
Permitting any president to resolve when the Senate is or is not in session upsets the constitutional balance of power among the executive and legislative branches even further. Most dangerously, a president could potentially claim that the Senate was not "in session" when certain legislation was enacted, and then refuse to enforce it on the grounds that it was invalid.
The specific issue of pro forma Senate sessions was not addressed by the lower court. But given the key constitutional prerogatives involved, the Supreme Court asked lawyers representing Senate Republicans to participate in the oral argument. This signals that the court may determine the extent of the president's recess appointment power and decide whether the Senate's power to determine its own rules precludes the president from questioning the constitutionality of the pro forma sessions.
The Supreme Court should affirm the court of appeals, limiting recess appointments to filling vacancies actually arising during a true Senate recess, and decisively rejecting the Obama administration's position that the president can determine when the Senate is or is not in session regardless of the Senate's own view. This will restore the proper separation of powers between the two political branches that the Framers clearly intended.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the affirmance of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
2)
Obama To Give PA $440 Million in 2014
Ari Yashar, Arutz Sheva Staff - Jan 01, 2014
Arutz Sheva
Barack Obama and Mahmoud Abbas (Flash 90)
The US financial aid designated for the Palestinian Authority (PA) is set to grow considerably in 2014 to $440 million, up from $426 million in 2013. The aid aims to bail out the PA, which in June was revealed to owe $4.2 billion in internal and external debt. [We've seen that throwing money at the PA does not change attitudes or actions. It is a reward for terrorism. US taxpayer money needs to be used to create positive changes.]
Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) representative in Washington DC, Maen Erekat, reported the figure, saying the transfer was already agreed upon by Congress, but will be influenced by progress in the peace talks with Israel. The PA recently declared the talks have failed, and threatened diplomatic action against Israel.
The financial aid reveals intentions of greater cooperation between the US and the PA.
PA leadership has requested that the US renew a joint committee between the US and PA which was active in the 1990s, so as to discuss common political and financial issues, revealed Erekat.
A PLO representative told the Judea and Samaria-based Arab Ma'an News Agency that most of the US aid will be used for building and development projects, adding that $70 million will be directly transferred to the PA Finance Ministry.
However, the PA has used its foreign-backed funds to reward terrorism.
Reports in November revealed that the PA gave at least $50,000 as a grant to each terrorist released in "gestures" to the peace talks. The released terrorists were also given monthly salaries ranging from 10,000 shekels ($2,800) to 14,000 shekels ($4,000).
2a)
Ari Yashar, Arutz Sheva Staff - Jan 01, 2014
Arutz Sheva
Arutz Sheva
Barack Obama and Mahmoud Abbas (Flash 90)
The US financial aid designated for the Palestinian Authority (PA) is set to grow considerably in 2014 to $440 million, up from $426 million in 2013. The aid aims to bail out the PA, which in June was revealed to owe $4.2 billion in internal and external debt. [We've seen that throwing money at the PA does not change attitudes or actions. It is a reward for terrorism. US taxpayer money needs to be used to create positive changes.]
Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) representative in Washington DC, Maen Erekat, reported the figure, saying the transfer was already agreed upon by Congress, but will be influenced by progress in the peace talks with Israel. The PA recently declared the talks have failed, and threatened diplomatic action against Israel.
The financial aid reveals intentions of greater cooperation between the US and the PA.
PA leadership has requested that the US renew a joint committee between the US and PA which was active in the 1990s, so as to discuss common political and financial issues, revealed Erekat.
A PLO representative told the Judea and Samaria-based Arab Ma'an News Agency that most of the US aid will be used for building and development projects, adding that $70 million will be directly transferred to the PA Finance Ministry.
However, the PA has used its foreign-backed funds to reward terrorism.
Reports in November revealed that the PA gave at least $50,000 as a grant to each terrorist released in "gestures" to the peace talks. The released terrorists were also given monthly salaries ranging from 10,000 shekels ($2,800) to 14,000 shekels ($4,000).
2a)
Our World: Empowering Palestinians who reject Israel's right to exist
By Caroline Glick ost
"Today a core goal of US Middle East policy is to secure the release of Palestinian mass murderers from Israeli prisons."
Palestinians waiting at the Erez crossing for the release of prisoners from Israel. Photo: REUTERS
US Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive in Israel for his 14th visit this week. And to assure that his stay will be a happy one, Saturday night the government approved the release of 26 more Palestinian mass murderers from prison. This will please Kerry because today a core goal of US Middle East policy is to secure the release of Palestinian mass murderers from Israeli prisons.
That’s right. The same America that until a few years ago led the free world in the global war against terror, now conditions its support for Israel, its chief regional ally in that war, on the Jewish state’s willingness to release unrepentant, mass murdering terrorists back into Palestinian society.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it ought to go without saying that this policy hinders, rather than advances the cause of peace. It is impossible to rationally claim that by coercing Israel into releasing people like Juma Ibrahim Juma Adam and Mahmoud Salam Saliman Abu Karbish that the US is advancing the cause of peace.
In 1992, the two men firebombed a civilian bus, murdering Rachel Weiss , who was nine months pregnant, and three of her pre-school aged children, as well as IDF soldier David Delarosa, who tried to save them.
They were released on Monday, due to US pressure on Israel and received back home to heroes’ welcomes. Their freedom empowers Palestinians who reject Israel’s right to exist and seek its destruction through acts of genocide against its Jewish citizens.
Indeed, their release all but guarantees that the new round of terror war that Kerry threatened Israelis would break out if we aren’t forthcoming to PLO demands, will take place. In other words, by supporting the release of terrorists from prison, the US government is enabling the next round of the Palestinian terror war against Israel.
Beyond that, both the Palestinian demand for the terrorist releases, and the US support for those releases make a mockery of the whole concept of the two-state solution. A society that insists on the release from prison of its worst, most prolific murderers is not a society with any interest in making peace with the society targeted and victimized by their crimes.
And US support for this Palestinian demand puts paid to Kerry and President Barack Obama’s claims that they seek a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The Palestinians’ support for terrorists doesn’t merely demonstrate their ill-intentions. It shows that the whole peace process that has become the centerpiece of US Middle East policy is based on a fiction.
When Israel agreed to accept the PLO as its partner in peacemaking two decades ago, that agreement was predicated on the terror group’s pledge to abjure further terrorism and to cooperate with Israel in fighting and defeating terrorists within Palestinian society. Without that pledge Israel would never have agreed to recognize the PLO . And that pledge, as we were reminded yet again on Monday, was a complete lie.
Then there is the international legal aspect to the Palestinian demand for Israel to free terrorists, and to the US support for this demand. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires all states to “Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.”
So by sheltering terrorists the Palestinian Authority stands in breach of binding international law. And by supporting the PA ’s sheltering of those terrorists, by coercing Israel into releasing them, the US has placed itself in a deeply problematic position in relation to international law. It has also forced Israel into a deeply problematic position by bowing to the US demand to release them.
The Israeli public, rightly, views the release of Palestinian mass murderers as insane, dangerous and immoral. In a bid to placate public opinion, every time his government agrees to free terrorists from prison, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announces that he is approving another stage in a seemingly endless process of permitting Israeli Jews to build homes in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. At this point, few in Israel are won over by Netanyahu’s largely hollow, transparently opportunistic gesture.
But whereas few Israelis are convinced Netanyahu is sincere, internationally his action has the egregious effect of reinforcing the deeply hostile and widely held perception that there is moral equivalence between murdering Jews and permitting Jews to live near Arabs. Netanyahu’s political pandering is counterproductive.
But on Sunday the government took what may be the first productive action that Israel has taken toward the Palestinians since the onset of the phony peace process 20 years ago.
On Sunday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved a bill sponsored by Likud MK Miri Regev to apply Israeli law over the Jordan Valley.
The Jordan Valley protects Israel from invasion and other acts of aggression from the east. And since 1967, there has been a consensus among Israelis that the area must remain under Israel’s sovereign control in perpetuity. This position remains inarguable today in light of the PLO ’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Were Israel to transfer control over the Jordan Valley to the PLO , it would enable the Palestinians to collaborate with outside actors in the planning and execution of major acts of aggression against Israel. Safeguarding against such an eventuality by asserting Israel’s international legal right to sovereignty over the area is an eminently reasonable, and indeed required means of ensuring Israel’s long-term survivability.
On the face of it, it is the champions of Palestinian statehood, led by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who should be most in favor of applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley. Only by doing so does the two-state solution Livni has staked her career on have a chance of producing peace.
But of course, Livni and her colleagues on the far Left don’t see things this way. She and her comrades responded with apoplectic fits of rage at the cabinet committee’s vote, saying that Israel would be to blame for destroying the peace process.
Livni and her friends, of course, had not a word of criticism for Abbas and his followers for their unlawful championing of terrorist mass murderers.
She gave no indication that she views their continued support for Israel’s destruction as an obstacle to peace. Her wrath and that of her colleagues is reserved for Israeli elected officials who seek to safeguard Israel’s survival.
The media assures us that Netanyahu will bury the bill in governmental bureaucracy and proceed on course with further negotiations with the PLO , and further terrorist releases, in order to keep Kerry and Obama happy.
We must encourage the government to surprise the media.
Twenty years ago Israel crossed the Rubicon from strategic rationality into irrationality when we embraced the PLO and the chimerical twostate solution. This week’s cabinet decision was the first step in crossing back to the other side.
And we must work with our elected representatives to ensure that it is not an isolated event.
Additionally, a former PLO official recently acknowledged PA support for the Nazis
during World War II.
3) US-Saudi Relations: On the Verge of a Crisis?
By Caroline Glick ost
"Today a core goal of US Middle East policy is to secure the release of Palestinian mass murderers from Israeli prisons."
Palestinians waiting at the Erez crossing for the release of prisoners from Israel. Photo: REUTERSUS Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive in Israel for his 14th visit this week. And to assure that his stay will be a happy one, Saturday night the government approved the release of 26 more Palestinian mass murderers from prison. This will please Kerry because today a core goal of US Middle East policy is to secure the release of Palestinian mass murderers from Israeli prisons.
That’s right. The same America that until a few years ago led the free world in the global war against terror, now conditions its support for Israel, its chief regional ally in that war, on the Jewish state’s willingness to release unrepentant, mass murdering terrorists back into Palestinian society.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it ought to go without saying that this policy hinders, rather than advances the cause of peace. It is impossible to rationally claim that by coercing Israel into releasing people like Juma Ibrahim Juma Adam and Mahmoud Salam Saliman Abu Karbish that the US is advancing the cause of peace.
In 1992, the two men firebombed a civilian bus, murdering Rachel Weiss , who was nine months pregnant, and three of her pre-school aged children, as well as IDF soldier David Delarosa, who tried to save them.
They were released on Monday, due to US pressure on Israel and received back home to heroes’ welcomes. Their freedom empowers Palestinians who reject Israel’s right to exist and seek its destruction through acts of genocide against its Jewish citizens.
Indeed, their release all but guarantees that the new round of terror war that Kerry threatened Israelis would break out if we aren’t forthcoming to PLO demands, will take place. In other words, by supporting the release of terrorists from prison, the US government is enabling the next round of the Palestinian terror war against Israel.
Beyond that, both the Palestinian demand for the terrorist releases, and the US support for those releases make a mockery of the whole concept of the two-state solution. A society that insists on the release from prison of its worst, most prolific murderers is not a society with any interest in making peace with the society targeted and victimized by their crimes.
And US support for this Palestinian demand puts paid to Kerry and President Barack Obama’s claims that they seek a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The Palestinians’ support for terrorists doesn’t merely demonstrate their ill-intentions. It shows that the whole peace process that has become the centerpiece of US Middle East policy is based on a fiction.
When Israel agreed to accept the PLO as its partner in peacemaking two decades ago, that agreement was predicated on the terror group’s pledge to abjure further terrorism and to cooperate with Israel in fighting and defeating terrorists within Palestinian society. Without that pledge Israel would never have agreed to recognize the PLO . And that pledge, as we were reminded yet again on Monday, was a complete lie.
Then there is the international legal aspect to the Palestinian demand for Israel to free terrorists, and to the US support for this demand. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires all states to “Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.”
So by sheltering terrorists the Palestinian Authority stands in breach of binding international law. And by supporting the PA ’s sheltering of those terrorists, by coercing Israel into releasing them, the US has placed itself in a deeply problematic position in relation to international law. It has also forced Israel into a deeply problematic position by bowing to the US demand to release them.
The Israeli public, rightly, views the release of Palestinian mass murderers as insane, dangerous and immoral. In a bid to placate public opinion, every time his government agrees to free terrorists from prison, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announces that he is approving another stage in a seemingly endless process of permitting Israeli Jews to build homes in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. At this point, few in Israel are won over by Netanyahu’s largely hollow, transparently opportunistic gesture.
But whereas few Israelis are convinced Netanyahu is sincere, internationally his action has the egregious effect of reinforcing the deeply hostile and widely held perception that there is moral equivalence between murdering Jews and permitting Jews to live near Arabs. Netanyahu’s political pandering is counterproductive.
But on Sunday the government took what may be the first productive action that Israel has taken toward the Palestinians since the onset of the phony peace process 20 years ago.
On Sunday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved a bill sponsored by Likud MK Miri Regev to apply Israeli law over the Jordan Valley.
The Jordan Valley protects Israel from invasion and other acts of aggression from the east. And since 1967, there has been a consensus among Israelis that the area must remain under Israel’s sovereign control in perpetuity. This position remains inarguable today in light of the PLO ’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Were Israel to transfer control over the Jordan Valley to the PLO , it would enable the Palestinians to collaborate with outside actors in the planning and execution of major acts of aggression against Israel. Safeguarding against such an eventuality by asserting Israel’s international legal right to sovereignty over the area is an eminently reasonable, and indeed required means of ensuring Israel’s long-term survivability.
On the face of it, it is the champions of Palestinian statehood, led by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who should be most in favor of applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley. Only by doing so does the two-state solution Livni has staked her career on have a chance of producing peace.
But of course, Livni and her colleagues on the far Left don’t see things this way. She and her comrades responded with apoplectic fits of rage at the cabinet committee’s vote, saying that Israel would be to blame for destroying the peace process.
Livni and her friends, of course, had not a word of criticism for Abbas and his followers for their unlawful championing of terrorist mass murderers.
She gave no indication that she views their continued support for Israel’s destruction as an obstacle to peace. Her wrath and that of her colleagues is reserved for Israeli elected officials who seek to safeguard Israel’s survival.
The media assures us that Netanyahu will bury the bill in governmental bureaucracy and proceed on course with further negotiations with the PLO , and further terrorist releases, in order to keep Kerry and Obama happy.
We must encourage the government to surprise the media.
Twenty years ago Israel crossed the Rubicon from strategic rationality into irrationality when we embraced the PLO and the chimerical twostate solution. This week’s cabinet decision was the first step in crossing back to the other side.
And we must work with our elected representatives to ensure that it is not an isolated event.
Additionally, a former PLO official recently acknowledged PA support for the Nazis
during World War II.
3) US-Saudi Relations: On the Verge of a Crisis?
Zaki Shalom, Yoel Guzansky - Jan 01, 2014
INSS Insight No. 504
On December 17, 2013, Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, published an exceptionally harsh op-ed in the New York Times about the policy of the Obama administration toward Iran and Syria. Until recently, signs of Saudi dissatisfaction with the administration’s Middle East policy came primarily from reports and news analyses. Of late, however, the Saudi government has become much less cautious about its public criticism of the United States.
US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (l) with Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Salman bin Sultan, Riyadh, December 9, 2013 Image Bank/Getty Images
Two days before the bin Nawaf article, the New York Times quoted Prince Turki al-Faisal - former Saudi ambassador to the United States and former head of Saudi intelligence - who has a senior unofficial status in the Saudi government, on the collapse of the red lines set by President Obama last year. According to al-Faisal, when the leader of the United States gives an assurance concerning red lines, the kingdom expects him “to stand by it,” particularly as “there is an issue of confidence.” The failure of the international community to stop the war in Syria is “almost a criminal negligence.” The prince referred explicitly to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, noting that “if the president retreats from his position on compromise along the 1967 borders, as he did on his red line on use of chemical weapons by Assad, then the whole enterprise of peace between the Arabs and Israel will evaporate.”
In his op-ed, bin Nawaf asserts that Saudi Arabia believes that Western policy toward Iran and Syria endangers the stability and security of the Middle East. He notes that “this is a dangerous gamble,” and therefore his country “cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by.” According to the ambassador, the crisis in Syria continues, with more than 100,000 civilians killed thus far. Even though the international community has made efforts to deprive the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad of weapons of mass destruction, the West must understand that the regime itself is the greatest source of mass murder: chemical weapons are only a small part of the Assad regime’s killing machine, and while Assad appears to be cooperating with international initiatives to bring the crisis to an end, the regime will in fact continue to work to the best of its ability to prevent a serious solution to the crisis.
The Assad regime, according to the ambassador, has been reinforced by Iranian troops in Syria. These troops have not entered the country in order to protect it from a hostile outside enemy, but are there in order to support an evil regime that is hurting the Syrian people. This is a typical pattern for Iran, which is supporting and training subversive elements in Iraq, Lebanon (Hizbollah), Yemen, and Bahrain. Nevertheless, Western states have chosen not to take the necessary steps against these countries. The West allows one regime (Syria) to continue to exist and the second (Iran) to continue its uranium enrichment program, with all the dangers this entails. The decisions made in Western capitals in this context endanger stability in the region, and potentially the security of the entire Arab world.
This, states the ambassador, leaves Saudi Arabia, more determined than ever to ensure the stability that the Middle East so desperately needs, no choice but to conduct a more assertive foreign policy in international affairs. Saudi Arabia has enormous responsibility in the region as the cradle of Islam and one of the most important states in the Arab world. The kingdom, as a major player in the global energy market, also has major economic and political responsibility. In addition, Saudi Arabia has humanitarian responsibility to do everything possible to bring about an end to the suffering in Syria.
The ambassador notes that Saudi Arabia showed willingness to act independently when it decided to reject a seat in the UN Security Council. Using sharp language, he criticized the UN’s ineffectiveness, particularly in Syria. What is the point, he asks, in joining an “international talking shop” when so many lives are threatened and when so many opportunities for a settlement have failed because of the UN’s inability to act? He makes it clear that Saudi Arabia will continue to demonstrate its determination by supporting the Free Syrian Army and Syrian opposition elements.
The op-ed does not mention President Obama, but it is clear that the criticism is directed mainly at him. The wording is rather blunt, at times even threatening. Publication of the article almost certainly indicates that Saudi Arabia realizes it will not succeed in bringing about a change in the Obama administration’s positions on Iran and Syria through the discrete action it has used until now. At the same time, the kingdom does not wish to bring about a major rupture with the Obama administration. While the article was written by a relatively low-level official, it clearly represents the positions of the regime. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia seeks to signal its serious distress vis-Ã -vis the West, but it does not actually wish to disengage from it - nor does it have a real ability to do so.
Israel is not mentioned in the article, which makes reference to the Saudi peace initiative as an example of the kingdom’s ability to pursue a bold, independent course of action and underlines that from the Saudi point of view, no option has been taken off the table. Was the ambassador hinting that there might be a change in the traditional Saudi position on the peace process and relations with Israel? He gave no details.
In context of the rift in Saudi-US relations, Saudi Arabia’s intention is to send a clear message, sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit, to the West in general, and the United States in particular. Saudi Arabia is very disappointed with the Obama administration’s conduct toward Syria and Iran. This conduct has created a crisis of confidence between the two countries, which until now were considered close allies, and the credibility of the US president is at stake. While Saudi Arabia has no interest in sparking a full-blown crisis in relations, it feels forced to issue an open, biting warning, after its efforts to bring about a change in US policy through less public channels were unsuccessful. The message conveyed is that Saudi Arabia has a central role in the Arab world, the Islamic world, and the international system, and the United States would do well not to test the kingdom’s determination to pursue an independent policy that is not necessarily comp
Zaki Shalom, Yoel Guzansky - Jan 01, 2014
INSS Insight No. 504
On December 17, 2013, Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, published an exceptionally harsh op-ed in the New York Times about the policy of the Obama administration toward Iran and Syria. Until recently, signs of Saudi dissatisfaction with the administration’s Middle East policy came primarily from reports and news analyses. Of late, however, the Saudi government has become much less cautious about its public criticism of the United States.US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (l) with Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Salman bin Sultan, Riyadh, December 9, 2013 Image Bank/Getty Images
Two days before the bin Nawaf article, the New York Times quoted Prince Turki al-Faisal - former Saudi ambassador to the United States and former head of Saudi intelligence - who has a senior unofficial status in the Saudi government, on the collapse of the red lines set by President Obama last year. According to al-Faisal, when the leader of the United States gives an assurance concerning red lines, the kingdom expects him “to stand by it,” particularly as “there is an issue of confidence.” The failure of the international community to stop the war in Syria is “almost a criminal negligence.” The prince referred explicitly to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, noting that “if the president retreats from his position on compromise along the 1967 borders, as he did on his red line on use of chemical weapons by Assad, then the whole enterprise of peace between the Arabs and Israel will evaporate.”
In his op-ed, bin Nawaf asserts that Saudi Arabia believes that Western policy toward Iran and Syria endangers the stability and security of the Middle East. He notes that “this is a dangerous gamble,” and therefore his country “cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by.” According to the ambassador, the crisis in Syria continues, with more than 100,000 civilians killed thus far. Even though the international community has made efforts to deprive the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad of weapons of mass destruction, the West must understand that the regime itself is the greatest source of mass murder: chemical weapons are only a small part of the Assad regime’s killing machine, and while Assad appears to be cooperating with international initiatives to bring the crisis to an end, the regime will in fact continue to work to the best of its ability to prevent a serious solution to the crisis.
The Assad regime, according to the ambassador, has been reinforced by Iranian troops in Syria. These troops have not entered the country in order to protect it from a hostile outside enemy, but are there in order to support an evil regime that is hurting the Syrian people. This is a typical pattern for Iran, which is supporting and training subversive elements in Iraq, Lebanon (Hizbollah), Yemen, and Bahrain. Nevertheless, Western states have chosen not to take the necessary steps against these countries. The West allows one regime (Syria) to continue to exist and the second (Iran) to continue its uranium enrichment program, with all the dangers this entails. The decisions made in Western capitals in this context endanger stability in the region, and potentially the security of the entire Arab world.
This, states the ambassador, leaves Saudi Arabia, more determined than ever to ensure the stability that the Middle East so desperately needs, no choice but to conduct a more assertive foreign policy in international affairs. Saudi Arabia has enormous responsibility in the region as the cradle of Islam and one of the most important states in the Arab world. The kingdom, as a major player in the global energy market, also has major economic and political responsibility. In addition, Saudi Arabia has humanitarian responsibility to do everything possible to bring about an end to the suffering in Syria.
The ambassador notes that Saudi Arabia showed willingness to act independently when it decided to reject a seat in the UN Security Council. Using sharp language, he criticized the UN’s ineffectiveness, particularly in Syria. What is the point, he asks, in joining an “international talking shop” when so many lives are threatened and when so many opportunities for a settlement have failed because of the UN’s inability to act? He makes it clear that Saudi Arabia will continue to demonstrate its determination by supporting the Free Syrian Army and Syrian opposition elements.
The op-ed does not mention President Obama, but it is clear that the criticism is directed mainly at him. The wording is rather blunt, at times even threatening. Publication of the article almost certainly indicates that Saudi Arabia realizes it will not succeed in bringing about a change in the Obama administration’s positions on Iran and Syria through the discrete action it has used until now. At the same time, the kingdom does not wish to bring about a major rupture with the Obama administration. While the article was written by a relatively low-level official, it clearly represents the positions of the regime. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia seeks to signal its serious distress vis-Ã -vis the West, but it does not actually wish to disengage from it - nor does it have a real ability to do so.
Israel is not mentioned in the article, which makes reference to the Saudi peace initiative as an example of the kingdom’s ability to pursue a bold, independent course of action and underlines that from the Saudi point of view, no option has been taken off the table. Was the ambassador hinting that there might be a change in the traditional Saudi position on the peace process and relations with Israel? He gave no details.
In context of the rift in Saudi-US relations, Saudi Arabia’s intention is to send a clear message, sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit, to the West in general, and the United States in particular. Saudi Arabia is very disappointed with the Obama administration’s conduct toward Syria and Iran. This conduct has created a crisis of confidence between the two countries, which until now were considered close allies, and the credibility of the US president is at stake. While Saudi Arabia has no interest in sparking a full-blown crisis in relations, it feels forced to issue an open, biting warning, after its efforts to bring about a change in US policy through less public channels were unsuccessful. The message conveyed is that Saudi Arabia has a central role in the Arab world, the Islamic world, and the international system, and the United States would do well not to test the kingdom’s determination to pursue an independent policy that is not necessarily comp
.jpg)
.jpg)
;
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
