A one-topic blog: how is it that the most imminent and lethal implication for humankind - the fact that the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" will not work with Iran - is not being discussed in our media? Until it is recognized that MAD is dead, the Iranian threat will be treated as a threat only to Israel and not as the global threat which it in fact is.
A blog by Mladen Andrijasevic
Monday, June 9, 2014
Enabling Iran's Nuclear Program while Vowing to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
Iran's Nuclear Program while Vowing to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear
president and his subordinates have engaged in diplomatic negotiations that
facilitate Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons despite his oft-repeated public
pledge that the United States, under his leadership, would prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he and his administration have
concealed from the American people an agreement with the Iranian government - a
longtime, avowed enemy of the American people - about how a "Plan of
Action" enabling Iran to enrich uranium will be implemented.
turned a deaf ear to the Iranian people in 2009 when they were being crushed
while attempting to rise up against their totalitarian regime - the leading
state sponsor of jihadist terror - President Obama reached out in 2013 to the
Iran's regime new front man, President Hassan Rouhani.
prior public assurances that the United States, under his leadership, would
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the president and his subordinates
have entered an "interim" agreement with the Iranian regime that
enables Iran to continue enriching uranium. The express concession that Iran
may enrich uranium guts years of UN Security Council resolutions against Iran's
uranium enrichment activities. It further concedes the Iranian government's
claimed right to enrich uranium.
government aptly regards this agreement as a “surrender” by the United States.
Rouhani publicly boasted in a tweet that “world powers surrendered to Iranian
nation’s will." Moreover, Iran’s
foreign minister insists that, contrary to Obama administration claims,
the regime “did not agree to dismantle
anything” in its nuclear or ballistic program.
In November 2013,
the president and his subordinates and the administrations of five other major
nations, struck a “Joint Plan of Action” with Iran, which was released
publicly. But the president and his subordinates also agreed to a side deal
with Iran regarding how the “Joint Plan of Action” would be implemented. The
Iranians maintain that if the people want to know what the side deal actually
says, they should read the text. The president and his subordinates, however,
have refused to publish the text to the American people – releasing only a
“summary,” which the Iranian maintain is inaccurate. It is known that Iran was
required to make no concessions regarding is promotion of revolutionary
jihadist terror – the chief reason why it its acquiring nuclear weapons is not
Andrew McCarthy’s points on Iran are similar to my own
my new book, which Encounter Books will release this week, is about how the
Framers of our Constitution fully anticipated that a president could fail to
honor his core duty to execute the laws faithfully — could fail to meet his
basic fiduciary obligations to the American people.
the Obama presidency through the prism of these constitutional norms,Faithless
Execution argues that we are experiencing a different kind of
presidential lawlessness than our nation has ever known: a systematic
undermining of our governing framework, willfully carried out by a president
who made no secret of his intention to “fundamentally transform the United
States of America.”
is the president trying to transform?
the constitutional framework he is undermining enshrines two core principles:
separation-of-powers and accountability.
first is the foundation of a free society. President Obama presumes the power
to decree, amend, and repeal laws as he sees fit, effectively claiming all
government power as his own. But as James Madison, the principal author of our
Constitution, put it, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive,
and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” And so it is.
the second constitutional principle at issue, is how our system holds a
president singularly responsible for executive lawlessness. The Constitution
vests all executive power in a lone elected official — the president. Not in
the broad, dizzying array of executive-branch agencies; in the
that if the IRS harasses the president’s political opposition in violation of
their First Amendment rights; or if the Justice Department recklessly
orchestrates the transfer of thousands of guns to violent Mexican gangs,
resulting in the murder of a Border Patrol agent; or if administration
officials willfully defraud the American people about the cause of the Benghazi
massacre or about being able to keep their health insurance; it is the
president whom our Constitution holds responsible. Not Lois Lerner or
Susan Rice. Not Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, or Eric
Shinseki. The president.
president does not get to vote “present.” The Constitution does not permit him
to be a mere spectator to abuses of power by his subordinates. It holds the
president accountable, whether he quietly engineered the administration’s
lawlessness or stood idly by while others ran amok.
subtitle of Faithless Execution — “Building the Political Case
for Obama’s Impeachment” — has caused something of a stir. But any serious
discussion of these issues has to consider impeachment. As a number of legal
scholars testified at a congressional hearing late
last year, impeachment was quite intentionally included by the Framers as the
ultimate check against presidential lawlessness.
is where “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes in.
Execution recounts, at the time of the constitutional convention in
Philadelphia, this standard was well established in British law. The Framers
thus borrowed it in order to address not only intentional abuses of power but
gross negligence or incompetence.
to popular belief, the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to
ordinary crimes. It does not mean a president has to be indictable before he is
removable. Instead, high crimes and misdemeanors are the political
wrongs of high executive officials in whom great public trust is
it is all about separation-of-powers and accountability. The idea is that the
president is fully responsible: not just for criminal acts, but for abuses of
power committed by himself and his subordinates — abuses of power that very
much include misleading the public and stonewalling Congress.