Debunked Joe Biden: We have an erratic, crazy president who knows not a damn thing about foreign policy.Barack Obama Was a Foreign-Policy Failure

Final Presidential Debate 2012 Complete – Mitt Romney, Barack Obama on Foreign Policy

The 44th president of the United States promised to bring change but mostly drove the country deeper into a ditch. Obama’s foreign policy is a mess, says the New York Times.

Despite replete evidence of the mendacity of our foes and the recalcitrance of the Palestinian Authority, President Obama operates in his own world. The result is an America that appears off-kilter, unreliable and weak. Consider:

President Obama (R) meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) in the White House on Monday. (EPA/ALEX WONG / AFP)
President Obama (R) meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) in the White House on Monday. (EPA/ALEX WONG / AFP)

The president praises Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to recognize the Jewish state or give up the right of return, has refused to hold elections, continues to honor terrorists and has no succession plan. He seems to willfully ignore the PA’s limited desire to make anything approaching a deal with the Jewish state.

While Obama and his secretary of state expend endless hours on the moribund “peace process,” the most urgent issue, Iran’s determination to possess a nuclear weapons capability, is unmatched by the administration’s desire to prevent it. The administration continues to pine for a deal with Iran while it pursues illicit nuclear materials.

As for Russia, the president enacts minor sanctions against discrete Russian officials, forgoing any meaningful economic sanctions. He continues to talk endlessly to Russian President Vladimir Putin, apparently convinced he can talk reason to the brutal despot; Putin in turn shows no sign that he cares what Obama says.  The president continues to make empty statements and unconvincing threats, sounding like he expects Russia to understand its invasion is a mistake — by Putin.

(“Further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world.”) Putin responds by recognizing Crimea as an independent state, the first step toward annexation.

The New York Times delivers a blunt assessment to the White House and its readers: This is a disastrous foreign policy in which mistake follows mistake:Sanctions and modest help to the Syrian rebels have failed to halt the slaughter; if anything, the killing worsened as negotiations dragged on.

The White House was taken by surprise by Vladimir V. Putin’s decisions to invade Crimea,

but also by China’s increasingly assertive declaration of exclusive rights to airspace and barren islands.

Neither the economic pressure nor the cyberattacks that forced Iran to reconsider its approach have prevented North Korea’s stealthy revitalization of its nuclear and missile programs. . . .

But the most stinging critique of Mr. Obama is that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of nonintervention. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, argues that five years of signaling that others need to step in, of stressing that America can no longer police the world, have taken a toll

And freed from the propaganda bubble of the White House in which no one dares tell the president his foreign policy is in ruins, ex-officials confide that “Mr. Obama erred in failing to have a plan to back up his declaration that President Bashar al-Assad had to leave office.” Maybe they could confide what problems ensued and why that poses a threat to U.S. credibility around the globe. It might be a public service to inform the public and policymakers how this has adversely affected our ability to cope with Russia and Syria.

Most damaging, our allies have lost faith in the administration and complain openly. “Israelis worry there is diminished interest in keeping American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and fear that if a nuclear deal is struck with Iran,

Washington will no longer anchor an alliance to contain Tehran. The Saudis are talking anew about the possibility of needing a nuclear deterrent of their own. . . .   The ‘pivot to Asia,’ which has been slow to materialize, was supposed to be emblematic of a new combination of soft and hard power; it was as much about building trade relationships as making it clear to the Chinese leadership that America has no intention of ceding the East and South China Seas as areas where Beijing could expect to become the sole power.” (Like Walter Cronkite and LBJ, when Obama loses the New York Times, it might be time to rethink things.)

In short, just about every conservative criticism of the administration is now conventional wisdom about the president’s shortcomings. Congress can only do so much. Our allies can only do so much. Ultimately, however, if the president is misguided and wholly unwilling to recognize a series of debacles, bad things will happen in the world. The question remains whether the president will do anything to stop the drift. If not, by the end of the term, the Russia empire will be on the march, Iran may be a nuclear-capable state, China will have intimidated our allies and both democracy and stability in the Middle East will be hobbled. As bad as Obamacare may be, it is exquisite public policy compared to the foreign policy mess.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/17/obamas-foreign-policy-is-a-mess-says-the-new-york-times/

Tlaib: Dems Have Discussed Arresting White House Officials Who Refuse to Comply With Subpoenas, Claim Debunked!

Freshman Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MN) told the Deadline Detroit that House Democrats have talked about arresting and detaining members of President Donald Trump’s administration who fail to comply with congressional subpoenas. While this is something Democrats are contemplating, Tlaib said this is “uncharted territory.”

“If they were to detain someone, where would they go and have them detained so that they can comply with the subpoenas?” Tlaib said. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/10/13/tlaib-dems-have-discussed-arresting-white-house-officials-who-refuse-to-comply-w-n2554645

1. Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

Eric Holder refuses to provide subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents

The investigation of the botched Fast & Furious investigation is perhaps the most significant example of the Obama administration using executive privilege to justify their refusal to cooperate with an investigation. Holder refused to provide subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The blatant attempts by the administration to resist cooperating with the investigation ultimately led to a historic vote to hold Attorney General Holder in criminal contempt.

2. Lois Lerner refuses to testify on IRS targeting

Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS when they were inappropriately targeting conservative and tea party groups, appeared before Congress in May 2013. She gave a statement but refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. Republicans called her back in March 2014, when she pulled the same stunt. At the time, Rep. Elijah Cummings blasted Republicans for wanting to question Lerner. Today, Cummings is the House Oversight and Reform Chairman and has a much different attitude about Congress’s role of oversight when it comes to Trump.

3. Ben Rhodes not allowed to testify on Iran Nuclear Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal was so bad Obama didn’t even try to get Senate ratification for it, and much of the negotiations were done without Congress being informed. When Congressional Republicans wanted to get answers after Ben Rhodes (the failed novelist turned Obama speechwriter turned top foreign policy adviser to Obama) let it spill to the New York Times that the administration relied on a false narrative to sell the Iran deal to the public, the White House wouldn’t let him testify, using the “separation of powers” excuse. “Specifically, the appearance of a senior presidential adviser before Congress threatens the independence and autonomy of the president, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties,” explained White House counsel Neil Eggleston. This was after the White House previously claimed they wouldn’t hide behind executive privilege.

4. Treasury officials blocked from testifying on Obamacare subsidies

When Obama started making all sorts of unilateral (and illegal) changes to Obamacare, Republicans were none too happy about the abuse of power. When Obama’s IRS decided to expand Obamacare subsidies to be used in federal exchanges in addition to state exchanges, the Obama administration refused to allow Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule changing process, using the excuse that the issue was soon to be decided in the Supreme Court.

5. White House refuses to allow political director to testify

In 2014, Democratic operatives were concerned that the Obama White House wasn’t doing enough to help in the forthcoming midterms. In response to these concerns, Obama launched the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. This raised eyebrows for some, who were concerned that Obama and his minions were using White House resources for political activity. So, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began investigating in order to make sure the White House was complying with civil services laws designed to prevent executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. David Simas, the director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach was subpoenaed, but the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. In a letter to Congress,  White House Counsel Neil Eggleston claimed Simas was “immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties” and thus would not appear before the committee.

Justice Kagan’s Obamacare conflict on interest

Prior to being nominated as a justice for the  Supreme Court, Elena Kagan served as solicitor general for the Obama administration, during which time she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare. This conflict of interest was important, since issues revolving around Obamacare would be going before the Supreme Court. Federal law dictates that Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves when their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

Naturally, the Obama administration didn’t want Kagan to recuse herself from any Obamacare-related cases. So, when the House Judiciary Committee requested documents and interviews to get a clear understanding of her role relating to Obamacare while she was solicitor general, the Obama/Holder Justice Department refused to comply. When Eric Holder testified before the committee he claimed to have no knowledge of the request.

7. Refusal to provide subpoenaed Solyndra documents

Remember the Solyndra scandal? The Obama administration wasn’t exactly interested in letting Congress exercise their oversight responsibilities when they investigated how the Obama administration could have given them a huge loan when they were going bankrupt. When House Republicans subpoenaed documents for their investigation, the Obama White House fired back claiming their request would put an “unreasonable burden on the president’s ability to meet his constitutional duties.” House Republicans accused the Obama White House of hiding information, and they responded with accusations of a partisan investigation.

8. Refusing to let the White House social secretary testify on party crashers scandal

In 2009, two party crashers successfully got by the Secret Service during a state dinner, succeeding in meeting and shaking hands with Barack Obama. Congress investigated the breach in security, but when White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers was asked to testify before Congress, the White House refused to let her testify. Obama’s press secretary explained during a press briefing that  “…based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress.” That explanation was questioned by legal scholars. “I’d completely fall out of my chair if they invoked Executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party,” explained Mark J. Rozell, a public-policy professor at George Mason and expert on executive privilege. For what was arguably a very nonpartisan investigation (and led by Democrats) it certainly makes you wonder what the Obama White House was hiding.

9. Fighting subpoenas in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation investigation

When the Obama administration inexplicably dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia, many questions were asked as to why. The NBPP had dressed in paramilitary uniforms outside of polling places in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, and the case against them, which was started by the Bush administration, and the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges. Former Justice Department attorney (and current PJ Media contributor J. Christian Adams) quit his position in the Justice Department to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the case and confirmed the racial motivation behind the decision to drop the case against them.

Of course, an investigation was launched, which the Obama administration fought rigorously. The investigation was stonewalled, subpoenas were fought, and key players were instructed not to testify. https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/