Credit to Rush for this....
RUSH: The biggest story of the day, to me, is the official loss of United States sovereignty. And by that I mean the United Nations Security Council has endorsed the United States and the other five nations involved in this Iran nuclear deal before the United States Congress has weighed in on it. The Obama administration purposely fast tracked this deal up to the UN Security Council and our ambassadorette up there, what's her name, Samantha Power.
"UN Security Council unanimously endorses the landmark nuclear deal established between Iran and six world powers in a first step toward ending UN sanctions on the country's economy." That's a Fox News story. You don't even see the words "United States" or "America" in this opening paragraph. "The UN Security Council unanimously endorses the landmark nuclear deal established between Iran and six world powers." Six world powers, of which we happen to be, I guess, fortunately still one of them.
Now, listen. Here's Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin is a Democrat senator from Maryland. He was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Chris Wallace says, "The United Nations is gonna consider a resolution this week on whether or not to approve the Iran deal. You've sent a letter to the president saying that Congress should go first before the UN. Given the fact that even if the UN approves the deal there's a 60 to 90-day delay, you're gonna have to decide yes or no. What difference does it make who goes first and is the fact that the White House is insisting on taking it to the UN before Congress votes, will that alienate Democrats who might vote against the president?"
CARDIN: I don't know why they're going to the United Nations. I think they should have gone to the United Nations after the 60-day review. They don't gain anything by doing it earlier. I think it is not consistent with Iranian Review Act, so that's why I joined Senator Corker and urged the president to reconsider and wait 'til after the 60-day period. It doesn't take effect 'til 90 days after the UN acts.
RUSH: This is a member of Obama's own party questioning why he went to the UN first. Isn't it obvious why he went to the UN first. Why did he go to the UN first, Snerdley? (interruption) Right, well, not just to build unbeatable support, but this is to obviate and render needless and irrelevant the United States Congress. 'Cause what do you think those mealy mouths are gonna do once the UN's passed it? I can't see a bunch of Democrat senators standing up.
The Corker bill is an absolute disaster anyway. The Corker bill turns the treaty ratification process upside down and inside out. The Corker bill is an absolute joke. If this isn't a treaty, I don't know what's a treaty. This is a treaty, although it's not a treaty. It's some sort of executive whatever the hell. But it's a treaty. Standard operating procedure in the old days up to Obama, this is a treaty, and the US Senate ratifies treaties by two-thirds vote.
Well, what the Corker bill does is basically just the opposite. The Corker bill requires two-thirds of the Congress to vote against it. It's convoluted. It's an absolute -- and all the signatories of the Corker bill, or many of them, are now feigning ignorant. "Well, we didn't know." What do you mean you didn't know? This is a huge deal. The Regime takes their agreement with Iran to the United Nations specifically to do an end run around the US Congress, to make the US Congress irrelevant. Not only irrelevant, but appear irrelevant to this whole thing. So now the UN endorses it, happily, and with great fanfare. So what's the US Congress supposed to do?
Here's CBS News, the way they treat it. "The UN Security Council scheduled a vote for first thing Monday morning on a resolution endorsing the Iran nuclear deal. ... Monday's vote will come despite calls from some US lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until Congress reviews the deal. The resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law," you see, not a United States agreement or treaty with Iran. Which is a big deal if the next president wants to unwind this. Since it has become international law, it is a much more complicated process to rip this thing apart and withdraw it than if it were just a US treaty.
"The resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the US Congress' consideration." Just an empty, empty gesture if there ever was one. "While Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next." Thanks to the Corker bill. The Corker bill sets this thing up so that they need a veto-proof vote in order to deny this thing happening. And it sets it up so that they can't get there.
I'm telling you, it's convoluted. This UN vote, it's just more pressure to make sure this thing happens, to make sure the US Congress doesn't have a role in it. I think it's designed to put pressure on many in Congress. In fact, I'll tell you what I. I think the UN, going to the UN first is a way to give US congressmen and senators a way to get off the hook. You know what I would compare this to? It's not the best analogy but off the top of my head it's what I can come up with on the fly here.
Remember all those base closings that started back in the 1980s? If you don't, what basically happened was that we had some surplus money. We didn't have enough money, depending on the time of year, the time of the decade. It was determined that we had a lot of waste in military bases that were no longer needed, so it was time to close some of them.
Well, members of Congress did not want their fingerprints on it. They didn't want their names associated with the closures because that would not be cool with the voters in the district where the base happens to be closed. So they went out and they formed a whole bunch of blue ribbon panels, and they found X members of Congress and other so-called distinguished figures to come in and do blue ribbon panel hearings, conduct hearings on which bases to close.
And then the blue ribbon panel -- and there were a number of them over the years -- voted on which bases to close, allowing members of Congress in districts where bases were closed to say, "I don't know a thing about this. I had nothing to do with it. Uh, that was the base closure committee that shut down our beloved military base. I want to assure you I'm gonna do everything in my power to make sure this doesn't happen," and that was the end of it.
Well, this UN deal is kind of like that. Since the UN's voted on it, it gives members of Congress a chance to say, "There's nothing we can do now. We're off the hook. We don't have to stand up and vote against it because the world has already approved it." And that's what it was designed for, and there's no other way to look at this other than as a direct assault on US sovereignty. I don't know how else to describe this. But this is where it gets tough for me, folks, because I'm not surprised. And I still don't think you've seen half of what's coming between now and the end of this administration.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
Listen to John Kerry, Face the Nation yesterday, "Senator, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support this deal, does that undermine the deal with Iran?"
KERRY: No, not in the least. I mean, the Con... They don't care over there whether it's a majority or minority or whatever it is, as long as the deal is implemented, and that's what we care about, that this deal be implemented. We'd love to see the Congress listen carefully, and we're gonna go up there and we're gonna --
RUSH: Did you hear this?
KERRY: -- meet with people, and we're gonna do our utmost to persuade people.
RUSH: Well, wait. Stop the tape. What about the Corker deal? What about the Corker deal? The Corker deal doesn't matter. You just heard John Kerry say the Iranians don't care whether Congress approves it or not, they just want it implemented. And it's the same with us. We'd like the Congress to like it, but they don't, big (raspberry) deal.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Say, I'm sure many of you remember the Kyoto protocol. It's a global warming thing. The Kyoto protocol. Bill Clinton wanted the United States to be part of the United Nations Kyoto protocol. Kyoto, Japan. It was a severe restriction in carbon dioxide emissions. It was all designed to save the world from the ravages of climate change. Well, back then it was called global warming.
And what happened? Remember what happened? Clinton signed the treaty. He signed the Kyoto protocol and sent it to the United Nations after the Senate had already rejected it, and the Senate rejected it 95-0, but the Senate went first. The United States Senate voted 95-0 because it was an economic growth killer. It was a bad deal. The Senate rejected it, and only because of the Senate rejection the US has never had to abide by the Kyoto protocols.
It didn't matter what the UN did. The UN authorized it and a bunch of signatories signed it. But the United States Senate rejected it, which meant we were not required to abide by it. That's what Obama has just circumvented here. This is probably why Obama went to the United Nations first, doing things differently. Not calling it a treaty so it doesn't have to be ratified. Sending it to the United Nations first. All of this is to circumvent the US Constitution. All of this is to circumvent the will of the American people, as expressed by their elected officials.
Obama's not totally to blame here because he knows over on this hand he's got the Corker bill, and the Corker bill is designed to give Obama what he wants. It's the most amazing sellout that you could ever imagine. It makes opposing this thing practically impossible. It turns the Senate treaty ratification process upside down. Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee. Now, he's one of these many people running around saying (imitating Corker), "Hey, they didn't tell us that it was gonna be no inspections, and they didn't tell us it was gonna be --" sorry, you know, ignorance is no excuse, not for a member of the US Congress who has access to this stuff.
I mean, to me this is the story of the day because it's symbolic, emblematic of what has been happening with this administration from the get-go and what's ahead of us. Call it globalization or whatever, this country is being cut down to size to the point that it is no different than any other nation on the face of the earth, and in fact, given the current leadership, this country may be in lower standings that many nations because this is an administration which thinks that this is a country ladled with guilt over transgressions that have occurred since our founding.
I want you to listen to Senator Kerry again. This is from Face the Nation yesterday. John Dickerson, replaced Bob Schieffer, said, "Secretary Kerry, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support the Iranian nuclear deal, doesn't that undermine it?" Now, see, if this were a treaty, if this were being done constitutionally, this would be a treaty, the Senate would have full ratification authority. There's no veto of a treaty that fails to ratify. Overriding it? That's the point of it. Because all of that has been obviated.
So now we got the Corker deal over here and Obama knows he's got that. And so now this question, this question's even unbelievable. "Secretary Kerry, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support the deal, doesn't that undermine it?" It damn well should, right there in Constitution, comma, United States. I want you to listen again to Lurch's answer to this. "Senator Kerry, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support the deal, doesn't that undermine the deal?"
KERRY: No, not in the least. I mean, the Con... They don't care over there whether it's a majority or minority or whatever it is, as long as the deal is implemented, and that's what we care about, that this deal be implemented. We'd love to see the Congress listen carefully, and we're gonna go up there and we're gonna meet with people, and we're gonna do our utmost to persuade people. But no, I don't think that undermines this deal.
RUSH: They don't care over there what the US Congress thinks of it. He's talking about Iran. They don't care. They're in bed with Iran. They partnered up with Iran. The United States Congress is either nonexistent or enemy. No, not in the least, the Congress, they don't care over there whether it's majority or minority, whatever it is. The mullahs don't care, as long as it's implemented. It should not be able to be implemented if the Congress doesn't approve it or ratify it.
"But, Rush, but, Rush, the United Nations already has." That's exactly right. So long as the deal's implemented, they don't care over there about the Congress, and Kerry's essentially saying he and Obama don't, either. 'Cause he said they don't care over there whether it's majority or minority. They just care whether it's implemented, and that's what we care about, that the deal be implemented. We'd love to see Congress listen carefully and support it, but if they don't, so freaking what. And that's where we are. To me this is the story of the day. And it's just being treated as a ho-hummer in the New York Times. In fact, it's worse than a ho-hummer.
The New York Time is gloating about how skillfully and sneaky Obama has been able to get this done. The New York Times website this morning, dig down under stories about everything else going on, you'll find one link, a one-line link. "UN Vote on Nuclear Deal Irks Congress." And then be you read down to a passing reference in paragraph four to find the real story, which is the Obama administration's already raced to the UN Security Council to spearhead action today that would adopt Obama's Iran deal on a resolution that will begin the deal's implementation.
And the Times sort of celebrates that this has left Congress kind of irked, that lawmakers of both parties are complaining the Security Council action preempts them. And the Times is kind of chuckling about it. Aw, poor little Congress got its feelings hurt because Obama didn't go talk to them first. But that's not the point. It's the Constitution. Andy McCarthy here writes: "The capacity of the American people to determine their own national interests are being torn apart."
And then, over the weekend, the Ayatollah Khamenei led more chants "Death to America." He led chants and "Death to America." You know what else the Ayatollah Khamenei said? The Ayatollah Khamenei said (imitating Khamenei), "This deal is not gonna change Iranian policy with the United States. We're not gonna stop our relationships in the region," meaning funding terrorism, with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians, whoever else. "We haven't changed a whit. We still hate the Israelis and we want to wipe 'em off the map. This deal doesn't change policy with the United States at all. In fact, this deal is with six different countries. This has nothing to do about US-Iranian relations."
Here we all are thinking this is a deal between us and Iran with these mini-superpowers thrown in. And then we stop to realize, "You know what? The Ayatollah Khamenei's right. We didn't get diddly-squat. We didn't get a retraction from their promise to wipe us out. We didn't get a retraction from their promise to wipe out the Israelis. We did not get inspections." And, by the way, John Kerry's running around now saying (paraphrasing), "I don't know where this anytime, anywhere verification stuff started. It's never been the case anywhere in the world any time. There's never been anytime, anywhere verification. I don't know where this got started. We never promised that."
Yes, they did. They sure as heck did. The Ayatollah Khamenei did not say that he was gonna release these four American prisoners. This has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear deal. Nothing whatsoever to do with our policy toward the evil Satan, isn't gonna change. How many Americans do you think actually believe that part of the Iranian nuke deal was concessions from Iran limiting their behavior as bad guys?
How many Americans, even the low-information crowd, I would think that even most in the low-information crowd think -- what do they know? They know that Iran is a bad power, that they sponsor terrorism. That may be the extent of it. They know, because they pay halfway attention, they know that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would not be good. And they also probably realize that most of the world's on record as wishing Iran didn't get one. And then they probably remember various presidents and candidates assuring us that Iran would not get one on their watch. And all of a sudden Obama announces we've got a deal with Iran, and he says they promised not to do nukes.
The low-information crowd probably figures that Iran made a lot of concessions. And I'll guarantee they still think that, even though nothing of the sort has occurred. There's a video here, Secretary of State Kerry saying it would be presumptuous to go to Congress before the UN. Did you hear that? This is on ABC News, he was talking to the ABC News info guy Jon Karl. He said (paraphrasing), "The bottom line, the UN's gonna vote on this before Congress gets to vote on this?" I mean, even some of the Drive-Bys are a little perplexed by this. Kerry said, "Well, you know, they have a right to do that. It's presumptuous to some people to say that France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, ought to do what the Congress tells 'em to do. They have a right to --"
So Kerry's view is, it is damn presumptuous of the US Congress to think they have a right to go first here. Who are they to tell the French and the Brits, everybody else, what they have to do? John Kerry said (imitating Kerry), "Do you realize how presumptuous it is for us to think that we're the superpower here? What gives us the right to tell these other nations how to vote? We don't have a duty to go to our Congress first. We should go to the UN first. That's the governing body here," and it is, folks.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I have some e-mails during the break from people who want some clarification on this whole ratification process being obviated and turned over to the UN in conjunction with the Corker bill, and I will do that. Just hang in there, be tough. We got a couple hours left in the program, and I promise that I will get to that. I'm basically just gonna give you a little bit more detail about what's already gone down.
I found some quotes from the Iranian foreign minister, the counterpart to Lurch, John Kerry, who negotiated this thing, and he's been telegraphing all along what the scheme is here. His name Mohammad Javad Zarif. And, you know, the Iranians have been so happy during this. They're the ones that have been telling everybody the truth about what's in the deal. The Iranians have been so happy. They've been bragging about it. I mean, from Rouhani to the Ayatollah Khamenei, to Mohammad Javad Zarif, their negotiator, they've been so happy at every stage.
They have been divulging the details of this all along, and at one point not long ago, the Iranian foreign minister said that the deal, at the time it was under negotiation, quote, "Will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the United States. Instead it will be a deal concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the UN Security Council and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution."
He said that Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement. The Iranian foreign minister was telling everybody who would listen, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement, according to international law. This whole thing was done under the imprimatur of granting that the UN sets international law and this was something that took place under already-agreed-to stipulations, that the United States agrees and recognizes the UN's role in international law, and this all took place underneath that umbrella.
The Iranian foreign minister said, for Congress to modify the terms of the agreement would be a material breach of US obligations, rendering America a global outlaw. That's from the Iranian foreign minister. The US would be a global outlaw if Congress attempted to change the deal in any way. So the stunt essentially is with Obama and Iran. They don't need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the UN charter. And in ratifying the UN charter, they have agreed to honor all the Security Council resolutions there are, and therefore we don't need new statutes, i.e., American law, because the Congress, in enacting Iran sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to wave those sanctions.
So, all we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress' existing sanctions laws with Obama's waiver. The other countries involved in negotiations -- Germany, Russia, China -- will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The whole thing has been a designed end run around Congress from the beginning. It was aided and assisted by the Corker bill.
The Corker bill was not just the Corker bill. The Corker bill was pushed through the Congress, eagerly supported and whipped into reality, not only by Corker, but by John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And the Corker bill supports the Obama scheme. And that scheme ends with international law superseding the Constitution, which is exactly what the Iranian foreign minister, Zarif, gave voice to, and that Obama and the American left happily agrees with.
Now, a lot of people, "What do you mean, the Corker bill supports Obama's Iran deal? I thought the Corker bill was to subject the Iran deal to congressional scrutiny?" Well that's not what the Corker bill does. If the Corker bill did that, it wouldn't be needed. The Constitution already provides for what people think the Corker bill is. The Constitution already provides for Senate advice, consent, ratification, what have you. The Corker bill would just be redundant, if that's what it did. That's not what the Corker bill does.
The Corker bill says it fully endorses all aspects of the Iran deal except the permanent lifting of congressional sanctions. The Corker bill clearly says, quote, "It does not require a vote by Congress for the agreement to commence." Well, then why the hell have it? Well, the Corker bill provides for congressional review on statutory sanctions relief.
So if you are a lawmaker who voted for the Corker bill, you voted to allow Obama to go ahead with every facet of his Iran deal, not just the narrow aspect of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program enacted by Congress. Meaning that the administration will plausibly contend that with the Corker bill you authorize Obama to go ahead and lift sanctions that were not imposed by statute.
What needs to be happening, all these clowns, Lindsey Graham and McCain and Corker and everybody who signed on to this thing, what needs to be happening here is every one who signed the Corker bill or trumpeted the Corker bill or hailed the Corker bill, they all need to be asked, "If you didn't want Obama to go to the Security Council before Congress could review the deal, why did you vote in the Corker bill to allow the deal to commence without a vote from Congress? Did you know the Corker bill does that?"
The Corker bill, which most people think is the Congress asserting itself to stop the deal, or giving itself the opportunity to stop the deal, the Corker bill allows the deal to commence without a vote from Congress. And then the voting procedure that the Corker bill contains to stop the bill turns the whole treaty voting process 180 degrees out of phase. The president doesn't get a veto in a treaty. The Corker bill gives him a veto of whatever they do. It is absurd.
END TRANSCRIPT
No comments:
Post a Comment