Presumptuous Politics : Feb 26, 2015

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Difference Cartoon

Iran hangs Obama in effigy even as it negotiates nuclear deal with US

Just weeks before Secretary of State John Kerry held new nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, Iranians were hanging Kerry's boss in effigy at a huge Tehran-sponsored rally marking the Islamic Revolution’s 36^th anniversary, an event that critics say underscores the absurdity of the ongoing diplomatic effort.
The U.S. and Iran are trying to reach a final nuclear agreement by a March 31 deadline against a backdrop of ongoing anti-American hatred in the Islamic republic. Photos posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week show Iranians marching in front of a display depicting President Obama hanging from a gallows and carrying signs of Kerry, portrayed as a devious fox.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took part in the Feb. 11 Revolution Day, which commemorates the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-assisted Shah of Iran. The Iranians, as they have in past, chanted, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They also burned and trampled an American flag.

“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism.”- Ali Alfoneh, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

MEMRI said other photos from the rally show Iranians waving posters of Obama looking like Pinocchio.
The U.S. and other superpowers want to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear intentions are peaceful, a claim that experts dismiss.
“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism,” said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
Alfoneh said Iran’s 'anti-Americanism' gives the country some degree of legitimacy in the Muslim world.
“They’re using their hatred of America and their promotion of hatred of America to take over the mantel of leadership in the Muslim world,” he said.
“This of course to me shows that even if a nuclear deal is reached between Iran and the U.S. it does not necessarily mean that Iran is going to change its ideological fundamental line against the U.S.”
The Iran expert said the Feb. 11 rally doesn’t necessarily mean Iran doesn’t want a nuclear deal.
“But what they are demonstrating is that if there is a deal they are not going to change their view of the U.S. as an enemy,” Alfoneh said.
Another Iran expert, Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the Revolution Day footage indicates that Iran still views the U.S. as the main enemy.
“And that is not going to change even if we make a deal,” Berman said. He said the problem for the White House is the expectation that a deal on the nuclear front will lead to a broader reconciliation with Iran, which is not going to happen.
“What you have is an unreconstructed revolutionary regime and they’re not interested in relations with the U.S. in a long-term, meaningful way,” Berman said.
For months now, the U.S. and the world’s other superpowers have been trying to hammer out a deal with Iran that would freeze the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for a period of time. In exchange the U.S. would lift billions of dollars in sanctions that have damaged Iran’s economy. Last weekend Kerry flew to Geneva to join the negotiations and then on Tuesday went to Capitol Hill to make his case for a deal with Congress.
Also Tuesday an Iranian opposition group urged inspection of an "underground top-secret site" outside Tehran that it said was being used to enrich uranium intended for nuclear weapons beyond the detection of U.N. inspectors.
MEMRI said the day before Iran’s Revolution Day, the Facebook page of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called on Iranians to participate to show the U.S. that sanctions had not harmed the country.
"A U.S. official said that sanctions have trapped Iranians; On (Feb. 11) they will receive a decisive answer, God willing," Khamenei said in his call-to-action poster.
MEMRI that at a Revolution Day event in Kermanshah, Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi called the U.S. and the other superpowers at the nuclear talks—Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, the 5 + 1 coalition—“a coalition against humanity and against Islam.”
“The enemies always fear Islam and the progress of the Iranian nation, but do not (openly) say so,” Naqdi said. “Iran’s significant regional and global role has put an end to their exclusive hegemony.”
MEMRI also found a sermon Assembly of Experts member Ahmad Khatami gave on Feb. 13 in which he said that “this year’s processions" produced two new slogans: "‘No to sanctions an no to humiliation, (yes to) dignified negotiations,’ and ‘(our) response to all the (American ) options on the table is: death to American that opposes Islam.’”
He added, "So the Iranian people's hatred for America grows from year to year."

Donation to Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State violated ethics agreement, report says

The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive Wednesday after disclosing that it had accepted millions of dollars from several foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that violated the foundation's ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
Most of the contributions -- which had not previously been detailed by the foundation -- were possible due to exceptions written into the organizations's 2008 agreement with the White House that limited donations from foreign governments, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the contributions.
But foundation officials acknowledged that they should have sought approval from the State Department's ethics office in one instance. In a statement to Fox News, the foundation said it had received an unsolicited donation of $500,000 to its Haiti earthquake relief fund from the Algerian government in 2010.
"As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria's contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti," the foundation's statement read, in part. "This donation was disclosed publicly on our website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation to help Haiti and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since."
The statement did not make clear when foundation officials found out that the donation violated the ethics agreement or why the foundation did not alert the State Department at the time.
At the time of the contribution, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
The revelation that foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government were allowed to donate millions of dollars to the foundation could raise questions about Clinton's impartiality while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Earlier disclosures made on the foundation's website have revealed an increase in donations by foreign governments since Clinton left the State Department in 2013.
The Post reported that rarely, if ever, has a potential presidential candidate been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from overseas. Clinton is widely expected to declare her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination sometime in the coming months.

‘Locked and Loaded’: FCC primed for vote on Internet regs, amid 11th-hour drama

The Federal Communications Commission is driving toward a landmark vote Thursday on a sweeping plan that critics warn would impose a new era of regulation for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, even as 11th-hour appeals inject added drama behind the scenes.
The so-called net neutrality proposal has been the subject of fierce debate, in part because the 332-page plan is being kept from public eyes. President Obama's vocal push for aggressive Internet rules also has raised questions on Capitol Hill over undue influence by the White House -- but House Republicans who had planned a hearing on that very subject said Wednesday they would postpone after Chairman Tom Wheeler allegedly refused to testify.
"This fight continues as the future of the Internet is at stake," House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., vowed, in a statement announcing the hearing delay.
For now, the plan is in the FCC's hands.
At issue is a proposal that proponents say would ensure an "open" Internet, by growing the government's power to oversee Internet service providers and establish new rules to bar companies from blocking or slowing data.
But The Hill reports that a vital Democratic member, Mignon Clyburn, is now seeking last-minute changes to scale back Wheeler's proposal.
This puts Wheeler in a tough spot because the FCC is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. The Republicans are likely to oppose the plan, and Wheeler would need Clyburn on board to push it through.
According to The Hill, Clyburn would leave alone the most controversial plank of the proposal -- a call to regulate broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, treating it much like telephones.
But she reportedly wants to strip a new legal category that would give the FCC additional legal authority over certain deals over back-end Internet traffic.
Her requests may be in the weeds, but they have the effect of potentially complicating Thursday's vote. The two Republican members, Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, earlier this week already urged Wheeler to postpone that vote -- and to release the plan so the public can review it. Wheeler so far has not agreed to do so. Wheeler needs a three-member majority to approve the plan.
Asked about the report in The Hill, Clyburn's office said she would not comment "on any potential changes to the Open Internet Order out of respect for the deliberative process."
Her office said: "Any reports about policy or position shifts when it comes to the item have not been verified or confirmed by her office. Commissioner Clyburn continues to advocate for strong open Internet protections for consumers and looks forward to voting the item on Thursday."
Still, Clyburn's supposed requests may not be a deal-breaker.
One FCC official told FoxNews.com there appears to be little sign of the vote being delayed.
"They are very locked and loaded with this whole thing," the official said.
Pai and O'Rielly, meanwhile, have made their position clear. Pai tweeted a photo of himself with the proposal on Wednesday, announcing that he would oppose it.
While Wheeler and consumer groups say the proposal is necessary to prevent providers from creating slow or fast Internet lanes in which content companies like Netflix can pay to jump to the head of the queue, Pai co-authored a Politico op-ed with Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman describing the plan as "heavy-handed."
They said it would allow the FCC to regulate broadband rates; "decree" whether companies can offer "consumer-friendly service plans" like unlimited access to streaming music; and claim the power to force companies to "physically deploy broadband infrastructure."
The commissioners argued that the panel was conjuring the idea of "digital dysfunction" in order to "justify a public-sector power grab."
Wheeler, though, has pushed back on the calls for a delay.
He tweeted earlier this week that the future of the "open Internet" is at stake, and, "We cannot afford to delay finally adopting enforceable rules to protect consumers & innovators." He also noted that the commission received "more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year that helped shape proposal."
"It's time to act," Wheeler tweeted.
Asked Tuesday about the call for a delay, an FCC spokesperson also told FoxNews.com that the 4 million comments amounted to an "unprecedented" level of public response.
"In accordance with long-standing FCC process followed in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Chairman Wheeler circulated his proposal to his fellow Commissioners for review three weeks before the scheduled vote. The Chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues," the spokesperson said.
Even if the FCC approves the plan on Thursday, the next stop may be the courts. Industry lobbyists say it's likely that one of the major providers will sue and ask the court to suspend enforcement pending appeal.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that efforts by Hill Republicans to fight the plan with legislation appear to be fading.
''We're not going to get a signed bill that doesn't have Democrats' support," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told the newspaper, though his office later pushed back on the notion that Republicans were giving up on the issue.

California Dems push to repeal 'welfare queen' law

WASHINGTON – California Democrats are trying to reverse a decades-old state law that bars families from getting extra welfare money for having an additional child, describing the law as "sexist" and "classist" -- despite concerns that repealing it could compound the state's money woes.
The so-called "welfare queen" law was passed two decades ago during the heyday of welfare reform. At the time, Democrats were in charge of the state legislature and Republican Pete Wilson was governor.
Today, Democrats are still in charge, but the base of support for the law is fading.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell recently introduced a bill that would repeal the policy, which she says was initially engineered to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children. The problem, she argues, is that it didn’t work.
In fact, with the cap in place, California’s childhood poverty rate has climbed to the highest in the nation. For Mitchell, this is her third attempt at abolishing the “welfare queen” law.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said in a written statement. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
But Republican strategist Bradley Blakeman warned there could be repercussions to nixing the policy.
“California is in serious financial difficulty,” Blakeman told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.” “The law should stay as it is. It makes sense. It’s a good deterrent for parents to be responsible and not bring children into a world they cannot care for.”
Repealing the law indeed would cost California taxpayers. One analysis estimates that overturning it would cost an already cash-starved state close to $205 million just in the first year.
Coined in the 1970s when then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described the case of a Chicago welfare fraudster, the term “welfare queen” has evolved into shorthand for a poor woman with children she can’t support without government checks.
Nationally, President Clinton signed sweeping welfare reform legislation into law in 1996. The next year, then-California Gov. Wilson and state lawmakers collaborated on a program called CalWORKs which set grant levels, work requirements and other standards for people eligible for financial assistance.
The family cap idea was pitched as a way to cut down on government dependency. But Mary Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, told FoxNews.com that the data doesn’t add up.
She said the current policy "isn’t even a Band-Aid," and, “They are dealing with symptoms, not causes.”
Theroux isn't pushing for repeal, but rather, believes a better way to reduce the poverty rate is to tear down economic and educational barriers.
California is among 24 states that have put family cap policies in place over the past two decades, according to the California Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. There are currently 15 states that have family cap policies, including Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia.
Under California’s law, welfare assistance is denied for any child born into a family in which any parent or child was receiving aid 10 months prior to the birth.
California, though, is the only state that grants exemptions based on the failure of three specific forms of contraceptives: IUD, Norplant and sterilization. The law says families that want to challenge the restriction must provide proof that their birth control failed. There are also exemptions in place for children born from rape or incest.
Some anti-poverty advocates like the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice say the government is “using the threat of deeper poverty” if recipients don’t use contraception.