Appearing on “Hannity” Wednesday night, “America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani slammed President Obama’s Iran policy on negotiating over the regime’s nuclear weapons. Giuliani said that Obama doesn’t have the historical and cultural understanding necessary to deal with Iran, charging he has “a warped view,”
“The reality is he is leading us down a road that is gonna have a severe nuclear proliferation in the Middle East with 2,000-year-old enemies facing off against each other,” Giuliani warned, because Obama lacks knowledge on foreign policy, has no real understanding of World War I and World War II, as well as no respect for generals.
Giuliani said that “thousands and thousands of American families don’t have their sons today because of that ayatollah that Obama is negotiating with.” The former New York mayor said that more people are being killed in Iran today than under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yet the U.S. is still negotiating with the country.
“Our secretary of state is sitting there while they are executing hundreds of thousands of people, and they’re doing it on purpose,” Giuliani added. “I am very, very worried for my country, and I’m very worried for the world,” he said. “I do not want to see the nuclear button put in the hands of a maniac.”
The former New York City mayor’s comments just one day after many of the 52 Iranian hostage crisis victims, who were held for 444 days in the embassy in Tehran by the Islamic revolutionaries, spoke out against the Iranian nuclear talks. In a recent report, the former hostages and their Alexandria-based attorney Thomas Lankford said they want Americans to know that regime cannot be trusted to in the current negotiations.
A review by USA Today, published in December 2014, shows that, in fact, Obama has issued more memoranda than any U.S. president in history.
Can the president rewrite federal laws? Can he alter their meaning? Can he change their effect? These are legitimate questions in an era in which we have an unpopular progressive Democratic president who has boasted that he can govern without Congress by using his phone and his pen, and a mostly newly elected largely conservative Republican Congress with its own ideas about big government.
These are not hypothetical questions. In 2012, President Obama signed executive orders that essentially said to about 1.7 million unlawfully present immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthdays and who are not yet 31 years of age that if they complied with certain conditions that he made up out of thin air they will not be deported.
In 2014, the president signed additional executive orders that essentially made the same offer to about 4.7 million unlawfully present immigrants, without the age limits that he had made up out of thin air. A federal court enjoined enforcement of the 2014 orders last month.
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission — the bureaucrats appointed by the president who regulate broadcast radio and television — decreed that it has the authority to regulate the Internet, even though federal courts have twice ruled that it does not.
Also last week, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose director is appointed by the president, proposed regulations that would outlaw the only mass-produced bullets that can be fired from an AR-15 rifle. This rifle has been the target of the left for many years because it looks like a military weapon; yet it is a lawful and safe civilian rifle commonly owned by many Americans.
This week, the president’s press secretary told reporters that the president is seriously thinking of signing executive orders intended to raise taxes on corporations by directing the IRS to redefine tax terminology so as to increase corporate tax burdens. He must have forgotten that those additional taxes would be paid by either the shareholders or the customers of those corporations, and those shareholders and customers elected a Congress they had every right to expect would be writing the tax laws. He has eviscerated that right.
What’s going on here?
What’s going on is the exercise of authoritarian impulses by a desperate president terrified of powerlessness and irrelevance, the Constitution be damned. I say “damned” because when the president writes laws, whether under the guise of administrative regulations or executive orders, he is effectively damning the Constitution by usurping the powers of Congress.
The Constitution could not be clearer. Article I, section 1 begins, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Obama actually asked Congress to write the laws he is now purporting to write, and Congress declined, and so he does so at his peril.
In 1952, President Truman seized America’s closed steel mills because steel workers went on strike and the military needed hardware to fight the Korean War. He initially asked Congress for authorization to do this, and Congress declined to give it to him; so he seized the mills anyway. His seizure was challenged by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., then a huge operator of steel mills. In a famous Supreme Court decision, the court enjoined the president from operating the mills.
Youngstown is not a novel or arcane case. The concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson articulating the truism that when the president acts in defiance of Congress he operates at his lowest ebb of constitutional power and can be enjoined by the courts unless he is in an area uniquely immune from congressional authority is among the most highly regarded and frequently cited concurring opinions in modern court history. It reminds the president and the lawyers who advise him that the Constitution imposes limits on executive power.
The president’s oath of office underscores those limits. It requires that he enforce the laws faithfully. The reason James Madison insisted on using the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath and putting the oath itself into the Constitution was to instill in presidents the realization that they may need to enforce laws with which they disagree — even laws they hate.
But Obama rejects the Youngstown decision and the Madisonian logic. Here is a president who claims he can kill Americans without due process, spy on Americans without individualized probable cause, start wars on his own, borrow money on his own, regulate the Internet, ban lawful guns, tell illegal immigrants how to avoid the consequences of federal law, and now raise taxes on his own.
One of the safeguards built into the Constitution is the separation of powers: Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, and the courts interpret them. The purpose of this separation is to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of too few — a valid fear when the Constitution was written and a valid fear today.
When the president effectively writes the laws, Congress is effectively neutered. Yet, the reason we have the separation of powers is not to protect Congress, but to protect all individuals from the loss of personal liberty. Under Obama, that loss has been vast. Will Congress and the courts do anything about it?
Tamir Rices mother, Samaria Rice, appeared on “Good Morning America”. (Photo: ABC)
Even when Samaria Rice is surrounded by others, as she was at Tuesday’s news conference, she still seems so alone.
She is Tamir Rice’s mother, and her public demeanor telegraphs the enduring shock of grief. Flanked by garrulous attorneys, surrounded by family and community leaders, she stood behind the microphone at Olivet Institutional Baptist Church and said so little, so softly. Most of the time, her eyes were cast downward, and even when she looked straight ahead, it was not clear whom or what she saw.
I do not presume to know how this mother feels. Few, if any of us, can. She is a parent who has lost a child, and that is a truth that distances her from us other parents — especially us other parents — because who among us wants to imagine this? The particulars of this tragedy render her suffering almost unfathomable.
A Cleveland policeman who was deemed by his previous employer to be unqualified for the job jumped out of a car, just feet away from 12-year-old Tamir, and shot him in a public park. As attorneys Benjamin Crump and Walter Madison pointed out Tuesday, the digital clock on the video of the shooting reveals that only 0.792 second passed before Tamir Rice was on the ground. How could that boy possibly have heard any alleged police warnings about the pellet gun tucked in his waistband before he lay dying?
We are still waiting to learn whether that policeman or the one driving the car will be indicted. Late last week, the city filed its response in court to the Rice family’s civil lawsuit over Tamir’s death. The language in the city’s brief set off another firestorm because it claimed that Tamir’s death and injuries to his family in the minutes before the ambulance arrived “were directly and proximately caused by their own acts.” Further, the city said that Tamir caused his own death “by the failure … to exercise due care to avoid injury.”
This isn’t the first time a city employee has blamed Tamir for his own death. The president of the Cleveland police union, Steve Loomis, told me last month, in an interview for Politico, that he objected to descriptions of the 12-year-old as a boy.
“Tamir Rice is in the wrong,” he said, using the present tense to offer his version of events. “He’s menacing. He’s 5 feet 7, 191 pounds. He wasn’t that little kid you’re seeing in pictures. He’s a 12-year-old in an adult body.” (Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/tamir-rice-cleveland-police-115401_Page3.html#ixzz3TRQiC1hr.)
On Monday, Cleveland Law Director Barbara Langhenry lamented in a news conference that the media had cherry-picked language from a list of 20 defenses. Hardly the point, but it augments lawyers’ arguments that the language is boilerplate and to be expected. That may be so, but such a defense smacks of elitism: If only all of us were as smart as the lawyers.
Language matters, especially now that so many court documents are posted online. Surely, a skilled lawyer should expect a keen level of public scrutiny in this highly publicized tragedy.
Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, also a lawyer, offered a more thoughtful response at the same news conference.
“In an attempt to protect all of our defenses, we used words and we phrased things in such a way that was very insensitive, very insensitive to the tragedy in general, the family, and the victim in particular,” Jackson said. “So we are apologizing today as a city to the family of Tamir Rice and to the citizens of the city of Cleveland for our poor use of words and our insensitivity in the use of those words.”
The city’s response will be amended, the mayor said, to address the “insensitivity of the language” and characterization of Tamir Rice while still preserving the city’s right to a defense.
The mayor ended the news conference by succumbing to a grandfather’s emotions.
“I got a 12-year-old grandson, who’s about that tall,” he said, raising his hand to his shoulder. “Wears size 12s. … I have an 18-year-old grandson and a 9-year-old and a 3-year-old. And it’s difficult for me to” — he paused, his eyes welling with tears — “imagine that.”
The next day, Samaria Rice stepped up to the microphone at Olivet and responded in a voice that could barely be heard over the whir of cameras.
“The city’s answer was very disrespectful to my son, Tamir,” she said. “I have … not received an apology from the police department or the city of Cleveland in regards to the killing of my son.” Long pause. “And it hurts.”
Moments later, she walked out of the room and into another day defined by her grief.
Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.
WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 11: Sens. Mike Lee, R-UT, left, and Marco Rubio, R-L, right, speak at the 2013 Values Voter Summit on October 11, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
In a perfect world, we would shrink government to such a small size that there was no need for any sort of broad-based tax (remember, the United States prospered greatly for most of our history when there was no income tax).
In a good world, we could at least replace the corrupt internal revenue code with a simple and fair flat tax.
In today’s Washington, the best we can hope for is incremental reform.
But some incremental reforms can be very positive, and that’s the best way of describing the “Economic Growth and Family Fairness Tax Reform Plan” unveiled today by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
The two GOP senators have a column in today’s Wall Street Journal, and you can read a more detailed description of their plan by clicking here.
But here are the relevant details.
What’s wrong with Rubio-Lee
In the interest of fairness, I’ll start with the most disappointing feature of the plan. The top tax rate will be 35 percent, only a few percentage points lower than the 39.6 percent top rate that Obama imposed as a result of the fiscal cliff.
Even more troubling, that 35 percent top tax rate will be imposed on any taxable income above $75,000 for single taxpayers and $150,000 for married taxpayers.
Since the 35 percent and 39.6 percent tax rates currently apply only when income climbs above $400,000, that means a significant number of taxpayers will face higher marginal tax rates.
That’s a very disappointing feature in any tax plan, but it’s especially unfortunate in a proposal put forth my lawmakers who wrote in their WSJ column that they want to “lower rates for families and individuals.”
What’s right with Rubio-Lee
This will be a much longer section because there are several very attractive features of the Rubio-Lee plan.
Some households, for instance, will enjoy lower marginal tax rates under the new bracket structure, particularly if those households have lots of children (there’s a very big child tax credit).
But the really attractive features of the Rubio-Lee plan are those that deal with business taxation, double taxation, and international competitiveness.
Here’s a list of the most pro-growth elements of the plan.
A 25 percent tax rate on all business income – This means that the corporate tax rate is being reduced from 35 percent (the highest in the world), but also that there will be a 25 percent maximum rate on all small businesses that file using Schedule C as part of a 1040 tax return.
Full expensing of business investment – The proposal gets rid of punitive “depreciation” rules that force businesses to overstate their income in ways that discourage new business investment.
No death tax – Income should not be subject to yet another layer of tax simply because someone dies. The Rubio-Lee plan eliminates this morally offensive form of double taxation.
In addition, it’s worth noting that the Rubio-Lee plan eliminate the state and local tax deduction, which is a perverse part of the tax code that enables higher taxes in states like New York and California.
Many years ago, while working at the Heritage Foundation, I created a matrix to grade competing tax reform plans. I updated that matrix last year to assess the proposal put forth by Congressman Dave Camp, the former Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee.
Here’s another version of that matrix, this time including the Rubio-Lee plan.
As you can see, the Rubio-Lee plan gets top scores for “saving and investment” and “international competitiveness.”
And since these components have big implications for growth, the proposal would – if enacted – generate big benefits. The economy would grow faster, more jobs would be created, workers would enjoy higher wages, and American companies would be far more competitive.
By the way, if there was (and there probably should be) a “tax burden” grade in my matrix, the Rubio-Lee plan almost surely would get an “A+” score because the overall proposal is a substantial tax cut based on static scoring.
And even with dynamic scoring, this plan will reduce the amount of money going to Washington in the near future.
Of course, faster future growth will lead to more taxable income, so there will be revenue feedback. So the size of the tax cut will shrink over time, but even a curmudgeon like me doesn’t get that upset if politicians get more revenue because more Americans are working and earning higher wages.
That simply means another opportunity to push for more tax relief!
What’s missing in Rubio-Lee
There are a few features of the tax code that aren’t addressed in the plan.
The health care exclusion is left untouched, largely because the two lawmakers understand that phasing out that preference is best handled as part of a combined tax reform/health reform proposal.
Some itemized deductions are left untouched, or simply tweaked.
And I’m not aware of any changes that would strengthen the legal rights of taxpayers when dealing with the IRS.
Let’s close with a reminder of what very good tax policy looks like.
To their credit, Rubio and Lee would move the tax code in the direction of a flat tax, though sometimes in a haphazard fashion.
P.S. There is a big debate on the degree to which the tax code should provide large child credits. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year, I much prefer lower tax rates since faster growth is the most effective long-run way to bolster the economic status of families.
But even the flat tax has a generous family-based allowance, so it’s largely a political judgement on how much tax relief should be dedicated to kids and how much should be used to lower tax rates.
That being said, I think the so-called reform conservatives undermine their case when they argue child-oriented tax relief is good because it might subsidize the creation of future taxpayers to prop up entitlement programs. We need to reform those programs, not give them more money.
The ADP National Employment Report found the U.S. private sector added 212,000 jobs last month, fewer than economists expected, the payrolls processor said Wednesday.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report — which is jointly developed by ADP and Moody’s Analytics — to show a gain of 220,000 jobs.
Businesses with 49 or fewer employees added 94,000 jobs in February, down slightly from 97,000 in January, while companies with 50-499 employees added 63,000 jobs, down from 106,000 the previous month. The larger trend on small business is disturbing, as businesses shuttering their doors continue to outnumber new startups.
Employment at large companies – those with 500 or more employees – increased from January adding 56,000 jobs, up from 47,000. Meanwhile, large businesses, or companies with 500-999 employees added 18,000 jobs, up from January’s 16,000. Companies with over 1,000 employees added 38,000 jobs, up from 30,000 the previous month.
Though service-providing employment rose by 181,000 jobs in February, which is down from 206,000 in January, the low-paying sector continues to far outpace sectors historically responsible for broad wage growth.
The construction industry added 31,000 jobs, the same number as last month, while manufacturing added just 3,000 jobs in February, well below January’s 15,000. The manufacturing numbers, in particularly, are both disturbing yet unsurprising.
The latest Chicago Business Barometer of Midwest manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level since 2009, as Production New Orders and Employment gauges all took double-digit losses. The pace of U.S. manufacturing growth nationwide fell in February to its slowest in 13 months, according to the closely-watched industry report from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released Monday.
The ADP private sector report is released ahead of the U.S. Labor Department’s non-farm payrolls report on Friday, which includes both public and private-sector employment.
Economists polled by Reuters are looking for total U.S. employment to have grown by 240,000 jobs in February, down from 257,000 in January. The unemployment rate, on the other hand, is expected to have ticked lower to 5.6 percent from January’s 5.7 percent.
Cheryl Mills, left, walks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, center, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Hilda Solis, the U.S. Secretary of Labor as Clinton arrives at Caracol, Haiti, Monday, October 22, 2012. Photo: Newscom)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to conduct official business during her time at the State Department, a revelation that 1) raises more questions about access to the full archive of her correspondence, and 2) potentially violated federal law.
“You do not need a law degree to have an understanding of how troubling this is,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. “The fact is the State Department cannot certify that they have produced all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails because they do not have all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails, nor do they control access to them.”
While the existence of the account was discovered by the House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and was first reported by The New York Times, Chairman Gowdy said that he and the committee became aware of Mrs. Clinton’s use of her personal email account last summer through documents that had been turned over to the committee.
Clinton did not even have a government email address during her tenure as America’s top diplomat, which lasted from 2009 to 2013, rather than preserve her emails on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act, Clinton’s top advisers selected which emails would be turned over to the State Department for archival purposes after going through tens of thousands of pages of correspondence.
“The records custodian should be at the State Department, not at her private law firm,” Gowdy said. “It should be a State Department employee who transcends administrations who comes before Congress to swear… that you have everything.”
The developments come only days after PPD reported on bombshell emails obtained by Judicial Watch revealed top aides to Clinton always knew the Benghazi mission compound was under attack from a terrorist group, discussed focusing on the fabricated story with each other rather than terrorism, and further that Clinton herself lied to the victims’ families. The documents, which were obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video.
Unsurprisingly, the lawsuit requesting “any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack” including “but not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” returned heavily redacted emails from then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), and Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant).
But no emails from Hillary Clinton, herself. Both Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan are on the partial list of notable witnesses to be questioned by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
“The use of a personal e-mail address to skirt public records laws, aside from failing to meet the security standards one would expect of the nation’s top diplomat, enabled Clinton to shield her official communications from scrutiny by the media and the American public,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., former chairman of the House oversight committee.
Some Democrats and State Department officials immediately began to circle the Clinton wagon, drubbing up former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s past use of private emails during the Bush administration.
According to the Times, however, while past secretaries of state, including Secretary Powell, have used personal email in the past, it cannot be equated to the Clinton practice for two reasons. First, updated regulations now require private emails to be preserved. Second, in the past, the use of private emails was the exception, not the norm.
Jason Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, said that the use of private e-mail accounts is meant to be reserved only for emergencies, such as when a department’s server is not working or compromised. He found it “very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.”
The report has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans, including at least one potential challenger in the 2016 presidential race. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who released 250,000 emails from his gubernatorial tenure this past December, tweeted about the contrast between his disclosures and Clinton’s secrecy.
Clinton, who is widely believed to be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, is expected to formally launch her candidacy next month. However, the latest concerns regarding her emails at State mark the second major news story scrutinizing the media-presumed Democratic nominee. Revelations that the Clinton foundation accepts donations from foreign governments, individuals, corporations and other entities drew harsh criticism even from members of her own party.
It later became known that the practice occurred even during her tenure at the department, giving the appearance of a quid pro quo at the Obama administration and re-enforcing a long-held perception that the Clintons run pay-to-play operations out of the offices they are elected to serve in.
Meanwhile, it is not clear how many total emails from that period were in Clinton’s personal account, nor is it clear how Clinton’s advisers decided which emails to hand over to the State Department. The fate of emails to foreign leaders, private citizens, and non-State Department officials is also unclear.
Hope Brinn (left) and Mia Ferguson (right) stand in front of a blackboard where they have written their complaints about sexual assaults at Swarthmore College (Credit: Michael Bryant/Philadelphia Inquirer)
A new documentary calls colleges like Harvard and Notre Dame “The Hunting Ground,” where rapists prey on women. A bipartisan group of senators demand new rules to “curb campus sexual assaults.”
Apparently, new laws are needed because at colleges, sexual assault is “epidemic.” Rape is so common that there is a “rape culture.”
I hear that a lot.
It is utter exaggeration. Fortunately, AEI scholar Christina Hoff Sommers is around to reveal the truth.
“This idea of a rape culture was built on false statistics and twisted theories about toxic masculinity,” she says.
No one denies that some men, especially when drunk, get violent and abusive. I saw nasty behavior when I was in college, and I assume there are places worse than Princeton.
Sommers says, “I always make clear, rape is a very serious problem, (but) if you look at the best data … it is not an epidemic. And we do not have a rape culture.”
The difference is not just numbers, she says. “Rape culture means everything in society is reinforcing (rape) and making it seem a legitimate thing to do. Of course that’s not true.”
The media love crisis, and hyping sexual assault is a good way to get attention.
Recently, a Rolling Stone article said that men routinely assault women at the University of Virginia. It told a frightening story, based on one witness, of gang rape in a frat house that left the victim’s friends completely uninterested, since assault is so routine.
The article got lots of attention. Then completely fell apart.
“It proved to be a sort of gothic fantasy, a male-demonizing fantasy,” says Sommers. “It was absurd.”
In much American media, a rape story is “too good to check.” The Rolling Stone author admits she wanted to believe. She barely fact-checked the claims made by her source. Her source’s story fit the reporter’s own “rape culture” narrative. She interviewed students at many campuses, waiting for the rape story she wanted to hear.
The Rolling Stone story sounded extraordinary from the beginning. “But for several days, people in the media just believed it, and publicized it, and anguished over it,” says Sommers. To doubt was taboo. “The hysteria around campus assault, the false information has been building for so long,” warns Sommers, “people are willing to believe anything.”
President Obama added to the misinformation by pandering to the feminist victim lobby, creating a “sex abuse task force” and repeating a widely quoted — yet obviously absurd — rape statistic: “It is estimated that one in five women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there. One in five!”
Yes, Mr. President, we hear that a lot.
But it’s a lie.
At allegedly horrible University of Virginia, where Rolling Stone said assault was routine, .46 sexual offenses were reported per thousand students. That’s .46 too many, but for “one in five” to be true, it would have to be 200.
Admittedly, many victims of assault fear going public, so the UVA number may be higher than .46. Nevertheless, one in five just isn’t plausible.
“The figure is closer to one in 50,” says Sommers of colleges overall.
Sexual assault is serious stuff. Activists trivialize it by asking survey questions like “Did you ever receive unwanted sexual contact while drunk?” and counting “yes” answers as assaults.
“The CDC did a study,” recounts Sommers. “They called it sexual violence if you said yes (to the question) ‘Has anyone ever pressured you to have sex by telling you tales, or making you feel guilty?’ That counted as violence.”
It’s not nice to pressure someone. But people do that. That’s different from violence, isn’t it?
If we forget the difference between violent and non-violent conduct, no one is safe. If we pretend everyone is guilty instead of a few real criminals, rapists win. No longer are they a dangerous group of very bad people, they’re just — men.
For 444 days from 1979-1981, 52 Americans were held hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. (Photo: AP)
The 52 Iranian hostage crisis victims held for 444 days in the embassy in Tehran by the Islamic revolutionaries are speaking out against the Iranian nuclear talks. In a report filed by Cristina Corbin and Perry Chiaramonte, the former hostages and their Alexandria-based attorney Thomas Lankford say they want Americans to know that regime cannot be trusted to in the current negotiations.
“Most of them were tortured horribly,” Lankford said of the hostages. “Even [though some were] soldiers, no war experience can prepare you for what they endured. There’s a large degree of mistrust. It’s hard for many of them to know what’s in those discussions.”
The Iranian hostage crisis victims told Corbin and Chiaramonte that they listened to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday as he spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. In his roughly 40-minute speech that was interrupted by bipartisan applause some 40 times, Netanyahu made an impassioned case against the dangers of the Iranian nuclear negotiations, claiming the “bad deal” doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, but rather “paves the path for Iran to the bomb.”
That doesn’t sit well with the former hostages who suffered for nearly a year and half in the hands of the Iranian revolutionaries.
“I think it’s very naive because the Iranians talk out both sides of their mouth,” said Clair Cortland Barnes, 69, of Leland, N.C, who was a 34-year-old communications officer at the time he was taken hostage. “Their actions betray their conversations. Their conversations say one thing and then they do something else. They have an agenda that is to wipe out Israel and take over America.”
“It doesn’t seem like this is a good deal for the U.S.,” said North Carolina resident David Roeder, 72, a former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who was attached to the U.S. Embassy when it was overrun. “It seems as if we are paying a lot of money and not getting much of a return.”
“If they want to negotiate, they have to deal with the issue of the hostage taking, which the current government is still responsible for,” said Donald Cooke, 61, of Maryland, who was the embassy’s vice consul. “The Iranian government has to take responsibility or you can’t take them seriously in any negotiations.”
“Benjamin Netanyahu had a good point when he spoke to Congress,” Cooke said. “Any negotiation should not be about technical issues. The negotiation should be about changing behavior, and it is not.”
At the heart of the issue for the former hostages is the policy of rewarding a regime without demanding real changes or for the Iranians to atone for their crimes.
“They have never been held accountable for what they’ve done to us,” former U.S. Marine Rodney “Rocky” Sickmann, 57, of St. Louis, who was a 22-year-old guarding the embassy in Tehran told FoxNews.com. “How do you trust a government that publicly says Israel needs to be eliminated? Anyone should understand why Israel needs to be concerned.”
In his speech Tuesday, Netanyahu reminded U.S. lawmakers of the crisis that had gripped the nation at another tumultuous time in modern U.S. history. He also went on to characterize Iran’s current actions to destabilize the region during the nuclear talks.
Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week testified that the year “2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years,” and revealed that “roughly half of the world’s currently stable countries are at some risk of instability over the next two years.”
In Mr. Sickmann’s opinion, the global instability due to Islamic radicalization can be traced back to the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and the regime change that followed shortly after.
“I truly believe that the war on terrorism started on Nov. 4, 1979, when I was a young Marine standing guard at the embassy,” he said. “I was only 30 yards away from that fence when they came over it. They used Iranian women as shields when they broke in because they knew we’d stand down.”
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, an inflation dove by ideology, holds a press conference on March 19, 2014.
During periods of economic weakness, governments often respond with “loose” monetary policy, which generally means that central banks will take actions that increase liquidity and artificially lower interest rates.
I’m not a big fan of this approach.
If an economy is suffering from bad fiscal policy or bad regulatory policy, why expect that an easy-money policy will be effective?
What if politicians use an easy-money policy as an excuse to postpone or avoid structural reforms that are needed to restore growth?
And shouldn’t we worry that an easy-money policy will cause economic damage by triggering systemic price hikes or bubbles?
Defenders of central banks and easy money generally respond to such questions by assuring us that QE-type policies are not a substitute or replacement for other reforms.
And they tell us the downside risk is overstated because central bankers will have the wisdom to soak up excess liquidity at the right time and raise interest rates at the right moment.
I hope they’re right, but my gut instinct is to worry that central bankers are not sufficiently vigilant about the downside risks of easy-money policies.
She was refreshingly candid about the possible dangers of the easy-money approach, particularly with regards to artificially low interest rates.
Here is one of the charts from her presentation.
Those of us who are old enough to remember the 1970s will be concerned about her first point. And this is important. It would be terrible to let the inflation genie out of the bottle, particularly since there may not be a Ronald Reagan-type leader in the future who will do what’s needed to solve such a mess.
But today I want to focus on her second, fourth, and fifth points.
So here are some of the details from her speech, starting with some analysis of the risk of bubbles.
…when interest rates are low, investors may “search for yield” and shift funds to riskier investments that are expected to earn a higher return – from equity markets to high-yield debt markets to emerging markets. This could drive up prices in these other markets and potentially create “bubbles”. This can not only lead to an inefficient allocation of capital, but leave certain investors with more risk than they appreciate. An adjustment in asset prices can bring about losses that are difficult to manage, especially if investments were supported by higher leverage possible due to low rates. If these losses were widespread across an economy, or affected systemically-important institutions, they could create substantial economic disruption. This tendency to assume greater risk when interest rates are low for a sustained period not only occurs for investors, but also within banks, corporations, and broader credit markets. Studies have shown that during periods of monetary expansion, banks tend to soften lending standards and experience an increase in their assessed “riskiness”. There is evidence that the longer an expansion lasts, the greater these effects. Companies also take advantage of periods of low borrowing costs to increase debt issuance. If this occurs during a period of low default rates – as in the past few years – this can further compress borrowing spreads and lead to levels of debt issuance that may be difficult to support when interest rates normalize. There is a lengthy academic literature showing that low interest rates often foster credit booms, an inefficient allocation of capital, banking collapses, and financial crises. This series of risks to the financial system from a period of low interest rates should be taken seriously and carefully monitored.
Her fourth and fifth points are particularly important since they show she appreciates the Austrian-school insight that bad monetary policy can distort market signals and lead to malinvestment.
Here’s some of what she shared about the fourth point.
…is there a chance that a prolonged period of near-zero interest rates is allowing less efficient companies to survive and curtailing the “creative destruction” that is critical to support productivity growth? Or even within existing, profitable companies – could a prolonged period of low borrowing costs reduce their incentive to carefully assess and evaluate investment projects – leading to a less efficient allocation of capital within companies? …For further evidence on this capital misallocation, one could estimate the rate of “scrappage” during the crisis and the level of capital relative to its optimal, steady-state level. Recent BoE work has found tentative evidence of a “capital overhang”, an excess of capital above that judged optimal given current conditions. Usually any such capital overhang falls quickly during a recession as inefficient factories and plants are shut down and new investment slows. The slower reallocation of capital since the crisis could partly be due to low interest rates.
And here is some of what she said about the fifth point.
A fifth possible cost of low interest rates is that it could shift the sources of demand in ways which make underlying growth less balanced, less resilient, and less sustainable. This could occur through increases in consumption and debt, and decreases in savings and possibly the current account. …if these shifts are too large – or vulnerabilities related to overconsumption, overborrowing, insufficient savings, or large current account deficits continue for too long – they could create economic challenges.
In her speech, Ms. Forbes understandably focused on the current environment and speculated about possible future risks.
But the concerns about easy-money policies are not just theoretical.
Let’s look at some new research from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the University of California, and the University of Bonn.
In a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, they look at the connections between monetary policy and housing bubbles.
How do monetary and credit conditions affect housing booms and busts? Do low interest rates cause households to lever up on mortgages and bid up house prices, thus increasing the risk of financial crisis? And what, if anything, should central banks do about it? Can policy directed at housing and credit conditions, with monetary or macroprudential tools, lead a central bank astray and dangerously deflect it from single- or dual-mandate goals?
It appears the answer is yes.
This paper analyzes the link between monetary conditions, credit growth, and house prices using data spanning 140 years of modern economic history across 14 advanced economies. …We make three core contributions. First, we discuss long-run trends in mortgage lending, home ownership, and house prices and show that the 20th century has indeed been an era of increasing “bets on the house.” …Second, turning to the cyclical fluctuations of lending and house prices we use novel instrumental variable local projection methods to show that throughout history loose monetary conditions were closely associated with an upsurge in real estate lending and house prices. …Third, we also expose a close link between mortgage credit and house price booms on the one hand, and financial crises on the other. Over the past 140 years of modern macroeconomic history, mortgage booms and house price bubbles have been closely associated with a higher likelihood of a financial crisis. This association is more noticeable in the post-WW2 era, which was marked by the democratization of leverage through housing finance.
So what’s the bottom line?
The long-run historical evidence uncovered in this study clearly suggests that central banks have reasons to worry about the side-effects of loose monetary conditions. During the 20th century, real estate lending became the dominant business model of banks. As a result, the effects that low interest rates have on mortgage borrowing, house prices and ultimately financial instability risks have become considerably stronger. …these historical insights suggest that the potentially destabilizing byproducts of easy money must be taken seriously
P.P.S. Just as there are people in Washington who want to double down on failure, there are similar people in Europe who think a more-of-the-same approach is the right cure for the problems caused in part by a some-of-the-same approach.
P.P.P.S. For those interested in monetary policy, the good news is that the Cato Institute recently announced the formation of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, led by former UGA economics professor George Selgin, which will focus on development of policy recommendations that will create a more free-market monetary system.
P.P.P.P.S. If you watch this video, you’ll see that George doesn’t give the Federal Reserve a very high grade.
… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.
(APPLAUSE)
I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.
(LAUGHTER)
My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.
(APPLAUSE)
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.
(APPLAUSE)
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
(APPLAUSE)
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.
My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
(APPLAUSE)
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”
I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.
(APPLAUSE)
We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Full transcript of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress on March 3, 2015.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.
And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.
Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.
And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
(APPLAUSE)
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.
(APPLAUSE)
Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…
(APPLAUSE)
… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.
Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.
You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.
(APPLAUSE)
My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
(APPLAUSE)
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”
(APPLAUSE)
And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.
(APPLAUSE)
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.
(APPLAUSE)
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
