Forked Tongue Politics

The alternative media reminds us of why it is important to keep one's eye fixed on President Obama's deeds rather than one's ear on his words.  That the mainstream media doesn't reminds us of why we need alternative media.

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected president he would not issue obscure declarations known as signing statements that thwart the intent of laws passed by Congress. But as the president now seeking reelection in 2012, on at least 20 occasions Obama has embraced the same tactic he criticized George W. Bush for using, raising allegations of double-dealing in Congress and questions of constitutionality from the American Bar Association.

Obama’s most recent signing statement came on New Year’s Eve, when he autographed a 13-paragraph memorandum declaring he did not intend to follow several sections of the National Defense Authorization Act that funded the military for 2012. The president said his lawyers had concluded the provisions interfered with his constitutional duties to carry out foreign policy.

The only thing that surprised Noman in those paragraphs is that the American Bar Association--an auxiliary wing of the Democratic Party--has questioned the constitutionality of the action.

The signing statement essentially declares Obama’s intention to ignore requirements in the law, including restrictions on data transfers to Russia, new authorities to detain suspected members of al Qaeda, and sanctions against the central bank of Iran. The move has alienated members of Congress who claim the White House reneged on promises it made during backroom negotiations to get the long-stalled legislation passed just before lawmakers left for the holidays.

“Whichever administration lawyer wrote this was having the president speak with forked tongue,” [Sen] Kirk [R-IL] said. “The deputy national security adviser assured me that under no circumstances would sensitive missile defense data like telemetry or hit-to-kill technology go to the Russians. Then his lawyers, with a great lack of integrity, pulled back the very commitments made to me in writing.”

Kirk told The Daily Beast that the missile defense data the administration would share with Russia is likely to end up in the hands of Iran, whose missiles the missile defense system is meant to defend against. “When we give classified information to the Russians, we ignore the reality that almost immediately this technology will go to the Islamic Republic of Iran, probably through their senior missile defense ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, who is scheduled to work there with Iranian officials in Tehran this month,” he said.

Not to worry, says National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. “We will not provide Russia with sensitive information about our missile defenses that would in any way compromise national security.”

Noman isn't sure what's recalling to mind President Clinton's decisions that allowed Loral Corporation to sell sensitive military technology to the Chinese, apparently in return for campaign contributions. Perhaps it's that President Obama made similar decisions in 2009.

The problem according the President is that the law infringes on his Constitutional powers under Article II, Section 2 to craft foreign policy.

In the Dec. 31 signing statement, Obama says the section of the defense authorization bill that requires the president to notify Congress 60 days prior to any decision to share the missile defense data “could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers.” Obama also says the section of the bill instructing the United States to sanction any banks that do business with Iran’s central bank, a provision championed by Kirk, also would interfere with the president’s ability to make foreign policy.

 One might think that the President's action interferes with Congress's Constitutional power and authority under Article I, Section 8 to "provide for the common Defence...of the United States."

Why, one might ask, would the President wish to pick a fight with Congress over his prerogative to share missile defense data with the Russians, or to protect any bank from US sanctions that does business with Iran's central bank?

One might also follow the lead of the story to descry the President's appropriation of devices that he condemned his predecessor for using.  Naturally, that was just sound and fury uncritically conveyed by an accomplice media.

One might suffer frustration from the primordial ground rule governing all relations with Democrats, Socialists, Marxists and other Lefties: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but only when Lefties are the gander.  When they are the goose, the rule doesn't apply.

But, what is really worth noting is how the President is willing to say anything he needs to in order to win a vote, and then do the contrary once legislation is passed.

One need go not further than to recall pathetic Bart Stupak and the meaningless executive order banning federal funding of abortion that won his vote for ObamaCare.

That the President of the United States does indeed speak with a forked tongue is reason for the world to worry.  And, Noman is not talking about "Bush Lied, People Died."  He's talking about a Saul Alilnsky acolyte for whom outright deceit is a viable political option, and the morality of any means is justified by the end of revolution.