THE WHITE HOUSE WATCH 10/01/2015

Right Analysis | Right Hooks | Right Opinion Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest October 1, 2015    THE FOUNDATION "But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain." —James Madison, Federalist No. 42 FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS Obama, the JV Commander in Chief By Mark Alexander Two days after Barack Obama's UN confab talkathon with Vladimir Putin, Russia attacked U.S.-backed forces in Syria. On Wednesday, a Russian general dropped in at our embassy in Baghdad and issued a démarche (a diplomatic slap down) summarily demanding that U.S. personnel and aircraft get out of Syria because Russia would begin airstrikes in an hour. And Russia did just that — not against Islamic State adversaries but against the dwindling U.S.-backed Syrian militias attempting to topple the tyrannical Russian client state regime of Bashar al-Assad. Unlike Putin's invasion of Ukraine, his actions in Syria put Russian and U.S. military forces on a collision course for direct combat. Of course, Putin knows that Obama will back down. According to retired General Jack Keane, former Army Vice Chief of Staff, "Once again, Putin, who's economy is in the tank and who's military is no match for the United States ... has outmaneuvered and out-bluffed [Obama]. He knows that [Obama] will do nothing but verbal condemnation. What he is counting on is [Obama's] predictable fear of escalation and fear of confrontation. This is a game changer, this is significant because Putin is changing ... the strategic balance of power." Indeed he is. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton stated succinctly, "[Putin] is bidding for dominance in the Middle East and he thinks he can prevail because he [faces] a weak and feckless occupant in the White House." Obama's secretary of defense, Ashton Carter, responded to the most serious direct Russian threat since the Cold War by offering nothing but "verbal condemnation": "This is not the kind of behavior that we should expect professionally from uh, uh, uh, the Russian military, professionally, and it’s one good thing to have an avenue of communication that is less unprofessional than a drop-in." Carter added, "I take the Russians at their word — they’re exceptionally clear about what they’re saying, and their actions now seem to reflect what they said they’re going to do." That certainly distinguishes Putin from Obama. It appears that Ash Carter has adopted Jimmy Carter's Middle East playbook. John McCain had some advice for Obama and Carter: "What we should be saying to Putin [is], 'We fly anywhere when we want to, when and how we want to, and you better stay out of the way.'" Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest surmised, "Russia's not going to be successful in imposing a military solution inside of Syria. They'll be no more successful in that regard than the United States was in imposing a military solution in Iraq in the last decade." Huh? The only reason our "military solution in Iraq" failed is that Obama retreated from Iraq to bolster his 2012 re-election campaign, having made his promise to exit Iraq the centerpiece of that campaign, amid his other colossal domestic and foreign policy failures. Earnest also observed, "The president believes it is important for Russia's military activities to not come into conflict with our efforts there. If Russia is willing, we would welcome their constructive contribution to this effort." Yes, "if Russia is willing." John Kerry shared an open mic with Russia's foreign secretary, Sergey Lavrov, shortly after the bombing began and noted, "We agreed on the imperative of, as soon as possible, perhaps even as soon as tomorrow, that as soon as possible, having a military to military de-confliction discussion." For Lavrov's part, he just said the media should ignore what the Pentagon has to say about Russia's attacks. The Russians are not concerned about "de-confliction." They just told us to stay out of their way. Jonah Goldberg concluded that Obama's response is a "perfect seminar on what you get, in reality, when you go into the White House with the ideology that Obama had." Goldberg continued, "He sincerely thought that, from day one, if America withdrew from the world this wonderful tooth fairy-like organization called the 'international community' would fix all of our problems. ... No, it turns out that when you create a vacuum ... actors like Russia, China and Iran seek to take advantage of the vacuum, exploit it and become hegemons regionally or globally, and that's exactly what we are seeing. It's going to take us decades to put this thing back together." In contrast to Obama and Company, recall Marco Rubio's lucid prediction two weeks ago at the Sept. 16 Republican debate: "I have an understanding of exactly what it is Russia and Putin are doing. It's pretty straightforward. He wants to reposition Russia once again as a geopolitical force. ... Here's what you're going to see in the next few weeks. The Russians will begin to fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS but in order to prop up Assad." Who can forget Obama's condemnation of Mitt Romney in the final 2012 presidential debate? Wagging his finger at Romney, Obama said, “A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. You said Russia. … You said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years. When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.” Of course, Romney was right on foreign policy, social policy and economic policy. Make no mistake, Obama and his administration are the "JV Team," and the spillover from the vacuum Obama left in the region has not only created a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions, but his feckless "leadership" has now empowered the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. The Obama-Clinton "reset" button with Russia is now buried under Russian-bombed out ruins. Comment | Share Spending $500 Million to Deprive Children of Life By Allyne Caan During the five-plus hours Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards spent before a congressional hearing on Tuesday, her organization had time to kill more than 185 babies. Unfortunately, while debating whether the abortion mill should continue to receive more than $500 million annually in taxpayer dollars, Republicans, who rightfully called the hearing, asked the wrong question: “Does Planned Parenthood really need federal subsidies?" Instead, they should have gotten to the crux of the issue: Does the Constitution authorize spending money to deprive children of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The correct answer is, of course, no. Were the right question asked — and correctly answered — the hearing could have begun and ended in five minutes. But since Republicans went down the road of financial “need,” let’s take a look at those numbers. Far from being a health clinic chain desperate for federal dollars, Planned Parenthood is a massive profit machine, grossing nearly $1.3 billion annually and holding $1.4 billion in assets. Richards herself pocketed pay of more than $590,000 in 2013, while more than 40 other Planned Parenthood execs make more than $200,000. Richards admitted she “can’t think of a specific impact” of losing taxpayer dollars. We can think of 327,000 specific impacts. (Incidentally, Richards also couldn’t think of any instances in which unborn children survive abortions. It’s amazing the sudden onset of amnesia a congressional hearing can spur.) But back to funding, Planned Parenthood doesn’t "just get a big check from the federal government," Richards said. "We, like other Medicaid providers, we are reimbursed directly for services provided.” And pulling federal funding “would deny people on Medicaid the ability to go to a provider of their choice, and many of them do go to Planned Parenthood for a variety of different reasons.” According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, public expenditures for family planning exceeded $2.3 billion in FY 2010 — and 75% of this went toward Medicaid. It’s all part of the Title X Family Planning Program, enacted in 1970, in accordance with Article Nil, Section Nonexistent of the Constitution. This funding purportedly supports a variety of family planning and preventative health services. Of course, for Planned Parenthood, this “variety” does not include basic women’s health services like mammograms — no matter how many times its defenders lie about that particular service. Perhaps this is why Richards herself does not rely on Planned Parenthood for her own health care. In fact, if Richards is to be believed (cue: sarcasm), just a teeny weeny bit of this “variety” is abortion. According to Richards, Planned Parenthood’s 327,000 annual abortions are just 3% of the health services offered by its clinics. Hmm, that’s odd. Richards herself has said Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million women each year. Do the math, and the percentage is closer to 12 million. Not only this, but as Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) noted during the hearing, more than 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non-government revenue in 2013 came from abortions. Even Common Core math can’t make 86 equal anything close to 3. Still, Richards attempted to skirt the truth, explaining that some people come to Planned Parenthood “more than once for different services.” And she pulled the famous “federal money does not go for abortions” lie, saying, “So the federal portion that we were discussing is reimbursement for preventative care services.” Perhaps in fantasyland she’s right, but saying taxpayer money doesn’t fund abortions is like saying you can pour a bucket of water in the deep end of a pool and keep it out of the shallow end. The taxpayer dollars doled to Planned Parenthood are entirely fungible — and paying for some services allows the abortion mill to divert other resources to practice its primary and deadly trade. In truth, Richards and her corporation masked as a non-profit organization are cashing in — at the expense of taxpayers — on the blood and body parts of innocent babies. And how tightly Planned Parenthood is holding onto its rhetoric of lies shows just how much their factories of death stand to lose. Comment | Share Share TOP RIGHT HOOKS Secret Service Broke Laws to Attack Critical Congressman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is the one who's led the charge on malfeasance issues at the Secret Service, and here's what the agency's response has been: About 45 Secret Service agents violated privacy laws when they accessed Chaffetz's decade-old rejected application for a job with the agency. According to a government report examined by ABC News, the service opened up the file 18 minutes into the March hearing in which Chaffetz grilled the organization over the incident where two drunk Secret Service agents drove through an active bomb investigation and bumped into a White House barrier. Later, the service leaked the document to The Daily Beast in an effort to discredit the lawmaker. There's no doubt reform is needed because this is the agency of the Colombian prostitution scandal, the agency that bungled a 2011 investigation of shots fired at the White House, and the one that let a man armed with a knife into the building. But everybody from the service director's chief of staff to key positions down the line saw Chaffetz's application. Using government to shut down a politician is astounding corruption. Recall that Richard Nixon created the "Political Enemies Project," a list of people Nixon disliked and wanted to hurt by siccing the government upon them. As Hot Air's Allahpundit writes, "The theory they wanted the public to believe, I guess, is that Chaffetz harbored some sort of grudge against the agency for not hiring him many years before, as if a powerful congressman couldn't quite get over his disappointment of more than a decade earlier. They're even incompetent in smearing people." Comment | Share What Difference Does a Temper Tantrum Make? House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy will be in the spotlight more frequently as he is the presumptive replacement for outgoing House Speaker John Boehner. And he's in hot water for supposedly politicizing the Benghazi investigation. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable." Hillary immediately spun his remarks as evidence the investigation is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, thus absolving her of wrongdoing. "I knew the ambassador that we lost in Benghazi," she railed. "When I hear a statement like that, which demonstrates unequivocally that this was always meant to be a partisan, political exercise, I feel like it does a grave disservice and dishonors not just the memory of the four that we lost but of everybody who has served our country.” Of course, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible not just for dishonoring the memory of four dead Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, but for their very lives. And it was Clinton and Obama who politicized the Benghazi attack as part of Obama's re-election narrative. What McCarthy meant was that the events before, during and after the attack prove Clinton is untrustworthy. She's a political hack and a liar, so it's no wonder the Benghazi panel is indeed having an effect on how the public sees her — the panel was the only way the truth could ever come out. McCarthy's inarticulate statement and Hillary's ensuing temper tantrum in no way absolves her of malfeasance and dereliction of duty. Nor does it wipe away her lengthy record worthy of a different kind of orange jumpsuit. Remember that while the Leftmedia heads for the fainting couch over the shock of politicians making political calculations. Comment | Share Don't Miss Alexander's Column Read Boehner Says G'bye — Now What, explaining how Boehner devolved from a successful grassroots conservative into a futile GOP establishment hack. If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here. MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS: Say, Does Anyone on Capitol Hill Remember the Spending Clause? Will VW Avoid Criminal Charges? EPA Keeps Steamrolling Economy BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Mona Charen: Republicans Fail at Hearings — Again Michael Reagan: GOP Can't Win in 2016 by Losing Now Veronique de Rugy: Candidates AWOL on Plans to Cut Spending For more, visit Right Opinion. TOP HEADLINES Congress Avoids Government Shutdown Lawmakers Reach Deal That Would Cut DoD Workforce by 25% TX Chief Under Fire for 'In God We Trust' Motto Tells Critics to 'Go Fly a Kite' For more, visit Patriot Headline Report OPINION IN BRIEF Mona Charen: "Speaking of running circles, that’s pretty much what Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards managed to do at the much-heralded hearing this week. The committee’s chairman announced that the devastating videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress would not be shown during the hearing due to a court order in California. So, instead of the topic of the hour — truly heart-rending footage of aborted babies being picked over for their livers and hearts, to cite just one example — the hearing featured charts showing how much money Planned Parenthood spent on various services over the past year. Riveting. The videos are the reason the hearing was held at all. It is the videos that have galvanized abortion opponents, moved the debate and put pressure on Congress to once again attempt to defund the organization. If, due to legal wrangling, the videos cannot be shown now, then why not hold off the hearings until they can be shown? The videos are the story." Comment | Share SHORT CUTS Upright: "[I]f Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood right now, the best way to do it is through the states. There are 31 states with Republican governors. Five of them have already defunded Planned Parenthood by prohibiting the use of Medicaid funds for abortion. Putting pressure on the states to remove taxpayer support of abortion mills can work and it can be done without sabotaging the Republicans' presidential chances next year." —Michael Reagan Opposing the sun: "Think sunny days are good for plants? Not always. Sunlight causes #ozone to form, which harms foliage, weakens trees." —EPA on Twitter (So are they admitting our solar energy endeavor's a waste?) Alpha Jackass: "Look, we had a president who came in and said the same kind of thing — new and improved, hope and change — and he didn’t have the leadership skills to fix things." —Jeb Bush taking a shot at Marco Rubio Non Compos Mentis: "Gun-rights advocates have waged a relentless battle to gut what remains of America’s lax and inadequate gun regulations. But what the advocates do not acknowledge — and some courts seem not to understand — is that their arguments are grounded in precedent unique to the violent world of the slaveholding South.” —Saul Cornell and Eric Ruben in The Atlantic (In truth, gun control was originally enacted by Democrats as a way to repress blacks' rights.) Late-night humor: "On Friday, despite our trade wars, tension in the South China Sea and Chinese hacking attacks, President Obama gave President Xi Jinping a full South Lawn welcome, where the Chinese president greeted every White House staffer by name and bank account." —Stephen Colbert Comment | Share Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm's way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.