Thursday, February 18, 2016

Take That, Schumer!


Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, one of the most liberal voices in the Senate, recently (Aug 2015) came out against the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. On his website, the heart of his argument for this stance was given as 

"If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it."

This argument has been forwarded by several people on the right and left, but that someone of Schumer's standing should voice it angered the Obama administration, which supported Harry Reid's bid for minority leader over Schumer. 

That Schumer came out in 2007 against President Bush being allowed to appoint a Supreme Court judge in his lame duck session has become an embarrassment to the Obama administration now that Obama has the chance to change the balance of power in the SCOTUS to the liberal agenda. Conservatives are using his speech to counter Obama's move to install his own nominee.

Schumer has a long history of disagreement with Obama. In 2010, his move to embarrass Republicans over a tax issue met opposition from the administration. A top Obama official accused Schumer of "a short-term partisan strategy for point scoring that would have been really costly in the long run..."

In 2014, he allowed that the party made a mistake in passing Obamacare, creating a firestorm of criticism and a flurry of statements from both sides of the aisle.


Apparently, the Obama administration has had enough. Schumer's sins have precipitated a blatant punishment for what they see as his continued betrayal. The administration has announced they intend to withhold federal funding from New York City's anti-terrorist efforts. Casting this move as an attempt to save money is so disingenuous as to be insulting. It is obviously a reaction to Schumer's anti-Obama policy statements and the usage of his past statements in conservative argument. 

New York City is the number one target for international terrorism. Any reduction of aid for the city puts literally millions of American citizens at risk. If, as it appears, this is a political move to force Schumer to toe the Obama line, it is worse than despicable.