Threatening to veto a bipartisan bill allowing Sept. 11 victims to sue foreign governments like Saudi Arabia for damages, 55-year-old President Barack Obama showed where he expects to do business when leaves the White House. Obama said he plans to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, despite Congress having enough votes to overturn his veto. Commemorating Sept. 11 yesterday at Ground Zero, Americans renewed commitments to never allow a terrorist massacre on U.S. soil. Going against the will of Congress and the people, Obama shows he’s learned a lot from Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she ran the State Department [Jan. 20, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013], Hillary methodically solicited donations from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and many other foreign governments into the Clinton Foundation
As the clock ticks on his presidency, Obama sees the massive bill awaiting to build his $2 billion Obama Library at the University of Chicago, counting heavily on donations from special interest groups and foreign governments. “The president feels strongly about this, and I do anticipate that the president will veto the legislation when it’s presented to him,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Giving victims and their families a chance for redress in U.S. courts, the JAST Act amends federal law to allow U.S. citizens to sue sovereign states for damages related to their role in sponsoring international terrorism. Tossing out ”sovereign immunity,” the new bill would make state sponsors of terrorism accountable in U.S. courts. Earnest suggested that the bill would prompt other nations to repeal “sovereign immunity” protections, opening the U.S. government up for lawsuits.
Speaking for Obama, Earnest gave some feeble excuses why the bill would potentially harm the U.S. Treasury. “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members or even U.S. companies into court all around the world,” said Earnest, knowing that actions can already be taken in foreign and federal courts. When asking the real reason Obama opposes the legislation, there’s no need to look further than Hillary. Obama and Hillary back the nearly six-year-old Saudi proxy war, costing more that 300,000 deaths, displacing 12 million more to neighboring countries and Europe, and causing the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII. Asking why Obama and Hillary pitted the U.S. against Russia to back the Saudi proxy war to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can on only be understood in terms to cash donations.
Hillary’s wheeling-and-dealing with Saudis and Gulf State, generating tens-of-millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation, show the quid-pro-quo for backing the Saudi proxy war against al-Assad. With Obama leaving office January 20, 2017, he’s consumed with future fundraising to back his presidential library. Estimating costs of $2 billion, Barack’s fund raising efforts will be the most ambitious in presidential history. “Our concern is not limited to the impact it could have on our relationship with one country, but rather [its] impact on our relationship with every country around the world,” said Earnest, giving the phony logic to oppose the bill. Earnest knows the JAST Act is specific to state sponsors of terrorism, not something the U.S. has to worry about. Giving U.S. citizens the right to sue in federal court state sponsors of terrorism gives families a chance at recoveries.
For the first time since Barack signed Obamacare into law March 23, 2010, Obama watched the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, get on the same page to back the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. All agree that aggrieved survivors and families should have recourse in federal courts. Whether Obama sees potential tit-for-tat actions by foreign governments, he should think of Sept. 11 victims, not whether or not the U.S. government can get sued in foreign courts. “In many cases, we had members of Congress who are sympathetic to our concerns,” said Earnest, fully expecting an Obama veto. “But I think those same members of Congress were concerned about the impact that this would have on their political standing to oppose this bill,” said Earnest, unsure whether Congress could summon enough votes to defeat Obama’s veto. When both sides of the aisle agree, it’s something to take seriously.
As Obama finishes his term, he’s looking at what lies ahead after Jan. 20, 2017. Barack faces an uphill battle to raise the expected $2 billion in cash needed for his presidential library. While fund raising can’t start until Barack’s out of office, signing bipartisan legislation designed to punish Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States or private sponsors of Sept. 11 would no doubt discourage the Kingdom or its private backers from kicking in to Barack’s library capital funds drive. Before Barack makes his motives obvious, he should reconsider vetoing the first bipartisan piece of legislation since 2010. Opposing the legislation during an election is a double-edged sword for Hillary, already struggling with her email scandal and health issues. Vetoing the JAST Act might be the rallying cry needed for Republicans to finally get behind Trump. Before Obama wields his veto pen, he’s got some thinking to do.
