The consequences of the Iran deal won’t be felt by the Obama administration

The hallmark of the modern Democratic party has to be passing legislation and instituting policy that makes everyone feel really good for a moment but pushes massive consequences down the road. The Obama administration has done it with growing entitlement programs like Obamacare, growing the national debt, ignoring illegal immigration, and more. The Iran nuclear deal will end up being the latest in a long list. Buck Sexton has the story and reaction on today’s radio show.

Start listening at 21min into today's podcast:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

From a policy perspective, what the president is doing with Iran and the broader Middle East as well, you can see a pattern. It's one I think we should start to recognize for what it is. Because it's very difficult to deal with. And in a sense, it's almost like an Alinskyite subversion of democracy or subversion of a representative government. What they do is they make sure that policies that they couldn't get normally passed have a sort of time delay fuse on them, such that they won't be held accountable. Right?

So they plan things, whether it's health care, whether it's immigration, and now we see with Iran, do things that will give you a sort of political benefit today and the consequences are pushed down the line. Now, look, the best example of this and the one that is most obvious to many of us would be entitlements, which just in the last few weeks, the president has said, there's no problem with Social Security. There's no problem with the debt. Which is going to be $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office. No problem with any of this stuff. And, of course, it's easy. And it's very palatable and very profitable for a politician to say that's the case. Because you can say, this is the nice guy. This is the nice leader. The one that doesn't want to take away any of the stuff we have. Or change any of the promises government made to us. This is what we're running up against, time again. This is the Democrat playbook 101. You want to be the guy who promises things. Not the one that tells people that they actually can't have it. If you manipulate the time frame of all this stuff, that's not so hard to do.

You want to be the one who says, I'm going to give you stuff. Or I'm going to accomplish things today that you won't feel the consequences of for quite some time.

And also, I'm going to do things in such a way that you won't really know what's going on until it's too late for you to do anything about it. You're reading editorials about this. It's popping up all over the media. Now you're getting the real President Obama. Now you're seeing what Obama has always wanted to be as president. This is Obama released from the constraints of having to please the electorate and having to actually represent the will of the American people. You're getting the will of Obama now.

The aftermath of the midterm just became quite clear when he decided to go with an equity order on immigration. Why wait until not only after he's been reelected, but after the midterms. Because what we see. And this is where people say, I understand what Trump is getting at a little bit here. I understand that we should have this discussion. What the Democrats realize is that Americans across-the-board do not want illegal immigration. They do not want to live in a lawless society. They do not want to live in a country that does not have control of its borders. So they lie and they say it's not a problem. It's not happening. They tell us that they actually are doing more than ever to secure the borders and all the rest of it. That's why President Obama waited until after the midterm to take that action. Because if it was such a great idea and the American people liked it, well, why not do it beforehand. Let your party be judged by the American people on the actions it takes. That would seem to be rather straightforward. Yet, here we are. Here we are. Had to wait. Had to wait until the end.

With even the recent reform, or rather the commutations of prison sentences and the calls for reform from the president, the president is finally taking action on this. And this is something where he actually has some Libertarian support. There are other conservatives and other Republicans who are saying, yeah, we probably shouldn't have people who are first time offenders who are serving life sentences. That's not a good idea. We can do something about it. We can lessen those sentences. Wait until the end. Why? Democrats are, of course, haunted by a past of pandering, pandering to all sorts of constituencies in the country about, well, we don't want to have too many people that are locked up for crimes. And Democrats were essentially soft on crime for a long time.

And with the declines in this country and criminal activity that has been happening nationwide, there was a recognition that this is something that maybe they could change. So the president waits on that. But Iran is really the amazing test case for this theory that I have, right? It's the time delay fuse. And this is what they keep setting over and over again. And they can say whatever they want because we don't know. Not enough Americans figure out what's coming. It has to happen, right? Then you can expect there to be some kind of a revolt by the electorate. But if you don't know, the Democrats have the media on their side. They can do a lot of spin. With the Iran deal, I think they figured that would happen. They would be able to create a certain perception of this and by the time we figure it out because it's staring us in the face -- and in this case staring us in the face in the form of nuclear weapons, by the time we figure it out and it's clear -- it's too clear even for the propaganda to shroud it or to confuse people. The media won't be able to come up with a narrative that changes the discussion and then all of a sudden, yeah, I get that. Sure, I believe what they say.

This president will be long gone from office. Everybody who had made these decisions. But for them, for the very egotistical leadership we have in this country, the president, of course, is really in a class by himself in that regard, the fact that that is the case and that there won't be consequences necessarily for anybody because of the reckoning the American people will have with what's happened with the Iran deal. Which is, we have ensured a stronger, more dangerous, more durable nuclear-armed Iranian regime. By the time that could be a headline on every newspaper across the country because it's just so obvious, they will be gone.

And yet the president wants the victory dance now. The administration wants to spike the football in the end zone. They want the credit for this. They want the Nobel Peace Prizes for Kerry and whomever else. So they want it at the same time. They want both of these things. What we find out and what we see increasingly is that, no, no, it doesn't work that way. This isn't the '90s when the Clintons can kind of put out some kind of a meme and the media processes it and they just jam it down all of our throats. And we have no way of figuring out what's actually going on here. This was not what the president was expecting with Iran. This was not what he was expecting. He really thought that it would be something that he could at least get away with celebrating now. By the time we all figure out what's really happened, no accountability.

And that's really -- that's really the essential point here. That the Democrats are constantly doing things for which they're trying -- they're doing things and trying to evade accountability for their actions. Because at the heart of a progressive statist, they don't care what you think. They do not care what you think. And they also -- by the way, this is a big problem for Hillary because people know this about her. They don't care about your problems. You're just a bump in the road. You're just collateral damage to the grand policies of the better society that they're building by taking away your liberty, by deciding how much freedom you really should have. And if someone else is getting to decide all the time how much freedom you have, are you free? It's a fair question to ask yourself at this point.

But you're seeing it all now. It's all coming together. This crowning diplomatic achievement for the administration, that all of us look at it and say, no, no, the emperor actually has no clothing. And then the emperor is very upset. Wait a second. This is part of a pattern. This is not something that comes out of nowhere. This is something we should have been expecting. Because this is how the modern Democrat Party operates.

It's via the imposition of policies and the imposition of these things on all of us that we don't get a say in. And by the time everyone realizes what's happening, look at Obamacare. You want to talk about a time delayed fuse. Look at Obamacare. All the real stuff keeps getting pushed back, pushed back, pushed back. They're hoping to shape the ground. Create the narrative. And force feed all of us into this. And yet, with Iran, they miscalculated. He's getting his way. So in that respect, they timed this out perfectly. But they miscalculated what our perception would be. They thought that there would be a ticker tape parade waiting. And the American people looked at this and said, this is a capitulation. It is really the culmination of all of the greatest concerns that many of us have had about this administration. About this president from the start.

Go back even a few years. People were talking about an American retreat from the world stage. An obsession with multilateralism. Relying on international institutions, when American leadership and decisiveness is, in fact, much more important and a much more appropriate response.

Look at all of that. And what you see this week is that we were proven right. We've been right all along. The only problem is that being right doesn't stop the carnage in the Middle East. It doesn't stop the mullahs from their relentless pursuit, not just of nukes, but of hegemony across the Middle East. So we were right, all right. But it doesn't change the problems that we've been now saddled with by an administration that is much more concerned with ego than wisdom.

Take a break here. Back in just a minute.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?