From the Archives: Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue

Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue
February 9, 2013 1:16 PM MST

Replying to a question from a self-described former addict about marijuana legalization, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the opportunity to explain his views on federalism to an audience of Republican activists in Albemarle County on February 9.

Cuccinelli, a candidate for governor in 2013 and author of a new book scheduled to be published on February 12, The Last Line of Defense: The New Fight for American Liberty (Crown Forum, 272 pages, $25), said that “one of the problems with the ever-layering on of federal regulations and commands about how we all run our governments, our local governments, our businesses, is this sort of maniacal drive that we all be the same.”

Diversity, Cuccinelli explained, “is a strength of this country. We shouldn't try to wring it out, including intellectual diversity and policy diversity, because we get these sorts of experiments and some of them don't work and some of them may work.”

Colorado and Washington
Earlier in the week, the Attorney General had told students at the University of Virginia that, with regard to the legalization of recreational use of marijuana by voters in Colorado and Washington state, “I and a lot of people are watching Colorado and Washington to see how it plays out.”

Cuccinelli used his appearance at the Albemarle GOP breakfast to clarify and expand on his remarks at UVA.

“What I expressed to [the students] was an openness to observe how things work there, both in terms of the drug side and the economics. One issue that is often discussed is how the war on drugs itself has played out. Have we done this the right way? It's been phenomenally expensive.”

If the government, he said, is “going to put people in jail and spend $25,000 [to] $30,000 a year for a prison bed, do we want it to be for someone who's pushing marijuana or pushing meth? I'll tell you what, that $30,000 for the meth pusher is well worth the deal.”

Different kinds of illicit drugs, he said, are “not the same” and policymakers have to set priorities in terms of law and of how the laws are enforced.

“We have limits on our budget and our ability to police this, so we've got to make these kinds of distinctions over time.”

'Simple federalism experiment'

The benefit of the legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, he explained, is that “having data from a couple of states, whole states, that go down this path may not be good news but it will be interesting and it will be something we can learn from.”

The situation in those two Western states “is going to be interesting on several levels,” he said, including “as a simple federalism experiment.”

What, he asked, is “the federal government going to do? What are they going to do? How is this interaction between the states and federal government going to take place?”

Cuccinelli said he has no “problem watching that. It's a peculiar subject but I do think it's important that states try some things they think are appropriate and whether the federal government approves or not, the rest of us watch and learn.”

Undermining federalism
He explained he had told the UVA students, “I'm ready to watch and learn. I'm not ready to do it [legalize marijuana] but I don't want to just never ever say never to the possibility in the future.”

When the federal government forces all states to be uniform, he said, diversity and experimentation are undermined.

“We're not going to have any [experiments] if the federal government is just squashing all of us,” Cuccinelli said, adding: “That's something I have fought against as AG.”

At the same time, he continued, “I don't want you to think that I'm going to land in the governor's office and sign a legalization bill. I don't think you have to worry about it getting to the governor's desk but it's worth knowing what your candidate's saying.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 9, 2013. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Attracting and retaining businesses are the key to job growth, says Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd

Attracting and retaining businesses are the key to job growth, says Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd
August 3, 2010 9:56 PM MST

Controversy over Charlottesville’s use of taxpayer funds to lure a firm from Albemarle County into the city, as well as the Coca-Cola Bottling Company’s decision to leave Charlottesville after 70 years, have brought to the fore concerns about recruiting and retaining businesses in the area.

Albemarle County Supervisor Ken Boyd brought this issue up in a recent interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, when he lamented that attracting new businesses is “something we want to do but we’re as anxious to keep the ones that we’ve got. We’ve been bleeding an awful lot of private sector jobs recently,” adding ruefully that “all our manufacturing jobs have just about left from the county.”

Lack of space
One problem Boyd highlighted was the lack of room for expansion, which was one of the reasons given for the Coke bottling plant’s move to a consolidated facility near Richmond.

Boyd pointed out that Albemarle has had “technology companies that have left the county because there’s not been a place for them to move to, they need to expand.”

Consequently, he said, county officials are “trying to take a very hard look at our land-use policies to make sure that there’s land available.”

He offered this illustration of the problem:

“I talked to a businessman the other day who moved his business to Greene [County]. The reason he did was because when he came” to Albemarle seeking a site for his company, “he was told to get through our bureaucratic process and it would probably be 18 months before we could approve a site for him. He went to Greene and he had his building up in six months.”

Boyd said the goal of economic development efforts is “to make sure there’s land available for somebody who is a plumber or an electrician or a carpenter, [so] that they have a place to thrive and grow their business here. We see them moving to other communities” even though “the work they do is here.” The problem, he said, is that “it’s too expensive to go through the process and get established in their business.”

Economic Vitality Action Plan
To address these issues, Albemarle County officials are now “in the process of talking about an Economic Vitality Plan,” Boyd said. “We’re trying to look at how an overburdening regulations impact our business community. We’re trying to figure out how we can stimulate private sector jobs.”

While the University of Virginia is an engine for job creation, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), “these are all state and federal jobs,” Boyd said, and “we certainly want to grow the private sector, to make [it] an important part of the jobs we have available here.”

The Economic Vitality Action Plan that has been under discussion by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will be voted on at the board’s meeting on August 11.



Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 3, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: April 15 Charlottesville Tea Party attracts protesters, onlookers, sunshine, and obscene reactions

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 16, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

April 15 Charlottesville Tea Party attracts protesters, onlookers, sunshine, and obscene reactions
April 16, 2010 2:47 AM MST

Tax Day – April 15 – was the day that the Jefferson Area Tea Party chose to organize a protest in favor of smaller government and against high taxes. The group attracted 150 to 200 people to a demonstration at the Post Office building on Route 29 north of Charlottesville.

Local radio talk show host Rob Schilling, whose weekday program appears on WINA-AM, said the program “started out with a bang,” when a counter-protester hurled obscenities at him. Police were called in to settle the situation, and the man was briefly detained. Schilling offered him the opportunity to apologize on videotape in return for dropping assault charges, which the man readily agreed to do. (The video can be seen on The Schilling Show blog.)

Ken Boyd, a member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and a candidate for Congress in the Fifth District of Virginia, said that the rally represented “a great showing of Americanism and people coming together who are not happy with what’s going on in Washington and they want to make their voices heard. There are people from all walks of life, as you look around. I just think it’s great, the enthusiasm and the passion are what it’s all about.”

Boyd described the protesters’ primary message as “they got the kind of change they don’t want from the Obama administration and they would like to change it to the way it was before.”

Bill Hay, one of the founders of the Jefferson Area Tea Party who is now affiliated with congressional candidate Laurence Verga’s Fifth District campaign, said he thought the message of the rally was “smaller government, cut taxes, and throw Tom Perriello out of office.” He added that drivers passing by on Route 29 were providing “a lot of horn beeping, a lot of thumbs up, maybe a few middle fingers.”

Former Albemarle County GOP chairman Keith Drake, who now serves as communications director for the Jefferson Area Tea Party, said “This is truly a revolution. Nobody’s shooting guns, nobody’s fighting in the streets. But other than that, there’s every bit of passion you would see in a revolution, and I’m very optimistic about the future direction of our country.”

Drake explained the purpose of a new organization he co-founded (with Schilling) called IMPACT (“I’m Paying Additional County Taxes”) as “an opportunity for people who don’t think they’re paying enough [in taxes] to actually pay more, to make a donation to local county government.”

So far IMPACT has received one donation in the amount of $25.

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses Africa policy, Ebola threat, and AGOA

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 10, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses Africa policy, Ebola threat, and AGOA

At a campaign stop in Charlottesville on October 8, U.S. Representative Robert Hurt talked to reporters about a wide range of political topics and policy issues.

He answered questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about foreign policy matters. In an exclusive interview, he explained his position on U.S. military assistance to Syrian rebel groups and the Obama administration's strategy to defeat the Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS).

In reply to other questions, Hurt talked about U.S. policy toward Africa, with reference to the threat of Ebola and also with regard to trade and investment under the umbrella of AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), which comes up for reauthorization by Congress in 2015.

'Public health threat'
“The Ebola epidemic definitely poses a public health threat to the United States,” Hurt said, noting the death of Liberian Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan in Dallas a few hours earlier that day.

“We need to be able to know exactly who's coming into this country,” he explained, adding that the Ebola problem “highlights the need for border security, not just for terrorism but obviously for public health issues.”

With regard to the U.S. government's decision to send several hundred American troops to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to help manage the Ebola epidemic in those West African countries, Hurt warned that “we have to be very careful in deploying our military for humanitarian reasons. I know we do it from time to time but I think there has to be a demonstrable, justifiable use of our military for that purpose.”

The reasons for caution, he said, include that “it's a huge risk to the members of the military but” also that “the United States can't be the world policeman. We can't be all things to all people.”

Asked whether he planned to vote to reauthorize AGOA next year, Hurt said, “I need to look at it. We'll obviously have some time to look at that.”

AGOA and free trade
He explained that, “whenever you're talking about any kind of trade agreements, I think that we have to look for what's in the best interests of the United States.”

Hurt said that “we've seen instances where trade agreements have hurt us, and they've hurt very deeply people in places like Virginia's Fifth District, where you look at what's happened in the southern part of our district, in Martinsville and Danville and those sorts of places.”

Each trade agreement “is different,” he explained, so “you have to take it on a case by case basis and try to figure out what's the best deal.”

Congressman Hurt added, however, that he views free trade in a positive light. “Free trade – generally speaking – I'm all in favor of it.”

He favors free trade, he said, “because it does open up markets for our producers and for our manufacturers, so we want to open those markets – but we have to do so in a careful way.”

Referring to the situation on the ground in his own congressional district, Hurt illustrated his point by describing what Central Virginia farmers grow on their land.

“We were just coming down Route 29 and looking at the soybeans. A lot of the soybeans that are going to be harvested in Virginia [will] go down to Hampton Roads, [and] get on a ship” carrying them to China.

That, he concluded, is “a good thing for our producers, so where we can find those advantages, we want to pursue them” in appropriate trade agreements.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq
Omidyar Network's Karol Boudreaux offers optimistic view of African economies
Scholar reflects on why Africa was absent from final presidential debate
South African author Greg Mills offers solutions to African poverty
Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-robert-hurt-discusses-africa-policy-ebola-threat-and-agoa

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 13, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville

Appearing at the monthly Albemarle County Republican breakfast on June 13, Congressman Robert Hurt (R-VA5) vigorously defended his vote in favor of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in the House of Representatives on June 12.

Noting that opposition to the TPA and related bills (Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP) comes largely from labor unions and left-leaning liberals like Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Hurt said that support for free trade is a conservative principle that “would make Ronald Reagan proud.”

In an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner immediately after his breakfast remarks, Hurt explained what the TPA does and what it does not do, and emphasized that there is not yet an agreement for the Trans Pacific Partnership – that the TPP is still being negotiated.

“What we voted on yesterday was the Trade Promotion Authority, also known as TPA,” Hurt said. The bill “passed with a large Republican majority in support.”

Framework and authorization
He explained that TPA sets up a framework and gives authorization to the President “to finish negotiating trade agreements” that have been under consideration for years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, he noted, “was begun under George Bush, so this is not like this is Obama's idea. This was initiated under a previous president.”

Hurt pointed out that “in order for us to even consider a free trade agreement – which was not on the floor – in order for us just to consider it, we had to pass a Trade Promotion Authority to give the president the ability to finalize the negotiations with the other 11 countries (in the case of TPP) and, not only that, but it gives Congress and the American people a tremendous amount of transparency” that would not be available without the TPA in place.

The congressman said that “as it is now [the President] doesn't have to share anything with Congress. That's why the negotiating text of a free trade agreement that does not exist is classified. That's because the Administration has the power to control that negotiating text and doesn't have to do anything with Congress.”

Under TPA, he said, “the President not only has to give us access to it currently and in the future, [he] also has to make it publicly available before anybody votes on anything for at least two months prior to it is even considered by Congress so that our constituents can hear and can look at every single word and see what the agreement does and what it doesn't do.”

Hurt explained that since he has been in Congress, he has voted for two free trade agreements (with Colombia and Panama) and voted against another (with South Korea).

“The devil's always in the details,” he said. “For people who are getting so upset about this bill, I think there's some misunderstanding that somehow what we voted on Friday was a free trade agreement. It was not a free trade agreement.”

Asked whether a trade agreement like this would get pushback from conservatives if it were promoted by President Romney rather than President Obama, Hurt demurred.

“Great question,” he said, adding “I don't know. It's hard to say. It's hard to attribute motive.”

That question makes the point, he suggested, that “this President has so soured any reasonable relationship with Congress and he is so distrusted among so many of the American people because of his abuse of the rule of law in this country that people push back for that reason – but this vote yesterday had nothing to do with President Obama.”

Hurt stated that he does not “trust President Obama to follow the rule of law. He's demonstrated again and again that he cannot.”

Setting that aside, he said, the TPA does not give the President “any authority to do anything that he cannot already do. It gives him restrictions in negotiating objectives that are in TPA but it doesn't give him any additional power to make any law.”

'Hogwash'
Hurt cited Internet rumors like “'this means we're going to give the president the authority to change immigration law!'” Those, he said, are “just totally, 100 percent false. It does not.”

He explained that, contrary to those rumors, “in order for any law of the United States to change, it has to come through Congress.”

Moreover, he said, “if it's pursuant to a free trade agreement, it has to come through Congress twice, because it has to be adopted as a free trade agreement and, secondly, the actual change of the law has to be adopted through implementing legislation, which would be a second shot at the apple.”

Taking aim at the Internet rumor mill, Hurt asserted that “the idea that this President can affect any of our laws unilaterally or that we're going to submit to some international tribunal is just hogwash.”

Hurt also emphasized how free trade will benefit his constituents in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District.

As a legislator, he said, “I have to look at the economy of the Fifth District the way it is in 2015, not the way it was in 1980 or 1990 or 2000. Our economy has changed a tremendous amount” over the past thirty years.

He pointed out that “agriculture is huge,” the largest sector in Virginia's economy, with $75 billion in output each year. The Fifth District has 23 counties and cities and “with the exception of Charlottesville and Danville, it is mostly rural, mostly agricultural.”

'Opportunities for growth'
“There are huge opportunities” in agriculture, he said, “but let me tell you this: There are opportunities for growth. There are opportunities for our manufacturers to access these foreign markets and sell our products that we make here there and we get their cash.”

If the Trans-Pacific Partnership is finalized – a prospect that Hurt says is a year or more in the future “I will look very carefully and make my best judgment as to whether or not this is good on balance for the people I represent.”

If, by his consideration, the agreement is not good on balance for the Fifth District, “I'll vote against it and work for its defeat. If it is good, on balance, for the people I represent, [if it] creates jobs and opportunity and growth and it projects American strength in a very sensitive area geopolitically, in the shadow of China,” he said, he will vote for it.

As to free trade in general, Hurt concluded, “I think it's consistent with Republican principles, consistent with conservative principles. It would make Ronald Reagan proud.”

Note: the full audio of this interview with Congressman Robert Hurt is available as a podcast from Bearing Drift.

SUGGESTED LINKS

'Open-minded, pragmatic' Republican Anson Parker enters race for City Council
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville
Poultry industry is trade-talk pawn of South African government, says analyst
Think-tank head Jason Grumet reacts to Obama's mandatory voting idea
Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-robert-hurt-speaks-out-for-free-trade-charlottesville

From the Archives: Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 12, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP

Arriving at the Doubletree Hotel in Charlottesville for the monthly Albemarle County GOP breakfast on September 12, former Virginia governor and U.S. senator George F. Allen offered some comments on real estate mogul Donald Trump's bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

In 2006, Allen's re-election campaign was derailed by an off-hand remark to a Democratic party video tracker, using the then-unknown word “macaca,” which to some people sounded like a pejorative term used in North Africa, where Allen's mother grew up. Allen – then not only heavily favored for re-election but widely touted as a likely leading 2008 presidential candidate – lost narrowly to Democrat Jim Webb, and lost again in 2012 in an attempted comeback against former governor Tim Kaine.

In light of that, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked how Donald Trump's daily offensive, misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic statements did not hobble his campaign but rather led to rising poll numbers.

'Stunned'
“Anybody who has run for office is just stunned” by Trump's performance so far, Allen replied. “He'll say something [offensive] in a debate” or an interview “and he'll go up in the polls.”

Reaching for an explanation for Trump's popularity in the face of such offensiveness, Allen suggested that “people are so frustrated with the lack of attention to anything that matters [to them from] folks in Washington.”

Voters like “the fact that he is not a politician,” the former governor said, even though “they may think that some of the things he says are not diplomatic or impolitic.”

While some of the people involved in Trump's campaign are long-time Republican activists, Allen said, Trump is also drawing in “a lot of new people who have gotten active and who just say, 'You know, yeah, he may not know everything but gosh darn, I just want to send a message up to them in Washington.'”

He said that “while the things Trump says, I think, are harmful, and he doesn't need to be making some of those statements, people do want to send a message.”

Allen noted that “Donald Trump is a longtime family friend, believe it or not, from the days of the USFL – the United States Football League. My father had the Chicago Blitz and Arizona Wranglers and Donald had the New Jersey Generals.”

The USFL team owners, he explained, all worked together in signing players to the new league, such as Jim Kelly, who joined the Houston Gamblers, Steve Young of the LA Express, and Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, who joined Trump's team, the New Jersey Generals.

'That's the Donald'
Allen smiled as he related an anecdote about asking Trump for a campaign contribution fifteen years ago.

“One time I called him up – this is when I was running for the Senate in 2000, and the contribution limit then was $2,000 – so we're doing some sort of reception/fundraiser up in New York City and I called up Donald Trump and we reminisced over the USFL days and I asked, 'Can you contribute $2,000 to me?' and he said, 'Oh yeah, sure, I'll do that.' I asked, 'Can you come to the reception?' And he said, 'If you want me at the reception, I'll give you $1,000.' He says, 'What do you want, one thousand or two thousand?' I said, 'I'll take the two thousand, you don't need to come to the reception.'”

“That's the Donald,” said Allen.

While Allen has not yet decided which of the several Republican presidential hopefuls he will endorse, he does have a list of criteria that the best candidate must meet.

“I'm looking for someone who has a positive, constructive agenda to create more opportunities in our country – in specifics, not a bunch of superlatives and so forth,” he said.

'Distrust, dismay, and anger'
Among the topics it is important for the right candidate to talk about, Allen explained, are “tax policy; reining in these unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies; [and] unleashing our energy resources, to make our country more competitive internationally.

“Americans want to be the best. We ought to have a government that allows them, with the right policies, to be at their best,” he said.

A second point, Allen added, is that he wants “to see if they respect the rights and prerogatives of the people, of the states, [and] that all decisions don't need to be in Washington. Generally,” he said in an aside, “a lot of times, government at no level should be involved, but government closest to the people is the Jeffersonian principle.”

The final question Allen asks about a potential nominee is, “does their past record evince an integrity that they'll actually keep their word once they're in office?”

That last point is important, he said, since voters “are looking for integrity because there's a lot of distrust, dismay, and anger with the way government operates.”

Allen went on to talk about these themes in remarks to the Albemarle County Republican Committee. About 60 people were in the audience, several of whom engaged the former governor in questions about how Washington works and what can be done to bring more conservative ideas into the policymaking process.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Senate candidate George Allen aims appeal at the ’99 percent’
At his 17th Shad Planking, George Allen lays claim to a ‘libertarian streak’
Senate candidate George Allen responds to Tim Kaine's campaign TV ad
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte is 'sympathetic' to Kim Davis
DC-area expatriates rally to provide assistance to storm-damaged Dominica

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/former-senator-george-allen-stunned-by-donald-trump-s-popularity-gop-1

From the Archives: 'They won and we blinked' says former Sen. George Allen on Iran deal

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 13, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

'They won and we blinked' says former Sen. George Allen on Iran deal

Former Virginia Governor and U.S. Senator George Allen spoke in Charlottesville on Saturday, September 12, at the monthly breakfast of the Albemarle County Republican Committee. His message to the gathered activists was one of inclusion, saying that political parties win elections by addition, not subtraction.

Before he delivered his remarks, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked him about some foreign policy matters that are in the news. Allen said that, if he were still in the Senate, he would vote against the proposed deal with Iran on nuclear technology. He also said that the best solution to the refugee crisis in the Middle East is to build a “safe haven” in Syria rather than encourage migrants to come to Europe or the United States.

'Sanctions worked'
One aspect of the agreement with Iran that bothers Allen is the unfreezing of assets.

“One of the things I worked on when I was in the Senate,” he explained, was the issue of people who had been held hostage, injured, and killed by Iran over the years.

Going back to the Carter administration, he said, there were court judgments in favor of those injured parties that could be paid out of frozen Iranian assets in the United States and elsewhere.

“We have all these assets,” Allen said, “and they ought to be able to get their judgments paid out of those assets. Those assets are being released back to [Iran], going back to a regime that's going to use that money to support Hamas and Hezbollah and all sorts of terrorist organizations around the Middle East.”

On the nuclear aspect of the agreement, he said, “People will argue over the verification and so forth of that, and you can argue endlessly. But here's the other point: they are a state sponsor of terror and in five years the arms embargo is off. Then in seven or eight years the ballistic missile sanctions are removed.”

Iran, he said, is “a dangerous force and they can be even more dangerous after this when they can get more arms and they can get more missile technology.”

Acknowledging that the agreement will go forward, Allen said “I hope that I'm wrong but I see no evidence to evince any sort of confidence that this theocracy will change its ways and will only be stronger. In fact,” he added, from Iran's perspective, “they won and we blinked.”

Stated flatly, he concluded: “Sanctions worked. What we ought to do is keep the sanctions on but these other countries” that are party to the agreement “are all capitulating because they want to go [into Iran] to make a little money.”

'Safe haven'
On the matter of the refugee crisis in the Middle East – over four million refugees from Syria are now in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan but the United States has promised to take in just 10,000 – Allen was reluctant to suggest that the United States should commit to receiving more asylum seekers.

“I think the best solution to all of this is to create an area, a safe area, in Syria, maybe along the Jordanian border,” he said, “and just create a safe-haven city so that the folks from Syria don't have to leave their country on risky boats going to Greece.”

That solution, he said, “would be a whole lot less expensive to our government, to the governments of Europe and the world, to create that sort of a situation rather than having them so desperate to live and get food they have to make these risky trips. To me, that's the solution to it rather than creating this diaspora from” Syria in the United States and Europe.

Noting that he understands asylum laws and how they affect refugees from conflict zones, Allen concluded that “to me the solution would have been, and should be, and in fact, can still be, to create a safe haven for them in Syria.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Former Senator George Allen 'stunned' by Donald Trump's popularity in GOP
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte is 'sympathetic' to Kim Davis
DC-area expatriates rally to provide assistance to storm-damaged Dominica
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Robert Hurt comment on WDBJ-TV killings
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/they-won-and-we-blinked-says-former-sen-george-allen-on-iran-deal