John Kerry’s Iranian family ties should have disqualified him

| December 3 2013

By Dave Bailey

There are obvious reasons why the State Department has a security clearance process. For example, if a prospective employee is married to a person from Communist China – particularly if members of the family are still living there – then the person may still be hired, but the security clearance process will require that the person not be assigned to duties related to Communist China.

Why would the security clearance process impose such a restraint? The obvious answer is that we wouldn’t want to see American security or policy get compromised because of a State Department employee’s conflicts of interest, causing bad negotiations, information leaks or suppressed critical facts – or even the appearance of such. Rewards or threats to family members could seriously undermine an employee’s ability to work on America’s behalf.

Unfortunately, as obvious as our need for security clearances is, they have been tossed to the wind by the Obama Administration.

This is not to say that the U.S. government no longer uses security clearances…quite the contrary. They are imposed on the “little people” who try to get jobs in the State Department. No, Team Obama only ignores security clearances when it comes to positions like…SECRETARY OF STATE.

That’s right, for the top positions in the U.S. government, President Obama’s politically-driven appointments overrule longstanding practice and common-sense. This is why Secretary of State Kerry, whose son-in-law is from Iran (click here), and has family still living there, was given the job of negotiating with Iran on behalf of our country and the rest of the Free World to reign in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

But really, who could have seen it coming that our Secretary of State would be negotiating with Iran? Oh yeah…just about ANYONE, given Obama’s longstanding “outstretched hand” toward Iran (click here).

Therefore it was reckless for Obama to appoint Kerry to the position of Secretary of State, and even more reckless to put Kerry in charge of negotiations with Iran.

How much more reckless? Well, considering that we require security clearances for government officials working with China, which is a trusted ally of the United States in comparison to Iran, AKA “the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism,” which is currently letting an American citizen rot in its death-row prison on trumped-up charges (click here), I’d say that Obama and Kerry were QUITE reckless. CRAZY reckless.

The least Kerry could have done was recuse himself from consideration for the office of Secretary of State – there are plenty of other high offices he could have had that would not have had a conflict of interest. And if he didn’t have the common sense to recuse himself from the office, he could have at least recused himself from negotiating with Iran. Instead, Kerry’s lust for power and presidential aspirations led him to take on jobs that endanger both his country and even his own Iranian family (NB: Secretaries of State have often become Presidents (click here), which explains why both Kerry and Clinton accepted the office).

It’s really shocking that the danger lurking within Kerry’s conflict of interest never occurred to anyone in the Obama Administration. But then again, we shouldn’t be surprised, because Kerry’s poorly-considered appointment is symptomatic of the poor decision-making processes that characterize Obama’s presidency, on everything from Obamacare to Benghazi, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and even the assassination of Osama bin Laden, where the trumpeting of SEAL Team 6 quite likely led to a Taliban revenge shoot-down of a Chinook helicopter, sending nearly two dozen members of SEAL Team 6 to their deaths during Extortion 17 three months later (click here).

Clearly, national security is taking a back seat to political ambitions and Democrat insider politics. The price we ultimately pay for this lack of discretion could go far beyond anything anyone could have imagined before Kerry sat down at the negotiating table opposite Team Rouhani.

Speaking of flaunting the security clearance process, remember Secretary of State Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose parents were active members of the Muslim Brotherhood? (click here) Isn’t it strange that American foreign policy tilted heavily toward the Muslim Brotherhood during Obama’s first term?

And isn’t it interesting that, with Kerry at the helm, American foreign policy is now tilting toward Iran?

Final thought: What is it about high positions in the U.S. government nowadays that seem to require a connection to the Islamic world as a prerequisite? Doesn’t that seem a bit…WEIRD? Especially after recognizing that Islam stands for the opposite of everything our Constitution stands for, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial?

3 comments
phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

Perceived tilting towards Islam is a mortal sin, in your eyes, yet where were your tears when our Congress not only tilted toward, but was taken over by the the Zionist AIPAC?  You are a hypocrite, Mr. Bailey.

jillocity
jillocity

@phoenixlaw what you "perceive" is not what the majority of Americans "perceive"...in your lexicon, "perceive" is obviously a mutable word...means one thing when applied to the 0 administration, another when applied to Americans who disagree with the 0 administration

Beatrix17
Beatrix17

@phoenixlaw Poll after poll after poll shows 65% of Americans support Israel.  AIPAC controls nothing, but they do make the views of the majority of Americans known.  And concern about Iran has to do with their enmity to America, not to their religion, though their Shiite religion is a concern to many Sunnis allies of America.