Netanyahu Comes As A Fire Bell In The Night

     Today is the day that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaks before the United States congress in a desperate attempt to sway the American political system away from the catastrophic deal that the Obama administration seems intent on making with Iran. The prime minister has a herculean task before him, having to explain why a nuclear-tipped Iran is a threat not only to the Middle East, but the United States, without being too critical of President Obama.
     One concept that is sure to reside in the context of Mr. Netanyahu's speech is clarity. Unambiguous, morally clear, and unapologetic clarity. The kind of clarity for which this nation has hungered, but has been left wanting for the last six plus years. The kind of clarity that tells evil it will be banished even if it requires every drop of breath that is domiciled in the lungs of liberty and justice. The kind of clarity that is not afraid of the alternative to the bad deal that Barack Obama and John Kerry seem intent on making with the radical Islamists that control Iran.
     The Obama administration has treated its "negotiations" with Iran as the Left treats all their negotiations with evil aggressors, with conflict resolution techniques that are not appropriate for the school yard, let alone international politics. Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama, through recent comments, seem to be under the absurd assumption that a bad deal with Iran is better than no deal at all.
     As President Obama, as well as the entire Left, is so want to do, creates a false choice between a bad deal and war, many on the Right have suggested that a more extreme solution than a bad deal and less extreme one than war does exist. Severe sanctions would be that alternative, especially with oil prices at a multi-year low, the sanctions against Iran would never have more teeth than now. But just as the community organizer in chief has shown to be his modus operandi, any opponents to his deal with Iran currently in the works are characterized as war-mongers.
     Prime Minister Netanyahu has his work cut out for him in exposing President Obama's negotiations as a permission slip for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future. He will also need to gently illuminate the naïveté of the Obama administration in thinking that if they negotiate in good faith so will our enemies.
     There is no better friend in the Middle East, or possibly in the world, that the United States has than Israel. And although that friendship will have laid the foundation of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech today, he comes as a fire bell in the night, as a harbinger of what could become of ignorance and naïveté. Bibi Netanyahu comes as Churchill, not Chamberlain, as Ronald Regan not Jimmy Carter, and as Pope John Paul II not Pope Francis. Let people of all good faith wish him well and pray for his success.
      

The U.S. Constitution-Long On Limits, Short On Remedies

     For anyone who reads social media, listens to talk radio, or scans the letters to the editor in archaic newspapers, the phrase, "Clean house" has been a repeating theme for as long as there has been public debate. The idea that we can somehow magically get rid of all the people in power in our government and replace them with angels is contradictory to what even our Founders believed. It is why they wrote into our founding documents the idea of limitations on government, and balancing the remaining power between three branches.
     So one might ask the salient question, "How did we get here?" Here being the place where laws are no longer made by the people's representatives in congress, but by bureaucracies under the control of the executive branch of government. Many are upset with Barack Obama for over-extending his constitutional authority, and they wonder why nothing has been done legally to stop him. The framers of the constitution created a beautiful document that relied heavily upon the honor of the men who took its oath.
     All presidents have wanted to extend their authority to implement an agenda, that is nothing new. But where past presidents have consulted legal minds in order to keep them in the good graces of the constitution, Barack Obama has consulted legal minds to allow him ways to operate outside those good graces. The constitution is loaded with limitations but very few remedies for those who exceed those limitations. Impeachment is about the only remedy, and it has only been used twice before in American history, both times without the ultimate success of removing a president.
     I suspect that the Founders deliberately left out remedies for constitutional limit breakers so that they could be judged by the people of the United States with their power of the vote. The unfortunate part in American modernity is that the culture which elects representatives has become corrupted in the sense that it no longer wants limits on government. Too many in the culture have willingly abandon those limits for the worthless bobbles of government largess.
     If we are to keep self-governance in this country, and we want also to have honest representatives, we must change the culture that produces our representation. A military coup (as some short-sighted persons have suggested) or term limits, are not going to solve the problem that the culture has created. To do that we must change the culture, then we can change our government. Trying to change the government with the current culture left in place is like attempting to bail the sewage from your basement without first repairing the cracked pipe from where the sewage is coming.
    

Net Neutrality To Ruin Internet

     Today is the day that the Federal Communications Commission votes to increase its own power over the Internet. Which would be somewhat humorous in an Orwellian way if it were not so dangerous and tragic. As one of the Republican commissioners at the FCC put it, "This is a solution that will not work to fix a problem that does not even exist." Never is there so much repair of non-existent problems as there is in the big government model promulgated by Leftists like our current president, and those who have infested the bureaucracies of the federal government.
     The FCC's Net Neutrality regulations that will change the Internet for the worse comes in a 300 plus page document that is illustrative of Ronald Regan's characterization of the Left as "They see something moving and want to tax it. If it keeps moving they want to regulate it. If it stops moving they subsidize it." And in typical Orwellian fashion, the name Net Neutrality sounds harmless enough, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. 
     The primary argument against any further government incursion into the Internet is that it is not needed. The Internet grew to its current level of technological achievement and free market prosperity with very little government intrusion, and it certainly does not need it now. It was one of the few things that Bill Clinton got right, along with support from a bi-partisan congress, when in 1998 they decided the Internet should proceed unfettered by massive government regulation and control.
     Net Neutrality would allow the FCC to direct Internet traffic to particular sites, or away from particular sites, based on their definition of over-served or under-served segments. Additionally it would place so much regulatory burdens on providers that the incentive to improve speeds and services would be squashed under a mountain of government. The added costs to end users for slower speeds and mitigated content would spell a worsening of the Internet experience for most users. And all to fix problems that do not exist.
     The worse part is that this statist control of the free Internet would be decided by the 6 Democrat members of the 10 member commission at the Federal Communications Commission. To the extent that the internet must be regulated to mitigate restraint of trade and anti-competitive practices, current laws on the books do, and have done, a fine job. The new FCC regulations being voted on today are about limiting free speech on the Internet and giving government control of the greatest vehicle for Liberty, both political and financial, that the world has ever seen. 

The Ukraine-Russia-Iran Connection

     Many of Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition, both in Israel and the United States, have characterized his upcoming speech to congress and the American people as some sort of cheap election year parlor trick. The more likely truth is that the Prime Minister is giving his speech three weeks before the United States secret deal with Iran is signed. A deal, like the Democrat's health care law, that must be passed before anyone can know what is in it.
     From all accounts gleaned from previews of Mr. Netanyahu's speech, the Obama administration's deal with Iran will ensure a nuclear Iran and spell disaster, not only for Israel, but for the entire region of the Middle East. One may ask why the Obama administration is want to empower the original state sponsor of radical Islam. Some have postulated that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and wants to destroy Israel, the United States, and all western values. The Answer is much more political than ideological.
     First, one must understand that the Obama administration's limp-wristed response to Russia invading Ukraine is directly related to the administration's deal-making with Iran. The Obama gang understands that to the extent that Iran has a nuclear program currently, the Russians have been a major contributor. Furthermore, any deal with Iran must receive the blessing, explicitly or implicitly, of Russia.
     The Iran nuclear deal is further complicated by the fact that Iran is Shiite, which comprises about 15% of the Muslim community, the Sunnis make up the rest. In the past, for the most part, the United States et al have aligned themselves with the Sunni majority. President Obama has turned this formula on its head by supporting the minority Shiite, which explains his soft response to Radical Islamists like ISIS.
     One may ask further why the Obama administration has chosen to side with the more radical aspect of Islam by tending to support the Shiite. We may never know for sure, but I think that is where the Leftist ideology of revering a minority, any minority, and rejecting the majority kicks in. In the Leftist world, minorities are always right and just and majorities are always corrupt and evil, accepting when that majority is Democrats in congress.
     When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks before the United States congress and the American people, he will most likely not mention the connection between the Obama administration's eagerness to complete their deal with Iran and the danger it has caused to Ukraine and NATO allies in the region. Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned with the survival of his country and the continuation of the freedom they enjoy. A freedom that use to be supported by the United States government, but is now only supported by its people. The Prime Minister is hoping, through his speech, he can sway the U.S. government back to its principles of promoting Liberty and vigorously opposing evil. He has a tall order to fill with the Obama administration in control.   

Moral Clarity, Not Immoral Ambiguity

     When Rudy Giuliani had his moment of clarity about Barack Obama's love of this country, or lack there of, it was quickly followed this weekend by a back peddling demonstration by the former New York mayor that made trained circus bears look amateurish. The purpose of this post is not to litigate the decision of Mayor Giuliani to bow and crack to political pressure and walk back his comment about the president, but to examine his original statement.
     I have always felt that it is not so much that Barack Obama hates America as he does not love it as much as some. Barack Obama sees America like many women see their less-than-perfect boyfriends, a chance to change him into something with which they can peacefully coexist. Hence the remark by candidate Obama about fundamentally changing the country. That statement made by him just days before the 2008 election should have told anyone with half a brain his real intentions.
     To fundamentally change something, anything, one must have, if not hate for the thing as originally formulated, at least an extreme dislike. And America for Barack Obama, just like that less-than-perfect man for all those women out there, was and is an entity that does not live up to his standards and precepts. He runs around claiming that America falls short in being sensitive to his (and others) needs while trying to force sensitivity with outright aggression.
     Mr. Giuliani did not make a mistake claiming that Barack Obama does not love America, his mistake was in weakening his argument by seeming as to not believe it himself. This is an endemic problem in the Republican Party as of late. You hardly ever hear of a Democrat walking back any of the outrageous comments they make on a daily basis, but let Republicans support traditional American values and they fold like a cheap tent in a strong wind when they encounter the least bit of resistance.
     I have mentioned before on this blog the adherence to principles exhibited by men of principle, like Calvin Coolidge. President Coolidge believed in federalism, that federal money should not be used to the benefit of one group or another chosen by politicians in Washington. He took heaps of criticism and insults when he refused to call special sessions of congress so that taxpayer money could be dolled out to flood areas, first in Mississippi, then in his home state of Vermont.
     Coolidge knew that principles meant nothing if they were malleable and loosely defined. There are some on the Right, like Ted Cruz, who are devoted to the tried, tested, and true principles of values that founded this great nation. If those like Mr. Giuliani are not going to stand on principle it would be best if they kept silent and allowed men of principle to take the lead. The one thing that can save our country from the thousand years of darkness that Ronald Regan spoke of is moral clarity, not immoral ambiguity.   
    

Why The Presidency Has Alluded Republicans?

     There is much talk about the 2016 presidential race. Much of that talk on the Right has been a clattering of opinions between those who feel that a more moderate candidate like Jeb Bush has a better chance of winning, and those who opt for a more conservative nominee like Ted Cruz. I only mention those two men because they are the bookends of the Republican field, from the most Left-leaning to the most Right-leaning.
     The Republican base has been very frustrated as of late in national elections, but have made gains in both mid-term elections of the Obama era. Six years ago President Obama enjoyed Democrat control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In the span of two mid-term contests the Republicans have taken control, not only of those two national bodies, but many governorships and states legislatures.
     But have the Republicans' presidential losses as of late been due to the weakness of their candidates, or how they campaigned. John McCain, while he was not a particularly strong candidate should have had a better showing against the virtually unknown Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney should have easily unseated the incumbent president, after four years of a worsening economy, foreign affairs disasters like Benghazi, and domestic scandals like Solendra and Fast and Furious. After all, Barack Obama was the first president in history to preside over a downgrade of the nation's credit worthiness, and a weaker job market than when he took office.
     All of the above aside, I think the reason Republicans lose presidential elections is that they allow their political opposition to define them rather than defining themselves. The Obama campaign defined John McCain as being out-of-touch and feeble-minded. He proved it by not having a strong conservative approach to the financial crisis. Barack Obama did not have a clear response either, but he did not need one. His party not having been in power during the collapse, he could sit back silently and advantage himself with the ineptness of Senator McCain's response.
     The 2012 contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney saw much the same approach from the Obama campaign that worked so well in 2008. His campaign drew a picture of Mitt Romney as an elitist billionaire who had contempt for the common man. Even though the Obama campaign benefitted from money donated by 2/3 of Wall St. firms and PACs that were funded by billionaires like George Soros. And the glimmer of hope for conservatives that was provided by Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate quickly faded to political horror when he refused to mount an all out assault on the president for Benghazi and other examples of his incompetence.
     If Republicans have any chance of winning the presidency in 2016 they must clearly articulate who they are and what conservatism is. They must not allow the Democrats to define them and make them unpalatable to not only moderate voters, but the conservative base of the Party. The Republicans need to acquire the marketing skills of the Democrat Party. The Democrats have been able to sell the American voters on rotting meat package in an appealing package while the Republicans have had filet mignon wrapped in a dirty old tarp.

Is Barack Obama A Secret Muslim

     Many on the Right firmly believe that Barack Obama is a secret, or not so secret Muslim. The theory goes that the president's Islamic leanings have caused him to go easy on radical Islamic terrorism and is the reason that he will not utter the words Islam and terror in the same sentence. In fact, the votaries of this Obama-as-Muslim theory also say the president is trying to destroy America from within and make it fertile ground for the Islamic caliphate.
     The videos one can watch on YouTube purporting to show President Obama "admitting" to being Muslim show the president speaking positively about the faith. Not exactly proof of matriculation into said faith. I speak positively of Judaism, but that does not make me a Jew. I guess the difference is that we are actually at war, or at least should be at war, with the most radical parts of Islam. It is analogous to if President Roosevelt spoke kindly about Nazis during WWII.
     But is the current president's seeming respect for our enemies a result of faith or ideology? Sometimes the two blur into one line and it is difficult to judge which is which. But in the case of Barack Obama, I think I can say with certainty that his remarks that allegedly support the Muslim Faith are more a product of Leftism than of Islam. Many of the tenets of Leftism and Islam are similar and some of the goals remain shockingly symbiotic, but the two diverge in the realm of subtlety.
     Where the radical Islamist beheads, burns, and tortures his victims, the radical Leftist seeks to destroy his opponents by mitigating the general public's ability to think critically and reason rationally, therefore eliminating the need to actually execute opposition. President Obama's faux support of Islam the faith is simply the practice of Saul Alinsky's marginalizing your political opposition. What better way for Barack Obama to marginalize conservatives than with the hammer and sickle of applying political correctness to the acts and personage of this country's enemies?
     The way it works is that the Leftist morally equates the acts of our enemies with that of the dominant culture of our own country. Hence the statement by President Obama at the recent National Prayer breakfast where he equated the current acts of barbarism committed by radical Islam with the Christian crusades of a thousand years ago. But it could have been the acts of any faith or group that Mr. Obama thought he could use to silence conservatives, or any political opposition for that matter.
     The real truth I have seen in action over the last six years is that Barack Obama has no particular love or connection to blacks, Hispanics, or Islamists. He is a classic narcissist who will take any position or defend any group in order to advance his personal agenda of the accumulation of power and influence. A narcissist wants the love and admiration of everyone, and those who do not give him that unconditional adulation are automatically his enemies. He does not see political opposition, only devotees and enemies. And he will align with anyone or anything that will lead to the destruction of his enemies.