Filed under: Africa, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, Iran, Islam, Israel, National Security, Progressivism, Russia, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: President Barack Obama, Secretary John Kerry, The Deal with Iran
Matthew Continetti has written an excellent column at the Free Beacon on why Bibi’s speech matters. “It exposes the Iran deal as indefensible—and Obama’s politics as bankrupt.”
The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is indefensible. The White House knows it. That is why President Obama does not want to subject an agreement to congressional approval, why critics of the deal are dismissed as warmongers, and why the president, his secretary of state, and his national security adviser have spent several weeks demonizing the prime minister of Israel for having the temerity to accept an invitation by the U.S. Congress to deliver a speech on a subject of existential import for his small country. These tactics distract public attention. They turn a subject of enormous significance to American foreign policy into a petty personal drama. They prevent us from discussing what America is about to give away.
And America is about to give away a lot. This week the AP reported on what an agreement with Iran might look like: sanctions relief in exchange for promises to slow down Iranian centrifuges for 10 years. At which point the Iranians could manufacture a bomb—assuming they hadn’t produced one in secret. Iran would get international legitimacy, assurance that military intervention was not an option, and no limitations on its ICBM programs, its support for international terrorism, its enrichment of plutonium, its widespread human rights violations, and its campaign to subvert or co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. Then it can announce itself as the first Shiite nuclear power.
Do read the whole thing: Matthew Continetti zeroes in on the specific points on why the Obama administration is trying to do such an impossible deal, why Obama wants it, and why he’s deeply mistaken. The greatest danger is that the world perceives Obama as a weak president who cannot be depended on at any. Urgently needed weapons may or may not be delivered, rescue may or may not happen, decisions may or may not be made, or may endlessly be postponed.
Obama believes he was elected to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He was not. He was elected to be the first black president. He is terrified of being a ‘war’ president, and wants to avoid confrontation at all costs. Which results in the Ukraine, Cuba, Chinese adventurism, ISIS and Libya, Syria, and the potential return of Afghanistan to Taliban control.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Israel, National Security, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Israel Knows Iran, Netanyahu's Speech, Obama's Arrogance
The Obama administration has done a marvelous job of advertising the Netanyahu speech before a joint session of Congress tomorrow. The entire world will be listening. The president asked the Black Caucus in Congress to boycott the speech, and clearly suggested that the rest of the Democrats in Congress do the same.
The suggestion was floated that Netanyahu had ‘disrespected’ the president by not seeking permission to give the speech. When it was correctly mentioned that the Congress of the United States does not require presidential permission to invite anyone they damn well please to speak to them, the story became protocol—it was proper diplomatic protocol to let the White House know when another head of state would be coming to the U.S. — and then it was revealed that the White House had indeed been informed before Prime Minister Netanyahu accepted the Congressional invitation.
The lapdog media were still putting the false story about yesterday that Netanyahu had somehow disrespected President Obama.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein attacked Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday morning as “arrogant” for asserting that he speaks for all Jews in his upcoming speech to Congress. She huffed’ “He doesn’t speak for me on this. I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit Israel” Prime Minister Netanyahu does speak for the people of his country, who are mostly, but not all, Jewish. I rather doubt that he meant to speak specifically for Senator Feinstein.
National Security Advisor Susan Rice went on PBS’s “Charlie Rose” and said that the decision of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to invite Netanyahu without consulting the White House, and Netanyahu’s decision to accept, had “injected a degree of partisanship” into the relationship between the two nations.
“Which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” she said.
The Prime Minister did notify the White House that he would accept the invitation of Congress to speak. He has no need to “consult” the White House and he does not need permission, nor does Congress need White House permission to extend the invitation. Obama has also huffily said that he would not meet with Mr. Netanyahu.
How could you possibly devise a better advertising campaign for a speech before a joint session of the American Congress?
According to the latest Gallup poll 45% of Americans view Netanyahu favorably while only 24% view him unfavorably, while the most recent Gallup poll has Obama at 44% approval and 51% disapproval. “The media did everything in its power to promote a failed boycott of the speech by Democratic lawmakers (so far only about 10% have refused to attend) and to paint those who support Netanyahu’s speech as disloyal to President Obama, and by extension America.”
President Obama’s campaign staff has been off in Israel campaigning against Netanyahu in the Israeli elections. They are private people who get paid to work in electoral campaigns, and Obama says he didn’t send them, which is probably true; but he could have insisted that they do not work in the Israeli campaign because it would look so bad for the president.
President Obama desperately wants a nuclear deal with Iran. Everyone who knows Iran keeps trying to tell the president that Iran cannot be believed at any time for any reason. When they scream “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” they really mean it. They are the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, they have ignored ever red line, every promise to cease enriching, and made it clear that they don’t intend to stop, yet the hapless Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are sure that next time it will be different and that the mullahs really are reasonable people who want the same things that we do.
Obama is insisting that he can make a deal with Iran without consulting with Congress, and that it’s not really a treaty, so he doesn’t have to.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Freedom, History, Humor, Intelligence, Progressivism, Terrorism | Tags: A Lexicon, Poitical Correctness, What You Cannot Say
“In the late ’70s, “politically correct,” “PC” for short, entered the public lexicon. Folks on the left used the term to dismiss views that were seen as too rigid and, also, to poke fun at themselves for the immense care they took to neither say nor do anything that might offend the political sensibilities of others. “You are so PC,” one would say with a smile. In the ’80s, the right, taking the words at face value, latched on to the term and used it to deride leftish voices. Beleaguered progressives, ever earnest, then defended political correctness as a worthy concept, thus validating conservatives’ derision. Today, on both the left and the right, being PC is no laughing matter; three decades of culture wars have generated a bewildering thicket of terminology.”
A little history, a little humor, and, if you take it seriously, and Human Resources and the principal’s office often do — here’s a list of what not to say and how not to say it: Do read the whole thing, it might keep you out of trouble.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, History, Housing, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Race, The United States | Tags: A Brief History, The Big Lie Technique, Who's A Racist?
Attorney General Eric Holder plans to push for a “new standard of proof for civil -rights offenses”. In an interview with Politico. he said that “he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.” Uh huh. Just not in the way he meant it.
The Democrat Party’s history with race is interesting. Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States, is generally considered the founder of the Democratic Party. He was one of the largest slaveholders in the South.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the nation into free states and slave states, the South seceded, and we fought a long and very bloody war to preserve the Union and end slavery.
The Republican Party was founded as the party of abolition. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation into law. Republicans passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, ending slavery, with 80% of Democrats voting against it. Republicans passed the 14th Amendment granting freed slaves the rights of citizenship—unanimously opposed by Democrats. Republicans passed the 15th Amendment giving freedmen the right to vote.
Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferring U.S. citizenship on all African-Americans and according them the “free and equal benefit of all laws” unanimously supported by Republicans who had to override Democrat Andrew Johnson’s veto. Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867. Republicans sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the constitutional rights of freed slaves. Republicans were the target of the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction.
Republicans continued to try to pass federal civil rights laws in the next century — most were blocked by Democrats, including a bill banning racial discrimination in public accommodations (1875), guaranteeing the right to vote in the South (1890), anti-lynching (1922, 1935, 1938), anti poll-tax bills (1942, 1944, 1946).
Republican President Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House (1901), the first black to do so. Republican platforms starting in 1908 called for equal rights, equal justice, anti-lynching legislation, integration of the military (1940), endorsed Brown v. Board of Education, (1956), and Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to desegregate the schools.
By the sixties, the civil rights movement was gaining ground, and Democrats became aware of the trends. To succeed in American politics, they would need black votes, and their record with matters of race was pretty bad, especially in the South. President John Kennedy sought a civil rights bill to outlaw discrimination, but then he was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became president.
Johnson’s own record with civil rights wasn’t very good, and he pushed hard to pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, which outlawed discrimination by race, color, religion or national origin. equality in voter registration rights and outlawed racial segregation in the schools. Although Congress was controlled by Democrats, 61% of Democrats in the House voted for the bill, 29% against, 80% of Republicans voted for it, 20% against. In the Senate 69% of Democrats supported it with a long filibuster, and 31% against. 82% of Republicans voted for it and 18% against.
Well, the Sixties! Freedom Summer. Students came down south to march for civil rights, There was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (voting rights ), 1968 (Fair Housing), and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” which would end poverty and racial injustice, rebuild the entire urban United states, end boredom and restlessness, slake the hunger for community and enhance “the meaning of our lives” all by assembling “the best thought and broadest knowledge.”
When Johnson left office, 10 percent of Southern schools were desegregated. When Richard Nixon left office, the figure was 70 percent. But “the Southern Strategy” didn’t Nixon try to get Southern votes by appealing to the racist segregationists? Nixon helped to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights act of 1957 and supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968. In Nixon’s presidency , the civil rights enforcement budget rose by 800%, record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office, an Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created, SBA loans to minorities soared by 1,000% and aid to black colleges doubled.
What happened was that Democrats, realizing that blacks were being registered to vote in big numbers, needed to disguise their past and become the party of civil rights and the war on poverty, the party that cared for minorities, and they did it by lying about history, their own and the Republicans’. Oddly enough, at the same time new terms like “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” not only initially entered the political lexicon, but became the guiding factor throughout education, business and human resources departments everywhere. Coincidence?
Suddenly, Republicans, the party of abolition since its founding, became the party of racism, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, lynching, poll taxes, and every time that Republicans disagree with Democrats they are called “racists.” This is the communist perfected technique of the BIG LIE. You just tell a whopper, and keep telling it and keep telling it, and embroidering it until it is considered to be plain fact. Progressives are very good at this kind of political warfare, and Republicans, who assume that Democrats are just misguided, are not.
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is exploring a run for the presidency, and the Southern Poverty Law Center put him on their list of “dangerous extremists.” (They had to apologize, and deleted the “dangerous.”) Economist Thomas Sowell is called an Uncle Tom. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Senator Tim Scott, Economist Walter Williams, Representative Mia Love — any black who has succeeded in this country in reaching high office and is a Republican, is called an Uncle Tom, and receives death threats and slanders to their reputations.
The plight of Detroit, which is 85% black, is a shining example of 50 years of Democrat governance. They have reduced Detroit from one of the richest cities in the country to an example of urban blight and human despair. Their plan for “social justice” turned the once great city into a cesspool of racial politics and antibusiness practices, and poverty.
The War on Poverty has encouraged single black women to refrain from marrying the father of their children. Incentives keep women from getting off welfare, for if they get a job they will lose their higher benefits. The Democrat sponsored Community Reinvestment Act was designed to get more poor black people into their own homes, without regard to their ability to pay back the loans. Normal prudent banking rules were set aside and when the “Great Recession” hit, many middle class blacks lost their homes because they lost their jobs and couldn’t pay back their loans. The Obama administration swept into office on the wings of “the first black president,”promising help and caring for black Americans has, instead, devastated black families and returned race and racism to politics in new and troubling ways.
But why? The Progressives need blacks. If the Democratic Party lost just 30% of the black vote, it would mean an end to the liberal agenda. Walter Williams said:
That means blacks must be kept in a perpetual state of grievance in order to keep them as a one-party people in a two-party system. When black Americans finally realize how much liberals have used them, I’m betting they will be the nation’s most conservative people.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, History, Immigration, Law, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution | Tags: ICE Threatened, Illegal Immigration Amnesty, Immigration Enforcement
CNSNews.com) – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has a message for those who may approve of — or even benefit from — President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy: “Be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever,” he told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Gowdy said the law is the nation’s greatest unifying and equalizing force — “but one person does not make law in a republic.”
President Obama, by doing exactly what he once said he could not do, is not only going beyond the considerable powers of his office; he is assuring that future presidents also will expand the power of the executive branch, thus “threatening the constitutional equilibrium.”
Mr. Chairman, the thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The law is the greatest unifying and the greatest equalizing force that we have in our culture.
The law is what makes the richest person drive the precise same speed limit as the poorest person. The law is what makes the richest person in this country pay his or her taxes on precisely the same day as the poorest person in this country.
The law, Mr. Chairman, is symbolized by a blind woman holding a set of scales and a sword. The law is both a shield and a sword, and it is the foundation upon which this Republic stands.
We think so highly of the law, Mr. Chairman, that in the oath of citizenship administered to those who pledge allegiance to this country — to their new country — it makes six different references to the law. So attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are detrimental to the foundation of a democracy.
President Obama, after the November midterm elections I hasten to add, announced one of the largest extra-constitutional acts ever by a chief executive. He declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on those same people.
You may like the policy. You may wish the policy were the law. But one person does not make law in a republic.
If you enjoy a person making law, you should investigate living in another country, because our Framers did not give us, nor have generations of our fellow citizens all conserved and sacrificed, for a single person to make law in a unilateral way.
So removing consequences for breaking the law is one thing; bestowing benefits such as work authorization and immigration benefits is another.
The president himself recognized his own inability to do this, Mr. Chairman — more than 20 separate times he said he lacked the power to do what he ultimately did.
In 2011, he said this, and I quote: ‘The notion that I can just suspend deportation through executive order, that’s just not the case.’ He told us time and time again, Mr Chairman, that he was not a king.
His position may have changed, but the Constitution has not; and that document is clear and it is time-tested and it is true, and it says that Congress passes laws and it is the responsibility of the chief executive to take care that those laws are faithfully enforced.
Prosecutorial discretion is real and constitutionally valid, Mr. Chairman, but it is not a synonym for anarchy.
As U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his recent opinion, DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the express will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress but actively moves to thwart them.
The Constitution gives the president a lot of power, Mr. Chairman. He’s the commander in chief, he nominates Supreme Court justices, he can veto legislation for any reason or no reason, he can fail to defend the constitutionality of the law, he has the power of pardon. He has a lot of power, Mr. Chairman, but what he cannot do is make law by himself. That is the responsibility of the Congress.
And if this president’s unilateral extra-constitutional acts are not stopped, future presidents, you may rest assured, will expand that power of the Executive Branch, thereby threatening the constitutional equilibrium.
“And the argument that previous administrations have acted outside constitutional boundaries holds no bearing with me. The fact that other people made mistakes is not a license for this executive to do the same thing.
Mr. President, in conclusion, we live in a country where process matters. The end does not justify the means, no matter how good the intentions.
When a police officer fails to check the right box on an application for a search warrant, the fruits of that search warrant are suppressed. When a police officer, even though he has the right suspect for the right crime but he just fails to include one small part of those prophylactic Miranda warnings, what happens? The statement is suppressed, even though you have the right person, even though you have the right crime — because we view process over the end.
And I’m going to say this, and then we’ll finish. I’m going to say this to those who benefit from the president’s policies.
You may be willing to allow the end to justify the means in this case. You may well like the fact that the pres has abused pro discretion and conferred benefits in an unprecedented way.
You may benefit from the president’s failure to enforce the law today, but I’ll make you this promise: There will come a day where you will cry out for the enforcement of the law.
There will come a day when you long for the law to be the foundation of this republic. So you be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever.”
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Freedom, History, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Gone Full Tyrant, No Inclination to Negotiate, Progressive Ideology
Goodness, we must have really irritated President Obama with that recent wave election. One might have hoped that it would lead to more cooperation, but he has proved that he has no ability, nor inclination, to negotiate. It’s plainly his way or the highway. He ‘s gone full tyrant.
- The FCC Approves ‘Net Neutrality’ Plan to Control Internet Access the plan puts the Internet in the same regulatory department as Ma Bell and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable.” There is no need for regulation.
- Obama: “Consequences’ for ICE Officials Who Don’t Follow Executive Amnesty.” ” Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight…but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress.The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem, If somebody’s working for ICE and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”
- Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle “As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation targeting the top-selling rifle in the country. the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.”
- Obama: Illegal Immigration Will Be Solved When There’s A ‘President Rodriguez.’ “Now let me get to the broader question you asked, which is what would I ask for the next president of the United States. One of the things I’ve learned in this position is that as the only office in which you are the president of all the people, not just some in terms of short-term politics, you have to be thinking about what’s good for the country.”
- Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto “So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
We have never before had a president who says essentially— the hell with the Constitution, I’m going to do exactly what I want. We’ve had advice handed down from our first president, and many subsequent presidents, but never one before that behaved like a petulant spoiled child.
What we need to understand is that for the present crop of progressives, the issue is never the issue. Our immigration system is not broken. It is not enforced. Obama wants poor, poorly educated peasants from Mexico and Central America because by giving them work permits and welfare benefits, food stamps, driver’s licenses and other goodies, they will be Democrat Party voters, and make America permanently Progressive and permanently socialist.
Regulating the internet as a public utility to protect users establishes government control over the web, who uses it, and what kind of speech will be allowed.
Threatening public officials if they don’t obey Obama’s illegal executive orders while they are questioned by Congress and the courts is reprehensible.
John Hinderaker, one of the attorneys at Powerline offers “A Modest Proposal For Amendments to the Constitution.” “Barack Obama’s scofflaw administration has revealed some ambiguities or omissions in our Constitution–loopholes, if you will–that should be closed via constitutional amendment, to eliminate the possibility that future administrations may also act lawlessly. I have in mind three amendments that should accomplish that purpose.”
Do read the whole thing, which explains the very brief amendments, and why we need each one. Just a matter of clarifying the wording so even ideologues can understand.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Military, National Security, Progressivism, Russia, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Radical Islam, Strategy 001
I want to talk a little about strategy. Do I have some expertise to share? I have sailed the world with the Royal Navy at the turn of the century (the 19th); served in the Revolution with Kenneth Roberts; and the Civil War with James McPherson; Martin Gilbert took me through the First World War and the Second; I witnessed the Rape of Nanking with Iris Chang; and starved in Leningrad with Harrison Salisbury, and Stalingrad with Anthony Beevor; but I have never been in the service and have no expertise at all.
Stephen Coughlin, a leading expert on national security, says that our foreign policy community is absolutely incoherent and has lost the ability to think. Government bureaucrats, he says, have become focused on fighting narratives consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview rather than the facts on the ground.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka holds a Chair in Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. He points out that President Obama’s three-day summit on violent extremism empowers ISIS, by emphasizing the real grievances the Muslim world has with the West, the danger of Islamophobia in the U.S. and the need for community outreach.
ISIS’ recruiting message ” is a story of Islam under attack by the West, a perpetual Holy War against the infidel until the House of Islam—Dar al Islaam—covers the world and all live under sharia in a new Caliphate. They are indoctrinating and training 5-year-olds in Islam and weapons.
Strategy 001: You don’t tell the enemy what you are going to do, nor just when you are going to do it. It is better to keep them guessing and surprise them. Why is this so hard to understand?
While successful military strategy in wartime often hinges on surprise, the U.S. military took an unconventional path Thursday in announcing a plan to wage an early spring campaign to try to drive ISIS forces from the key city of Mosul in northern Iraq. The U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which oversees the military coalition fight against ISIS in Iraq outlined the size and makeup of a force that the U.S. hopes will be ready for the offensive within five weeks at the earliest, as reported by Defense One and other news organizations.
Unless you’re fooling – unless this is an elaborate feint – it’s not normal practice to warn somebody that you’re coming,” Gordon Adams, a military historian and analyst at American University, said. “This is a little bizarre, it seems to me.”
When you realize that you don’t know very much about a current threat. the response should be to study up. Put aside the stuff that doesn’t matter, and read and investigate. I don’t have any indication that anybody in the White House is actually doing that. They do have a narrative, and they are sticking to it.
Investors Business Daily offers “Know Thy Enemy: A Crash Course in Radical Islam” by Paul Sperry, in five short parts. It seems useful.