The New Munich & Yalta–Only Worse

Although the details of the new “agreement” with Iran have not been fully released, enough of them have become public to make it clear this is one of the all-time great sellouts in American history, going beyond even the Yalta Conference at the end of WWII when the store was given away to the Soviets.

Nearly every Republican lawmaker and presidential candidate have already come out against it. The comparisons to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who infamously sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler at the Munich Conference in 1938 have begun to proliferate—and rightly so.

Chamberlain-Obama

What do we already know about this agreement? Only that the negotiators on the American side, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, backed down on every point that they had told us they would not compromise.

Despite Obama’s rhetoric yesterday in his announcement, the agreement gives the green light to Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Oh, they are supposed to put it on hold for now, but in about a decade, all constraints are lifted.

What else was dropped from the discussions? They don’t have to be held to immediate inspections to be sure they are keeping their word. Any request to carry out an inspection must first come to a committee—on which Iran is a member—for a decision. And that committee has up to 24 days to make the decision. So much for “snap” inspections.

But that doesn’t bother our president or secretary of state. They have Iran’s word, and that is sufficient for them.

Got Nukes

All economic sanctions against Iran are now dropped, and the result will be billions of dollars that this terrorist nation can now devote to more terrorism. They can even obtain ballistic missiles.

What a great deal—for Iran.

It's a Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, clear-headed as always, immediately denounced this deal, knowing full well that Israel is now more threatened than ever, given that Iran has never walked back its promise to wipe that nation off the map. Netanyahu put the world on notice that the deal will not be recognized as legitimate by Israel; they will defend themselves as necessary.

This comes down to the biggest problem of all: Obama’s naïve and foolish belief that once Iran is welcomed into the so-called community of nations, it will magically become civilized and change its very nature. He continues to see the U.S. as the problem in the world; if we are just “nice” enough, all evil will drain out of terrorists.

The academic word for that is “baloney.” Even while these negotiations were ongoing, Iran’s leaders were publicly giving voice to their true intentions:

Famous Last Words

Then there’s the constitutional issue. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states, rather clearly, “He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Notice the 2/3 requirement. Any treaty negotiated with foreign nations must come before the Senate and get the approval of 2/3 of that body.

That’s not happening in this instance.

Verbal slight of hand is being used to say this is not a treaty, but merely an “executive agreement,” an entity that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. So the administration argues that it can go into effect without the 2/3 concurrence of the Senate.

Instead, it will go to the Senate for a vote, and if 3/5 of the senators (60 of them) disapprove, it will be rejected but subject to the president’s veto. Should that occur, the Senate will then have to come up with a 2/3 vote to override the veto.

Notice that the entire approval process has been reversed. Rather than a 2/3 approval up front (67 senators in favor), this agreement could go into effect provided only 51 approve of it. The burden will be on those who disapprove to get to 60 votes. And then they will have to round up 67 to override a veto.

This is blatantly unconstitutional. But what else is new in a Barack Obama presidency?

This deal is worse than Munich or Yalta because neither of them allowed the development of nuclear weapons in a terrorist state. Republicans need to stand firm. Democrats who say they are opposed to terrorism and are in favor of remaining a strong ally of Israel need to find a backbone somewhere. That’s the only way this abomination will be defeated.

Constitution? What Constitution?

A week and a half ago, the Supreme Court of the United States took control of the United States. Not that this is anything new, but this time it was a giant leap forward (backward?). The Court’s decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage make a mockery of the whole concept of the rule of law. Why do we even have a Constitution?

Constitution Revision

In the Obamacare case, Chief Justice Roberts spoke for the majority when he said that the word “states” in the law could mean the federal government when it came to setting up Obamacare exchanges. Since when is the federal government one of the states? The Court seems to have a problem with understanding words.

Plain Text

Ah, intention. Pay no attention to what the law actually says, but go with what you think it intended to say. How would that work in other circumstances?

Home Run

Perhaps the Founders just got it wrong as well:

Typo

Then came the crushing blow, declaring that the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage. Supposedly, this has to do with equal justice and fair treatment, but is this equal justice under law or something else?

Equal Justice Under Polls

Prior to both of these decisions, the Obama administration did its best to put pressure on the Court, which was as unprecedented as the Court’s decisions themselves:

Nice Little Court

To be fair, though, it didn’t take much pressure to get what Obama wanted. Four of the justices, two of whom he appointed, are lockstep progressives who have a different vision of America in the first place. All that was necessary was to get just one of the others to come over to the Dark Side.

Let’s be real. This is what we now have:

Three Branches

It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could step up and be the Congress it was elected to be. But that takes leadership with principles, a trait that is sadly lacking.

On Flags, Confederate & American

On the Confederate flag flap, I’m going to probably confound some people with my comments. I am in complete agreement with removing the flag wherever it is an official symbol of a state government. At the same time, I’m profoundly concerned about the precedent this will set as the more radical portion of our political class attempts to extend their reach into other areas. Those views may sound contradictory initially, but if you stay with me, you’ll understand why I take the position I do.

I must deal first with the history and the constitutional issues. When the Southern states seceded from the Union, they did so on the basis of believing that the nation was merely a compact agreed upon by the states, and that any state was free to leave at any time for whatever reason.

That view, while earnestly held by Southerners at the time, is not accurate historically. The switch from the Articles of Confederation—which was in the nature of a treaty-like compact—to the Constitution was also a switch in the status of the nation-state relationship.

ConstitutionThe Constitution begins with the words “We the People,” not “We the States.” In fact, that is one big reason why Patrick Henry and other opponents of ratification argued against its adoption. They realized it was a change in status. State governments did not create this nation; rather, state conventions called particularly for the purpose of considering ratification made that decision.

As Lincoln observed later, the only way for a state to secede constitutionally was to once again become part of a convention that then sent out to the states a proposal for a state or states to withdraw from the Union. If ratified by conventions of the people in the various states, then they could leave peacefully.

That’s not what the Southern states did. They simply declared they were out.

As for the reasons for secession, those can be found very easily in the written declarations made by a number of those states. If you read them carefully, you will find that the overwhelming reason was concern over whether the federal government would end slavery.

What about states’ rights? Wasn’t that the key issue? Again, if you read those declarations, you will see that states’ rights was invoked for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect and propagate slavery.

Alexander StephensFurther proof is found in the famous/infamous “Cornerstone” speech by Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, in which he says the Founders were wrong about one major point: the equality of the races. Stephens makes it clear in this speech that the Confederacy was founded on a different idea: the inferiority of Africans, their God-given place in society as slaves, and the superiority of the white race.

Again, if you doubt this, check it out for yourself.

Slavery, then, is at the root of the secession and the setting up of the Confederate government.

The Southerners also used the example of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 as the precedent for what they were doing. However, there are huge differences in the historical context of that document and what was transpiring in America in 1860-1861.

If the South could prove they were denied basic rights, as the colonies explained in 1776, no problem. However, let’s consider the following questions:

  • First, did the Southern states lose representation in Congress? Answer: not at all. In fact, if they had not seceded, they still would have had a majority in the Congress. The only thing going against them was a Republican president, but he could not rule arbitrarily without Congress.
  • Second, did the Southern states lose self-government within their own states? Again, not at all. They maintained their own legislatures and could make their own laws.
  • Third, was any federal law passed that interfered with slavery in the states? Hardly. The entire history of the 1850s—from the Kansas-Nebraska Act to the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court—had favored the Southern view.
  • Fourth, did federal armed forces invade any state? What armed forces? The federal government had very little in the way of an armed force. The small contingent at Ft. Sumter in Charleston harbor was no threat. By the way, that fort had been ceded to the federal government by South Carolina. To suddenly declare that it was the state’s fort was more than dubious.

Therefore, I see no constitutional basis for the secession. I view it as a revolt against the legitimate authority of the United States government, one that Lincoln, as president, had every right to put down.

Consequently, I have no love for a symbol of a government that illegitimately rebelled against proper authority. Remove the flag, by all means.

Stars & StripesYet there are those concerns I mentioned at the beginning. Where will this lead? Already we are hearing voices saying all monuments from that era should be destroyed. One voice even questioned whether the Jefferson Memorial should be torn down. Another has concluded that the American flag itself should be shunned because America is the land of the “oppressor.”

That conveniently ignores that human societies throughout history have had slavery and that we, as a counterpoint to all that history, dared to challenge it—in a government symbolized by the Stars and Stripes. Thousands died en route to outlawing slavery. The government system that was established also eventually led to the elimination of segregation, that odious holdover from slavery days.

America is not the oppressor the radical Left seeks to portray. It is a nation that has had to struggle with the missteps and sins of the past and has overcome them (despite silly charges today of “white privilege” and “microaggressions”).

It is a nation that was born in the hope of justice for all, and which has achieved it to a greater degree than most others. The Left has an insatiable desire to destroy the good that has come down to us from the Founders, and it has an agenda to wipe out all trace of our heritage, based as it was on Biblical concepts of law and a Biblical view of morality.

So, yes, I applaud efforts to relegate the Confederate flag to museums, but not for the reasons some do. The South today is not overwhelmingly racist. Southerners who are nostalgic about their heritage are not full of hate. I see far more hatred and intolerance emanating from the Left than from any other source.

Obama vs. the Founding Fathers

On President Obama’s favorite “news” station, MSNBC, over a week ago, he was interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Matthews, you might remember, is the one for whom Obama’s election sent a thrill up his leg, which means he is of course a serious, non-biased interviewer who won’t let anyone get away with silly comments. Well, you judge.

In the course of that interview, Obama declared, “There actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today than there might have been 30-40 years ago.” Does that strike you as an intelligent, discerning statement? Or does it lend itself to the diminution of an already diminished presidency?

Less Violence

Respect for this kind of “leadership” is hard to come by. That statement is from the man who still refuses to identify the victims of terrorism as Christians and the perpetrators as Muslims. This is the man who has sidelined the war on terror because he doesn’t think it exists. The facts just don’t back him up:

Never Say Never

This is also the man who thinks that Iran will join the civilized world if only we give them what they want. He perhaps views himself in the Reagan mold when he reached agreement with the Soviets. Reagan, though, had a guiding principle for those negotiations: trust but verify. Obama has modified that somewhat:

Trust

He also seeks to do what Reagan did not do: carry on this negotiation and “deal” with Iran unilaterally, without any congressional oversight or approval. The Constitution clearly says that all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. The way around this is to say this is not a treaty, just an agreement. Yeah, that’s a big difference. Whom is he kidding? His concept of an ideal government is slightly different than that of the Founding Fathers:

Branches of Govt

I’ve studied the Founding Fathers. I believe I know what they thought, and why they thought it. This much I do know: they had far more knowledge of the operation of government and far more wisdom as to what makes for a balanced government than Barack Obama will ever have. I trust their judgment above his any day.

A Prediction

Are Indiana Republicans getting ready to cave on religious liberty? While I always like to wait and see, the signs are ominous. The law passed by Indiana is not only innocuous, it doesn’t even guarantee religious liberty—it only provides a basis for making an argument for it if one is being pressured to violate one’s conscience. Yet, because of all the artificial furor stirred up by homosexual activists, it appears that Governor Mike Pence and the legislature are prepared to water it down further. If that happens, it’s a victory for the New Totalitarians.

Burning at Stake

This is a sad time for religious liberty.

I’m going to make a prediction. No matter what happens in Indiana, the hysterical New Totalitarians won’t be mollified. This is a well-orchestrated strategy that goes beyond a demand for acceptance in society; it won’t stop until everyone who disagrees with them is punished. No one will be allowed to say homosexuality is wrong, sinful (the worst word imaginable), or even misguided.

First, the Supreme Court will come out in favor of same-sex marriage as constitutional. Never mind that the Constitution doesn’t give credence to any such idea; it’s the trendy new thing, and the New Totalitarians will win this one, wiping out all state laws that reject the progressive wisdom.

Second, their guns will be trained on institutions that seek to retain Biblical morality. They will begin by reopening their case against Hobby Lobby and other businesses run by Christians. They won’t stop until legislation is passed that declares they must bow to laws deceptively labeled as “anti-discriminatory.” At that point, Christian businessmen will have to decide where they stand with respect to their integrity and devotion to God.

Third, they will demand that pastors of churches perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or lose tax-exempt status. How many churches will refuse to do so and remain faithful to the One they profess to worship and obey?

Then the New Totalitarians will come at the educational institutions that proclaim Christian faith. They will be told they must change their beliefs and policies on homosexuality or lose their participation in the student loan program. How many of those institutions of higher learning will decide to go with the flow of the culture and deny their Lord? They will frame it as necessary to be able to continue their mission. At that point, I will question whether they have any mission left to fulfill.

Have you noticed that all the anger and venom is being directed against Christians, and not Muslims? Why might that be? Perhaps they know Christians won’t rise up and behead them. It’s safer to attack the Christians.

Is there any silver lining to this? I see one. If all this transpires as I am predicting, it will certainly separate the true believers from those who have only a superficial attachment to Christian doctrine and practice. We will be able to see more clearly who is on the Lord’s side and who is faking it. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Meanwhile, we need to prepare ourselves. If you still cling to the belief that America remains a Christian nation, it’s time to rethink that. We were founded on Christian beliefs, to be sure, but Christian faith is now a distinct minority point of view, and we have to understand that. We are now counter-cultural and must adjust our approach to our culture and our government accordingly. We can no longer assume we hold majority views.

Pray that we proceed in God’s wisdom and in His strength.

The Obama-Kerry-Rice Terrorism Fantasy

I find I keep using words like “fantasy” and “blindness” to describe what’s taking place in our foreign policy and national defense posture. I hate to be so repetitive, but the Obama administration just won’t stop doing things that reveal its fantasy mindset and its ideological blindness to what is occurring in the world.

The president himself carries the water for most of this, but he has loyal aiders and abettors in his dreamworld. For instance, there’s Secretary of State John Kerry who, incredibly, said this to the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week:

We are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally; less deaths, less violent deaths today, than through the last century.

In case you missed that fascinating analysis, I want to assure you I didn’t concoct it on my own. He really said that. It goes along with Susan Rice’s comment—drawn from this administration’s “strategy” for dealing with threats—that we don’t face any “existential” threat compared to what we had to deal with in WWII. Sorry, but I see an existential threat:

ISIS Nazis

Islamic terrorism is every bit as barbaric and ideologically driven as anything the Nazis did.

Yet it appears there is confusion within this administration because yesterday the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, blatantly contradicted his own secretary of state when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee,

When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled.

Again, I’m not making this up. Two entirely different perspectives on what is transpiring in the world. Mr. Clapper appears to be out of step with his boss, who is more stridently focused on not offending Muslims than on any other issue in the realm of foreign policy and national defense.

Didn't Mean

This has caused a serious rift with Israel, which always has been our staunchest ally in an area of the world hostile to America. Israel feels its national security is being undermined by Obama’s policies. It’s not hard to feel that way when negotiations with Iran over its development of nuclear capabilities is put in the hands of a clueless John Kerry:

Getting a Nibble

This is why Benjamin Netanyahu chose to come speak to Congress despite the protestations of the administration. Obama wants a deal with Iran that will allow that terrorist nation to develop nuclear power (for peaceful purposes, naturally) while Israel rightly fears for its very existence. A nuclear Iran will then go forward with its plans to nuke Israel. For Netanyahu, this is a matter of life or death. Yet what does this administration say? Well, they send out their dupemaster, Susan Rice, to warn the Israelis to desist from their dastardly actions:

Could Be Destructive

A president who dreads a speech from the Israeli prime minister more than a nuclear Iran is a president who is ignoring his top constitutional duty—protect the nation from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Ignoring the Constitution, though, is something at which he is quite proficient.

The Republic Is Secure

President Obama is now back from his Hawaiian vacation, ready to do battle with Republicans on behalf of the “common man,” with whom he identifies so readily. His common touch is always seen in his vacations to Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, and other inexpensive places.

And like all common people, he enjoys recreational activities. And if a planned wedding is in the way, all the couple has to do is move to a new venue at a moment’s notice. After all, it hasn’t yet come to this:

Need to Move

As with all average Americans, it’s time now for him to get back to work:

Inequality

It’s time now to fulfill all his promises and keep the evil Republicans in check with his presidential authority:

Vetoed

And if he doesn’t have the authority, we don’t have to worry, because he’s always attentive and respectful of the nation’s founding document:

Killing Time

And the American public blissfully goes about its daily business, satisfied with the leadership he and his team have always shown:

Most Admired

You needn’t bother with staying abreast of what’s actually happening. Just trust your president; he will do the right thing. The Republic is secure.