Huckabee, the Iran Deal, & Reality

Mike Huckabee 2Mike Huckabee is being very vocal about the terrible consequences that will flow from this proposed deal with Iran. Both liberals/Democrats and some in his own party have taken him to task for his comments. For the record, here is what he said, in context:

This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped.

It was the phrase “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven” that has caused the consternation. The implication was clear; this deal is something Hitler would have approved.

Candidates should be careful not to use the Hitler comparison too often. One must be sure it really applies. In this case, though, I believe it does. The Iranians have made their position perfectly clear: all Jews must die. That’s not merely a sentiment expressed in private; they have boldly declared that goal to the world.

What could be more Hitler-like than that?

Some have accused Huckabee of being desperate, as he lags behind in the polls, and that he only said this to move up his numbers. On the other hand, I am convinced he really means what he says. He has been to Israel countless times—and not only when running for president—and is a genuine friend of that nation, concerned about its future survival. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I applaud him for being bold enough to say what needs to be said.

One wishes our administration had the same view. Instead, with this “deal,” Obama and Kerry have pretty much shown their true colors:

Surrender

Personally, I’m convinced both Obama and Kerry are deluded into thinking Iran is a potential ally. This delusion has led to the current deal:

Right Where We Want Him

Their willingness to give up the store, so to speak, is leading us toward nuclear disaster:

Loopholes

Iran’s rhetoric has not changed since this agreement was signed. Its government continues to declare its outright hostility to America and Israel, and even Kerry had to admit some of the billions of dollars to be released to the Iranians could lead to more American deaths. Tell me again: why would we ever want to ratify such a failed piece of diplomacy?

Kerry has said he is “disturbed” by some of the Iranians’ comments, but apparently he’s not disturbed enough to be snapped back to reality. What will it take?

That's Disturbing

Congress needs to take its responsibility seriously. It must defeat this deal with two regimes that cannot be trusted:

History of Deception

Indeed, there is nothing trustworthy about this president or any of his minions.

The “Death to America” Deal

The Iran deal is now in Congress, open for debate. The Obama administration gave precedence to the United Nations, taking the deal there first for its approval—which it got, of course. They say it’s because other nations were involved as well, but how does that trump (excuse my use of that word) the Constitution’s specific requirement that all such deals should be subject to a 2/3 Senate approval?

This deal is just so good, we’re told, that we simply cannot pass it up.

Deal

Remind me never to have John Kerry negotiate anything on my behalf:

Good Deal

Iran Nuke Deal

What about all those demands and/or requirements we were told Iran would have to abide by? Now we find out there were a couple of “secret” deals on the side that weren’t supposed to be made public, like allowing Iran to provide the specimens to be tested to determine if they are keeping their word on nuclear development. Isn’t that somewhat like letting Hitler demonstrate how nicely he was treating the Jews?

Piece in Our Time

What’s even more revealing is that since this deal was reached, the rhetoric of the Iran regime hasn’t changed one bit, which a befuddled Kerry finds somewhat disturbing.

Compromise

Before & After

But don’t worry. If the Congress rejects this deal, our president will be right there to uphold it.

Veto Any Bill

He’s never met an Islamic terrorist he can identify:

It's a Duck

Iran is a terrorist regime. We have just concluded an agreement with that regime that will allow it to develop nuclear weapons. Congress has a responsibility to shoot it down, first with a vote to negate it, then with an override of a presidential veto. Will there be enough backbone to accomplish this? The jury is still out.

Standing Athwart the Culture Yelling “Stop!”

What is left to say about our president that I already haven’t said in this blog? I’ve done my best to be honest and forthright about his radicalism, both culturally and politically, yet I don’t feel I can stop and say, “Well, that about covers it; on to the next topic.”

Actually, I do make a conscious effort not to make Obama the subject each day, but he keeps on doing things that force me to focus on him again. His choices for when to interject himself into the news, for instance, are always worthy of comment:

Obama Speaks Out

And we would all be hearing a whole lot more all the time about his many attempts to destroy political enemies, if not for the connivance of the press corps to avoid mentioning such embarrassing episodes:

Confidentiality

Richard Nixon was an amateur in these matters compared to Obama, yet the former was driven from office while the latter gets virtually no pressure from those who like to call themselves the “watchdogs” over politicians. They’re more like well-trained poodles.

The latest fiasco is also the most dangerous and foolish, simultaneously—the pending deal with Iran.

Have you noticed that Obama seems to have less difficulty working with terrorists who continue to chant “Death to America” even while he’s speaking with them than with Republicans in Congress?

Finally

Then, when one member of the press goes off the rails and actually questions Obama’s lack of concern for the American hostages who are still being held by Iran, he becomes sarcastic and does his best to demean the reporter publicly. No one likes to have a complete “cave” pointed out:

Keep the Hostages

The only place where there is any rejoicing over this “deal” is in Iran:

Hard Bargain

The ultimate insult to the Congress is that the deal is going to be presented to the United Nations first, to get its approval to lift all sanctions. This is just another example of Obama’s utter contempt for America’s Constitution. He’s a Citizen of the World in his heart, not the United States.

So why do I continue to write about our president? Even if it does no good, there needs to be an ongoing witness to the truth.

I’m reminded of a conversation William F. Buckley had with Whittaker Chambers back in the mid-1950s when he was trying to bring Chambers aboard as a contributor to his new magazine National Review. Here’s how Buckley described what transpired in that talk:

Whittaker Chambers 1A year before National Review was founded, I spent an evening with Whittaker Chambers, and he asked me, half provocatively, half seriously, what exactly it was that my prospective journal would seek to save.

I trotted out a few platitudes of the sort one might expect from a twenty-eight-year-old fogy, about the virtues of a free society. He wrestled with me by obtruding the dark historicism for which he had become renowned. Don’t you see? he said. The West is doomed, so that any effort to save it is correspondingly doomed to failure. . . .

But that night, challenged by his pessimism, I said to him that if it were so that providence had rung up our license on liberty, stamping it as expired, the Republic deserved a journal that would argue the historical and moral case that we ought to have survived: that, weighing the alternative, the culture of liberty deserves to survive.

So that even if the worst were to happen, the journal in which I hoped he would collaborate might serve, so to speak, as the diaries of Anne Frank had served, as absolute, dispositive proof that she should have survived, in place of her tormentors—who ultimately perished. In due course that argument prevailed, and Chambers joined the staff.

Even if, ultimately, we don’t win the argument with the culture, it is imperative that the argument be made. For me, it’s a matter of being faithful to what God has called me to be—one of those voices standing athwart the culture yelling “Stop!”

Only when there are enough voices doing so, and enough courageous individuals who will act on what they are saying, will we have any hope of successfully challenging the spirit of this age.

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.

A Potential Triple Feature

Let’s return to the amazing story of how an American president, after nearly two years of a terrorist threat in a country that was once stabilized, still hasn’t come up with a “complete strategy” for how to deal with this massive terrorist movement.

I see a movie in the works:

ISIS World

We wait with bated breath to see how this plot will unfold:

Details Coming Soon

And for another coming attraction, we have The Iran Agreement, a tale of intrigue, double-dealing, and incomprehensible foolishness:

If Iran Cheats

Perhaps we need a new book, playing on a former theme—but with a twist—that also can be made into a major motion picture:

Greatest Degeneration

Frankly, I don’t think there will be much interest in any of these. Far too depressing, with no redeeming qualities.

Obama’s Constant Flow of Silly Comments

I wasn’t going to write anything about President Obama today. Really, I wasn’t. But he’s just too hard to ignore when he’s so clueless and/or so ideologically blind that he almost forces me to address his constant flow of silly and destructive comments.

I’ve got three examples. First, the whole Obamacare fiasco. His administration continues to claim it’s a success despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Covering More People

The company running the website has withdrawn (the second one to do so). Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule against the federal exchanges (since they were not in the bill at all) and some of those remaining state exchanges are in deep financial trouble.

O'Care Exchanges

Obamacare has not worked and never will. Don’t expect, though, that Obama will ever admit that.

He’s also constantly harping on the “privileged” in society who apparently got there only with government help and can take no credit for their successes. Then he rails against them for not helping society more, regardless of the fact that it’s those entrepreneurs that actually create jobs whenever the government gets out of the way and lets them. Above all, though, what strikes me is the utter hypocrisy of all his denunciations. Has he ever thought of applying his complaints to himself?

Private

What really tipped the balance today, though, and made me comment on him, was the disaster unfolding in Iraq and his misplaced focus. The city of Ramadi just fell to ISIS, meaning that three of the major four cities in that country are now in the hands of this terrorist organization. What does his administration say about it? Well, that’s just a little setback. Don’t worry, our strategy is working. You call that “working”? And then who does he reach out to for help?

Little Help

I don’t think insanity is too strong a term to use here. It’s truly insane to believe that Iran will be there to “help” us.

Then, to top it off, Obama spoke at the commencement for graduates of the Coast Guard and told them that the real national security threat is—get ready for it—climate change! Not a word about terrorism or the collapse of a regime that had, at one point, been stabilized. This is beyond clueless; this is deliberate and obstinate stupidity. He needs to realize one thing:

No Finale

Sadly, I don’t expect him to realize it. We are saddled with the worst presidential administration in American history.

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.