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.

Israel’s Churchill

Benjamin Netanyahu's VictoryIt wasn’t even close. Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party stunned the prognosticators, coming back from polls showing them behind to actually gaining more seats in the Knesset than they currently hold. Not only the pre-election polls were wrong, but the exit polls were also, as they indicated a too-close-to-call result. I love it when polls are off; it means individual decisions still matter.

No matter what public face the Obama administration attempts to put on Israel’s election results, it has to sting internally. They are probably furious, and trying to figure out how to undermine Netanyahu’s honesty about the Iranian threat.

What has to be particularly galling to them is the utter defeat of the “Chicago Machine” that was behind the effort to oust the prime minister. All the funding of the opposition and even sending over a key Obama campaign operative to engineer Netanyahu’s defeat were all in vain.

It’s no secret, no matter what you may hear today from the White House or the State Department, that they were hoping to overthrow the current Israeli government. And no matter how gracious Netanyahu will be in public toward Obama, he is no fool; he knows Obama has no love for him or the nation he leads.

Winston ChurchillMe? I obviously rejoice over this turn of events. The only down side is that I had this really nice comparison I was going to use in today’s blog, placing Netanyahu beside a picture of Winston Churchill, another great leader who was turned out of office. What a travesty that was—inspiring a nation to overcome during WWII, then losing to the Labour Party even before the war ended. Ingratitude is a common human trait when the opposition promises to provide all one’s needs, as the Labour Party did. All Britain got in return for placing them in power was years of rationing and austerity caused by government policy.

So, I can’t make the comparison I was going to make. But that’s fine with me. I can still compare their courage in the face of a threat that seeks to destroy their civilization. May Benjamin Netanyahu meet this challenge and go down in history as another Churchill.

Lack of Intelligence Report

The latest intelligence report on terror threats to the country no longer includes either Iran or its minions in Hezbollah on the list of threats. If that seems rather unintelligent to you, don’t think you’re the one failing the intelligence test.

What would ever lead our government to come up with this assessment? Could it be because our president wants a “deal” with Iran so badly that he will do anything to show them how nice we are to them? That by removing them from the terror list, they will have a change of heart? Once again, we have the Obama worldview—skewed as it it—on full display.

Undermining

Once again, he reveals his penchant for not knowing who the real enemy is:

Negotiate

And have you noticed who is doing the fighting against ISIS in Iraq, the nation we pulled out of the fire and tried to set on a stable course? Iraq is quickly becoming a subsidiary of Iran. What’s even worse is our government apparently applauds this development. We will keep applauding, apparently, until the country that seeks to destroy Israel and send nuclear missiles our way achieves its goal.

Simultaneously, our president and his administration give funding to an organization actively working to oust Netanyahu as the Israeli prime minister. One of Obama’s chief campaign strategists was sent over to Israel for that very purpose. This is the president who balked at inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress because, ostensibly, it would be “wrong” to influence the upcoming Israeli elections.

This is the basest hypocrisy.

We are in this position because American voters collectively put their heads in the sand twice. We have reaped what we have sown. We are ultimately to blame.

This new “lack of intelligence” report is merely the latest evidence of Obama Fantasyland:

It's a Wash

Less than two years to go.

Iran Negotiations vs. Reality

The negotiations with Iran have been as front and center lately as the Hillary Clinton e-mails. As we know, the administration deplored the invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to the Congress. That speech went well for Netanyahu, not so well for the administration.

Netanyahu’s concerns are obvious: the survival of Israel as Iran moves steadily toward a nuclear capability; the fear that these negotiations will lead to disaster for his people because they don’t seem to rule out that continual development of nuclear weapons.

This rising concern over the Obama administration’s approach to Iran led 47 Republican senators to sign on to a letter addressed to the Iranian government, letting that government know that any agreement with Obama that doesn’t go through the Senate’s ratification process for treaties is an agreement that has no legs and can be dismissed by the next president.

Tom CottonThe letter is no more than a simple statement of fact. They could have sent a copy of our Constitution to Iran and the same point would have been made. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas was the principal senator behind the letter, and now he is being roundly attacked for “interfering” with the executive’s authority to negotiate with another nation.

One of the more delusional responses to this letter is to drag out the Logan Act, written just before the turn of the nineteenth century after a private citizen, George Logan, went to France and tried to work out some arrangement with the French government after the XYZ Affair. Some have called the senators who signed this letter “traitors,” and a petition to prosecute these senators, based on the Logan Act, has received more than 100,000 signatures.

How silly. The senators are not private citizens interfering with government negotiations; they are duly elected representatives of the people/states who have an obligation to ensure that the Constitution is followed. My only caveat with their action is that perhaps the letter should have been addressed to President Obama himself instead of to the Iranian government. But the letter only states the truth of how our government is supposed to operate. The Obama administration, however, chiefly through Secretary of State John Kerry, is trying to go it alone, hoping to circumvent the Senate entirely.

Nuclear Clubhouse

John KerryKerry, testifying before Congress yesterday, walked back earlier statements about making sure Congress approves any agreement that arises out of these negotiations. Keep in mind that all treaties with foreign governments must be ratified by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. To avoid that, Obama and Kerry are saying this is not a treaty, but merely a “non-binding” agreement with the executive branch.

Think about that for a moment. If this so-called agreement is “non-binding,” of what value is it? Does anyone with even half a brain believe that Iran will abide by a “non-binding” piece of paper? In a sane world, that would be branded as ludicrous. It comes down to this: Obama and Kerry think they can trust Iran’s leaders to keep their word, but they cannot trust the Congress.

Dangerous Lunatics

We are in a dangerous world situation with Iran as the primary instigator of the danger. Yet we are willing to trust that government over our own elected representatives?

Little League

That kind of thinking—if it can be called that at all—will ultimately lead us to disaster.

Netanyahu’s Historic Warning

Yesterday, while watching Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress, I felt as if I were a participant in a historic event of the same stature as Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” and “Tear Down This Wall” speeches. Even as Reagan confronted the evil of totalitarian communism, Netanyahu forcefully focused our attention on the current totalitarian evil of radical Islamism.

Reagan succeeded in toppling the Evil Empire and the Wall came down. Will Netanyahu’s speech lead us to a similar success against Islamism?

Netanyahu Speech

Netanyahu was very politic in praising Obama and John Kerry—he had to be—but he made it quite clear that not only Israel, but America as well, was facing a firestorm should Iran get nuclear capability.

The speech was filled with poignant quotes.

“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

“When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

“Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, anymore than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem.”

Commentator Stephen Hayes summed up the message well: “This is the clearest description of the threat from Iran presented to the American people in the last decade. Long overdue.”

Congress, on both sides of the political divide, applauded his words continually. There’s hope. However, there remains the one greatest hurdle:

Israel's Concerns

In effect, rhetoric notwithstanding, President Obama has conceded the inevitability of Iran’s nuclear desires. The only problem, of course, is that Iran has publicly stated it wants to wipe Israel off the map, and that it seeks to develop ICBMs that can be used to direct nuclear bombs at faraway targets, i.e., the United States. Yet we are supposed to believe his assurances that this will never happen? What is there in his history of his pronouncements that would give us such assurance?

No Consequences

He’s not exactly a tough negotiator:

Obama Negotiations

He pushes for a deal with Iran that is clearly not sufficient, yet he tells us to accept it. Again, his ideological blindness takes over. Unfortunately, the rest of us suffer for it:

Good Nuclear Deal

Frankly, I agree with another comment I heard—Obama probably wouldn’t shed one tear if Israel no longer existed. In his view, that nation is the main agitator in the Middle East, even as he sees his own country as the primary abettor of everything he considers evil in the world.

If only we had a Netanyahu in charge of our nation at this perilous time. Before he spoke, House Speaker Boehner presented Netanyahu with a bust of Winston Churchill. I think that is most fitting. He is the new Churchill, warning the world of the coming holocaust.

Does anyone recall that one of the first actions Obama took as president was to return a bust of Churchill to Britain? That was fitting as well. It was only a sign of things to come.

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.

Obama & Israel

Ever since the state of Israel came into being in 1948, the United States has been its strongest ally and protector. From Harry Truman through George W. Bush, we have helped our only real ally in the Middle East economically, diplomatically, and militarily. Even during the Watergate crisis, Richard Nixon valiantly stood up for Israel’s right to exist when it was attacked by all the surrounding Arab nations.

All that has changed. No, you won’t hear this administration publicly declare its disdain for the Jewish state; it can’t go that far publicly. Yet the tension has been present from the very first day President Obama took office. On Benjamin Netanyahu’s first visit to this country to see the new president, Obama pretty much blew him off. He certainly didn’t show the respect everyone expected. Even the liberal news outlets couldn’t help but notice.

Things have gone downhill ever since. Yes, they put on a good front, but there is a definite animosity emanating from this White House. It took a number of years into his presidency before Obama went to Israel himself, despite his other trips to the region to laud Islamic regimes.

When the Muslim Brotherhood, a true terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map, took over Egypt, our president supported that new government. When the Egyptian military brought down that radical government, he hasn’t uttered a word of support. Again, it’s not hard to see where his sympathies lie.

Iran seeks nuclear weapons, and one of its primary goals is the same as the Muslim Brotherhood’s—the total destruction of the Israeli state. Yet our president continues to “negotiate,” drops sanctions against Iran, and seems blissfully unaware of the imminent danger that terrorist state poses, not only in the Middle East, but to the world.

Now that Congress had invited Netanyahu to speak, the White House is very upset, saying it wasn’t consulted first. New reports, though, dispute that claim; the real problem appears to be that this administration doesn’t respond to notices of things like this invitation, then gets upset after the fact.

Fruitloop

One might be excused for thinking our president has declared war, but on the wrong target:

Attack Netanyahu

As I’ve said before, I agree with the assessment of many that Obama’s worldview is deeply entrenched in a Marxist/anti-colonial mindset that blames most of the evils in the world (“evil” as defined through his particular lenses) on the West. He is so devoted to that worldview that he refuses to see the truth, no matter how obvious it is to the majority of his fellow citizens: Don't Have a Clue

One has to believe there is a problem before anything can be done about it.