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.

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.

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.

My Vote of No Confidence

Disagreement about policy is one thing; we can all participate in honest debate about the correct policy to follow. But is there a tipping point at which the policy that is followed becomes a danger to the nation and must be resisted for the sake of our future? Is there a time to question, not only the wisdom, but the motives of our leaders?

Case in point: the swap for Bo Bergdahl. We got a deserter; the enemy received back from Gitmo five of its top commanders. Now we hear that three of them are attempting to reconnect with the terrorist network. Don’t worry, we’re told. The fact that we know of this attempt shows we are on top of the situation. Never mind that in another couple of months, the “deal” we made with the Muslim nation that took them in will expire.

Who, in his right mind, would think that getting a dishonorable soldier back is worth the release of five terrorist leaders?

Only Five Taliban

Some minds just aren’t thinking straight. Fortunately, the military, despite the pressures from the White House, looked past the “celebration” of Bergdahl’s return last year with the Rose Garden ceremony and Susan Rice’s really silly comment that he served with “honor and distinction.” He is now going to a military tribunal for what should be appropriate justice, provided political concerns don’t outweigh the truth. Sadly, that justice will be meted out to only one of the deserters:

Charged with Desertion

I have no issue with questioning our president’s motives in this case. His skewed worldview is creating problem after problem, and they are escalating. His judgment should be challenged and his decisions should be evaluated in light of the increased national security dangers his policies have perpetuated. His culpability is greater than that of the one who may get his just deserts.

Disgraced

The Bergdahl fiasco involves only one dishonorable soldier and a few terrorists, which is bad enough. Yet there’s a larger disaster looming:

Murky Poppins

I simply have no confidence in the judgment of Barack Obama as the presumed leader of the free world. We are all at risk with him at the helm.

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.

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 Obama Zone

Yesterday, ISIS captured more than 100 Christians in Syria. If they are treated as other captives, the women and young girls will be raped and brutalized, then executed. The men may be burned alive or crucified. Hatred drives these Islamists, and nothing will appease them. This is no different in spirit than the Nazis. Both movements were and are fueled by Hell.

Yet what do we hear from the administration about this latest report of Christians being massacred? Not a word yet. You see, we wouldn’t want to “inflame” the captors. It might lead them to continue their rampage of terror. At least, that’s the message Obama’s spokespersons are disseminating.

Our president, meanwhile, shows no signs of changing his mind about the foolish comments he made at the Prayer Breakfast:

Not Be Named

This past week, we did get a warning about a possible terrorist attack on the Mall of America in Minneapolis. Was it genuine, or just a ploy to force Republicans in the Senate to drop their opposition to Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty? I don’t know for sure, but I do know that malls like that would make perfect “soft” targets for the terrorists.

Did you see the sign at the Mall of America, boasting that it was a gun-free zone? Well, that’s great. Now we don’t have to worry about terrorists taking guns in there. After all, it’s against the law, right? And they are so law-abiding. The absolute foolishness of our politically correct contingent is neverending.

Malls

May I take one more opportunity to make fun of the “jobs for jihadists” theme?

Drive-Through Lanes

As a nation, we have entered the “Obama Zone,” where everything we’ve ever believed is now turned upside down.

Obamaland

And here’s another thing that is now reversed:

Dissent

A poignant Scripture from the book of Isaiah is one I’ve used many times to decry what we see happening in our country. I’m going to use it again today simply because it so accurately describes what we are experiencing:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!