Constitutional Abrogation

I have decided to return to blogging more frequently. I think I may have gone on hiatus because I was sick and tired of what I was reading in the news, and, more likely, the news itself. I continue to believe that there is something just fundamentally off kilter in this country - and for the most part this notion is not being captured by the political punditry. In the past, I have mentioned my admiration for Charles Krauthammer and Andrew McCarthy, and I still find myself drawn to their critiques. But as brilliant as they are, even they do not address this nexus between culture and politics which defines 2015 America (and the world, for that matter) for me. I want get back to writing about that.

Today, I'd like to address Iran, a topic which confuses and plagues me. We all know that an agreement is about to be signed which will insure that the mullahs will have the (now) legitimate authority to continue developing a nuclear capability. There are two things about that with which I cannot come to grips. First, it has been the policy of this country since evidence of a secretive nuclear program was uncovered to oppose it completely. Democrat and Republican presidents (including Obama) and Congresses have stated that under no circumstances would Iran be able to develop this capability without significant penalties being imposed on the country. Even the United Nations, whose presence has really lost any legitimacy for me, has imposed sanctions and passed resolutions, effectively classifying the country as a rogue nation. But none of that seems to matter anymore. Those statements, policies and resolutions have suddenly been rendered moot because Obama and Kerry have deemed the conclusion of an agreement - literally ANY agreement - outweighs the potential dangers that a nuclear Iran presents.

What is even more enraging is the abrogation of constitutional oversight by the Congress. Even in a period where both Houses are controlled by Republicans, The Senate, which has a constitutional requirement to affirm agreements made by the Executive between the US and other nations, has bought into the ridiculous claim made by the administration and Democrats that this proposed, historic arrangement between Iran and the US and its negotiating partners (it's imconceivable to use the word "allies" since it includes Russia and China) is an agreement not a treaty, and, therefore, a consent by the Senate is not required. So, instead of insisting on its lawful prerogative, the Senate has created an artifice that does not exist in the Constitution whereby it will review this "agreement" and vote on its approval. If the Senate votes it down (which is likely only so those Democrats and Republicans that court the Jewish vote can claim they "supported Israel"), the President will veto the vote and then the Senate will have to muster a 2/3 vote to override the veto (which will then not happen because Democrats will not vote to override and train-wreck Obama's legacy).

This is nothing short of a constitutional sham regardless of how either party or individual member attempts to characterize it. And what approaches the level of definitional chutzpah (beyond the classic child who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan), is the blind obedience of Jewish members of Congress to the Obama dogma, none worse than Jan Schakowsky who represents one of the most liberal Jewish districts in the suburbs of Chicago. Without the benefit of consulting polls, my guess would be that her constituents would agree with her, so I guess there's some twisted rationale in the fact that she's actually representing the will of her constituents.

It will be fascinating to watch this all play out. Obama's attempts to mollify our Sunni Arab allies by inviting them to be entertained at Camp David seems to have been met with negative RSVP's. Our Secretary of State, who distinguished himself forever by referring to his fellow servicemen in Vietnam in traitorous terms, visited Putin in Sochi, hoping to come away with something - anything - that could be spun positively. And, interestingly, over the last few weeks the Israelis have been as quiet as a Hillary Clinton press conference; perhaps because Bibi is embroiled in the domestic politics of cobbling together a ruling coalition, but perhaps for other reasons as well.

As we near the self imposed June 30 deadline for the conclusion of an agreement with Iran, things are going to get very interesting.

HYPOCRISY (I'm back!)

Ooo, boy, I have fallen off the wagon completely. No posts during the month of December? And January is almost over. What gives? Well, as I described in earlier posts, we have had some turmoil in the family over the last several months, so it may have taken a toll on me of which I was unaware. Alternatively, it could be that I was so sickened by the cascade of falsehoods emanating from Washington that I couldn't possibly conceive how my singular voice could shed any additional light on the cacophony from both sides spinning events to their advantage.

But two things have awoken me from my lethargy (along with the one or two screaming voices of fans clamoring for additional posts), the first: my Jewish hero, Sen Charles Schemer (I mean, Schumer) who will literally say anything and be widely reported by the media; and two, Wendy Davis, the darling of those same media personalities, an anonymous Texas state senator from Ft. Worth who wants to be governor based upon her "principled" stand opposing abortions over twenty weeks.

Sen Schemer has now determined that the Tea Party is every bit as perilous to this country's freedom as Al Qaeda. In fact, I would have to argue that he really believes the threat from the Tea Party is greater because they are domestic, operate in the open and are diametrically opposed to the orthodoxy of liberalism upon which he has fashioned his entire persona. He advocates the active intercession of the IRS to quash the freedom of speech some Tea Party groups enjoy, alledging that somehow the Citizens United case has benefitted them disproportionately. Are there really so few among us who find the use of the IRS' power for nefarious anti constitutional purposes objectionable, that in today's environment it is permissible to advocate for its use out in the open? Wasn't Richard Nixon actually charged with impeachment of his duties because he did this surreptitiously?

And he further claims that the group is directed by an elite of white Anglo Sextons who worship differently than we do - what the hell is he talking about? Naturally, he is attempting to conjure images of the Ku Klux Klan, who were actually white Christian Southern Democrats violently opposed to integration and the rule of law. He is saying in essence that this time around they are white Christian Southern Republicans violently opposed to immigration and the primacy of federal government. As a fellow Jew, I find his comments and veiled illusions disgusting and libelous.While he is the ultimate insider, his clarion call is that the Tea Party is composed of dangerous, isolationist, anarchists whose wish is to bring down the federal infrastructure violently and restore American whiteness and heterosexual monogamy. One need only look to their irrational reaction to Barack Obama and his progressive programs to know this is factual.

Or perhaps to the pink-sneakered martyr of Ft. Worth County, Wendy Davis, single mom, Harvard
Law grad, directing her broadsword against the peasantry who insist on denying women their access to professional health services. Good Lord. Wendy Davis became a darling of the left because she filibustered a law which would have restricted abortions after 20 weeks. 20 weeks?! This is a medieval revival if I've ever heard one. What's next - reintroduction of chastity belts by a Neanderthal  Texas state legislature? And then Wendy has the balls to claim that her crusade-like motivation is on behalf of protecting children? When it is discovered that the martyr has embellished her life story somewhat to insure that her story is the fable every sympathizer wants to believe, her "people" cast aspersions against her opponent and then disgustingly suggest that perhaps his wheelchair is a prop to reinforce his own sense of fable.

This smacks of the same kind of absurdity emanating from the mouth of Sen Schumer: "The guys with the pitchforks are coming and they're going to storm the castle. Everybody to the battlements!
They'll rape our women and burn our churches! They will force us to worship their heathen idols! And they're going to kill (or otherwise delegitimize) our black king. Won't someone do something to stop them? Nothing is off limits!"

People of courage and some sense of morality, regardless of political persuasion, have to step out and call these people the charlatans they are. Tea Party people do not want to see the abolition of the federal government: they want it subjected to reasonable financial constraint. Tea Party people do not want to see the "safety net" eliminated for the less fortunate: they want work rules reinstated for welfare recipients and do not want unemployment benefits extended ad infinitum on the basis of "emergency" because it is current fiscal policy that has exacerbated the unemployment situation itself. And, please, Tea Party people are not adherents of restricting access to birth control: they just feel like it shouldn't be paid for by somebody else and religious institutions should have the freedom to provide it as part of a health plan according to their beliefs. Finally, and most importantly, Tea Party people are proponents of limited taxation because it will inherently limit the out of control growth of government and left's dogmatic devotion to income redistribution. That is why there is such a focus of opposition to Obamacare - not because it's named after our African American President, but because it is the epitome of everything the Tea Party loathes about government - passed without one vote from the opposition, manipulated with legislative artifice to guarantee its passage, tax payer-funded largesse gifted to Louisiana and other states to secure votes, and then implemented with typical governmental ineptitude with waivers granted to special interests by a President who assumes an authority not granted by the constitution.

All blindly defended by the Schumers and Wendy Davises of the world, abetted by a press which must preserve the fables.

Rabid Dogs

Ayatollah Khameini, Iran' Supreme Leader, was quoted last week while his negotiators were trying to broker a deal with John Kerry, EU leaders and China to relax sanctions as follows: "Zionist officials cannot be called human, they are like animals, some of them....The Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation." He referred to the regime as the "rabid dog of the region". It's pretty reasonable to conclude that any agreement to which this lunatic concurs is implicitly bad for the party on the table's other side.

Leaders of the West, particularly Barack Obama, have stated that any relaxation of sanctions would have to be accompanied by a process by which Iran would be required to dismantle its enrichment infrastructure and ship near-weapons grade uranium to outside partners for storage/destruction. but none of that has happened here. Instead, we are treated to reports of the benefits of a six month agreement that doesn't require Iran to stop construction of centrifuges and doesn't require Iran to open up all suspected nuclear sites for inspection.

Why the sudden rush to head to Geneva in the middle of the night to conclude such a short term agreement? Why do the Chinese and Russians seem so anxious to get this thing approved and, all of a sudden, are so supportive of John Kerry's efforts? The obvious answer is because once there is agreement to relax sanctions - under whatever circumstances - there is no chance that those sanctions will be reimposed under any circumstances. The Chinese and Russians will invent unending rationale to explain why some conditions might have been breached or that these requirements were not clearly defined in the agreement, etc. For all intents and purposes, the economic sanctions against Iran have ended and the country has emerged as a member of the nuclear club.

We have seen ample evidence that when America creates a power vacuum that space is quickly
occupied by China or Russia. Egypt in the case of the former and Syria the latter. The Russians have
played an essential role in Iran's quest for nuclear power and the Chinese have been happy to buy their oil, even in the face of international sanctions. It is equally reasonable to conclude, given the Russians' support for Iran and Assad, that as Iran's influence grows, so does Russia's. With the American departure in Iraq and the growing influence of the Shi'a, and the looming departure from Afghanistan, it is likely that the Russians will have an influence in the region that their years in Afghanistan could not secure. All of this alarms the Sunni world enormously, increases Saudi interest to join the nuclear club (which Pakistan joined with Saudi financing), and fundamentally undermines the interests of the US which is perceived as weakened and crippled by domestic dispute.

Bibi Netanyahu as usual does not shrink from controversy and calls 'em like he sees 'em. He characterizes this interim deal as a "historic mistake" which, in my humble view, only adds to the litany already accomplished by the Obama administration. After the Ayatollah made the statements I referenced earlier, Bibi said, "The public responded to him with calls of 'Death to America! Death to Israel!' Doesn't this sound familiar to you? This is the real Iran. We are not confused." Nor should we be.

Fouad Ajami and JFK

Since I began writing this blog several months ago, I have made occasional references to commentators whose writing I admire - Charles Krauthammer (with whom I've had several disagreements recently) and Andrew McCarthy. I have failed to include another whose work is consistently stimulating and often challenges the media's embrace of Administration narrative - Fouad Ajami.

Ajami, of course, seems most comfortable in his analysis of events in the Middle East, and while tectonic events in that region are as dangerous and world-changing as ever, they have been overshadowed by domestic affairs. I continue to resist the urge to spend much time on Obamacare since that fiasco is discussed daily by voices much wiser than mine. However, this week Dr. Ajami has written a column about domestic politics (which is unusual in itself) and it is a blistering sociological critique of the hysteria that has surrounded the President since he burst onto the national scene.

It is ironic that this examination takes place during a time when we are looking back on the assassination of JFK and the unending ripples that act continues to exert today. Through today's looking glass, it is difficult not to characterize Kennedy's worldview as conservative, since he regularly espoused the economic benefits of cutting taxes and was an unapologetic anti-communist. This is a notion that Kennedy's family and the press resist because he is often cited as the father of modern liberalism, the logical bridge between the New Deal and the Great Society, periods of great governmental expansion and assumption of federal control over issues traditionally governed by the states.

The real reason that we remember JFK the way we do is because he represented such stark contrast to the Eisenhowers and Nixons of the world. He was young, handsome, wealthy with a gorgeous wife and very young children. He embodied the changes that began to shake the world in the early Sixties-the dream of men landing on the moon, the bold embrace of Berliners trapped by a totalitarian wall, the "goodness" of Americans serving those less fortunate. And in the background, a musical revolution beginning to take shape in Britain and San Francisco. The skies were literally no limit, and the young President's optimism cut across all ideologies.

Today's progressives try to paint Obama with JFK's brush, but it is an image Photoshopped, a pastiche of qualities they desperately want to be true. Obama's actions prove he is the antithesis of a great unifier; he has worked at splitting and dividing this country like no other politician in my lifetime. His signature social achievement was passed on a strict party line vote, using a parliamentarian trick engineered by his consigliere, Harry Reid. He sets no bold agenda for the future, trapping instead future generations in a sea of debt for which he holds others responsible. He and those who support him employ the foulest of language to criticize their political opponents while appealing out of the other side of his mouth for civility in public discourse. It is hypocrisy and cynicism made whole. The contrast with JFK could not be more stark.

Death in the Family

My apologies to the occasional reader. I have been out of pocket and unfocused due to the recent passing of my wife's twin brother. He committed suicide in a high rise apartment in Chicago overlooking the lakefront where he had retreated from his wife, his only child (from a previous marriage) and his siblings. His soul was deeply troubled and his body failing, both as a consequence of a mountain bike accident which had disabled him in 2007. He worked on his physical and psychological rehab for many years, but was clearly not making enough progress to restore his functionality. The man who died in that lonely apartment was not the man I knew over the years, not the man who used to hide when we would hike various trails in and around Aspen, not the man who would blow down a mountain on skis fearlessly. I will miss him and his twin sister will always feel like a part is missing.

In The Land of Lincoln

Visiting my family for a few days in the suburbs of Chicago. The fall weather is fantastic and a welcome change from home. I never lived in this area because my folks moved here after I started college in the northeast. In any event, the political climate here is hyper liberal, not just among my family members, but among others with whom I've come into contact. They have a cartoonish view of where I come from and characterize my political perspective in hyperbole right out of the Alan Grayson school of bipartisanship.

I may no longer hold the classic liberal approach to improving the shortcomings of society, but I can hardly criticize my close family members for doing so. They actually walk the walk, emulating in many ways the path blazed by my mother whose activities I described briefly in my opening commentary of this blog. My cousins are lifelong educators in the Jewish community, and their commitment to those within and without the community is one I admire without reservation. My sister's family, too, embraces these notions, and she and her husband have passed this belief system to their three wonderful children. But behind it all, I perceive this insidious suggestion that the political approach I have adopted sits in opposition to improving the lives of our fellow citizens, wants to actually withhold improvement from them and reinstitute abhorrent legal (or extra-legal) mechanisms to insure their inequality.

I see this, too, in my observations of the behavior of mass media organs over the last several weeks as a government shutdown, debt ceiling increase and Obamacare have been endlessly analyzed. May I briefly recount my belief that the first two issues are only relevant because two of the three major branches of government (legislative and executive) have failed their constitutional duty of producing a budget and then passing appropriation bills in accordance with that budget. We can argue ad infinity about whether that budget should be balanced, embrace tax code reform, etc. But a budget is mandated constitutionally and it simply does not exist. The "continuing resolution - debt ceiling" games will continue until this is fundamentally addressed.

The media has done a masterful job of painting this merry go round as a devious, Tea Party-initiated strategy to extort concessions from the progressive government of America's first president of color. It is so absurd and offensive on so many levels that I refuse to distract myself by addressing them. My larger point, though, is that this Pravda-like uniformity has gained traction in the liberal community and has been accepted de facto because it is being disseminated by media organs widely seen by that community as "impartial". By opinion writers whose views are generally in sync with theirs.

One person with whom I have spoken here and who knew nothing of my political persuasions, but who saw me in the company of fellow travelers, informed me that it was widely known that the Confederate flag is proudly waved and displayed at Tea Party events. Another, who did know I lived in Texas, passed along a valuable insight that Ted Cruz was the most dangerous man in America
because he is a nihilist and is fighting to eliminate all government. Yet another told me their child was looking at colleges, was interested in the University of Texas, but was dissuaded from pursuing that
option because the student would be exposed to too many Texans. And, best of all, when I confessed to another for having voted for Ted Cruz, I was met by speechless incredulity.

Many leaders of the Democrat party - including the president himself - have been employing incredibly inflammatory language to describe their political opponents over the last few weeks. Perhaps (and hopefully) this has peaked over the last week as Alan Grayson sent out a fund raising letter with the letter "T" in Tea Party as a burning cross and then called MSNBC's Martin Bashir a "collaborator" for having the temerity to confront him; MSNBC's Chris Hayes showing a graphic of Cruz, Lee and Rubio on three "King" cards; and Dick Durban also sent out a fund raising letter claiming a Republican congressman had rudely insulted the President during a meeting (which Durban did not attend) which Jay Carney denied ever happened.

Part of the reason for this explosion of offensive rhetoric is that the media employs the language itself and refuses to condemn those on the left who also engage in it. The unfortunate consequence is that many who philosophically agree with progressivism are either unable or unwilling to sort through what is fact and what is fiction.

SHUTDOWN POST MORTEM

Greetings! I have refrained from posting a comment over the last two weeks for a few reasons: I felt like rhetoric had become completely overheated and irrational; the mainstream media and even those who suggest they reflect the thinking of specific interest groups had gone completely off the rails; I had made my opinions known in the weeks leading up to the shutdown and debt ceiling increase, and saw little reason to keep repeating myself. Now that the shutdown is over and the debt ceiling increase passed, though, I'm feeling there's some oxygen in the atmosphere again.

I'd like to begin by posing a few questions:

1) Is a $17 trillion deficit a good or bad thing for this country?
2) Did Barack Obama really mean it when he voted against raising the debt ceiling and called George Bush's $8 trillion deficit "unpatriotic"?
3) Is it a good thing that we have approved a debt ceiling increase for nearly $1 trillion that will only take us through January 7?
4) Does anyone really believe anymore that a full implementation of Obamacare will not contribute to a further increase in the deficit?
5) Why do Democrats now want to insist that sequester cuts need to be eliminated when they claim to really want to do something about reducing the deficit?
6) Does anyone really think that Paul Ryan and Patty Murray will agree on anything that averts another shutdown? Or that really contributes to deficit reduction as opposed to decreases in the rise of spending?

I'm sorry, folks, but if you're okay with any of this, you are going to end up on the wrong side of history. In the five years of Obama's presidency, he has now doubled the deficit incurred by all the
presidents before him. You want to blame George Bush, blame George Bush. You want to complain
that the stimulus wasn't big enough and that's why the economy hasn't recovered sufficiently, blame the stimulus. You want to say that the economy has somehow been stifled by Republicans who only want to see Obama fail, please - blame Republicans. At this point, the whole back and forth is becoming completely irrelevant to me because there are several undeniable truths which neither side can avoid:

1) Pass a budget. Send it to conference committee. Continuing resolutions then become moot. Why can't we pass a budget during this administration?
2) Debt ceiling increases are only required because the Congress can't come to any reasonable agreement about how to reduce spending. Democrats want tax increases, don't want to reduce benefits to the aging or those in need and, ultimately, refuse to agree to restructuring the tax code to a "fair" or "flat" tax structure which requires contributions by all. Republicans (at least a few of them) will not endorse an increase in rates that penalizes capital gain investment or which unfairly targets
job creators for income redistribution purposes. You guys need to get real. We will turn out every and
any Republican who would endorse such changes. So,
3) Work on a longer term program which anticipates a gradual reduction in debt over a ten year term. Raise the age for eligibility for Social Security benefits. Reduce benefits for those whose retirement incomes eclipse certain benchmarks. It cracks me up when I hear liberals say that life expectancies when Social Security was created were such that some people were expected to collect and others would not. Are they suggesting that the plan was designed to in essence confiscate retirement set asides for a segment of the workforce??  In their world, I guess, those actuary predictions were acceptable and now we have to make adjustments because life expectancies have been extended. What about giving people some incentive to take on this planning for themselves? Why is this notion so abhorrent?
4) Large, extreme changes in the status quo will be required to rectify this situation. Liberals want to put this off, kick the can down the road (one of the most hateful colloquialisms ever coined), pass the problem along to someone else. People who associate themselves with "tea party" notions don't want to wait, aren't afraid of making tough choices, are prepared to sacrifice their benefits for the sake of their children's' and support without reserve the approach of people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. There - I said it.

If both major political parties cannot figure out some reasonable method for passing a budget, resolving it in conference, gradually bringing some control to spending and the deficit, and getting some governors on entitlement programs (including the lunatic new "affordable" care act), the recent controversy over the shutdown and debt limit increase will seem tame in the waning years of Obama's second term.