---
This analysts decries the nomination of Romney and argues he will fail as an 'electable moderate' even if elected. Though I understand where McCann is coming from I believe he is over-reacting to understandable fear that will prove unfounded. (See 2 below)
---
Netanyahu called off joint military exercise to free himself for unilateral action?
Natanyahu concluded Obama Administration's actions against Iran are not convincing.(See 3 below.)
---
The IDF has not received orders from the government to
launch an operation. However preparations are being done so that it will be
ready at a moment’s notice if needed. The IDF will not take
blame for a decision by the ruling government not to act in Gaza. The IDF
apparently intends to have everything in place - both in terms of equipment
and personnel as well as planning.
The possible downside: this strips the prime minister of face saving while
he stalls for time in the hope that diplomacy rather than military action
can resolve the challenge.
The possible gain: the more prepared the greater the chances,
hopefully, they will be reviewed and refined so they are
successful if and when implemented. Also the more prepared the
plans, hopefully, the more realistic the projections of the possible outcomes
of their implementation as have more time to think them through. (See 4 below.)
Gaffney: Israel not bluffing. Crossing red lines mean something to Israel not to 'PNF/F." (See 4a and 4b below.)
'PNF/F's' withdrawal from Iraq has sent a clear message to those in the Middle East that America cannot be relied upon nor is willing to defend its interest and those of its allies. 'PNF/F' can huff and bluff but Iran continues to have the upper hand because time is their ally unless we choose to call their hand a most unlikely event.
Because of 'PNF/F's' unilateral acts of disarming Netanyahu faces the chilling reality that Israel is left on its own and should it act will, once again, become the villain.
---
Shifting back, Europe still has an unwillingness to face economic reality. (See 5 below.)
--
'PNF/F' discovers natural gas right at election time but still refuses to adhere to the Constitution. (See 6 below.)
---
If you believe the predictability of demographics, as I do, then he Cruise Ship Costa Concordia is an image of what is happening to Western civilization. The West is failing to re-populate itself and the Muslim world is gaining rapidly. Sobering_Video_demographic_.wmv
---
Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.
The FIRST is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 week to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The first patient is a Golden Retriever.
The SECOND is a person.
Take me to a vet!
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Transformational Tyrant
By William L. Gensert
No man is born a murderer, or evil or cruel. In America, no man is born a king or a tyrant. Just as a man must learn to be a killer, men must teach themselves to be tyrants. Barack Obama has learned how to be a tyrant.
The proclivity was always there, along with the arrogance and narcissism. When you are better than everyone else, it is a small step to wish to reign over them as well. Yet, few expected a University of Chicago lecturer on constitutional law to decide the Constitution did not apply to him, only to mere mortals like us. After all, when speaking of George Bush in 2007, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.
"I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," said Barack Obama in defense of his usurpation of our Constitution, which established three coequal branches of government, sharing power, designed to impede the machinations of a transformational tyrant refusing to take "no" for an answer, or a power-drunk Congress, or an out of control judiciary.
The checks and balances codified in our Constitution are the foundation of the balance of power intrinsic to our system of government. It is an exercise in divided authority -- adversarial, confrontational and restricted.
The Constitution is meant to curtail the extremes of unbridled authority. It protects liberty by throttling the wet dreams of would be tyrants.
A constitutional law professor should know this, but Barack Obama was a Senior Lecturer, not a professor on the track to tenure. Apparently, he had no desire for the rigorous imperative of publish or perish. He had bigger plans. Why write about the Constitution, when as a tyrant, he could rewrite the Constitution?
Tyranny is so much easier; tyrants control everything and don't have to take "no" for an answer.
It was apparent from the beginning that he was uncomfortable with governing. Trying to convince others that his ideas were the best was difficult, especially since he really didn't have any new ideas. It was more satisfying for him to rule by making rules.
Now, the President has chosen to bypass the Senate, using his power of recess appointment to name Richard Cordray as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, despite not having the benefit of an actual recess. The CFPB is a regulatory agency created by the Dodd Frank Financial Reform legislation. It is accountable to no one, with the ability to set its own budget using funds from the Federal Reserve, without congressional approval. It alone, decides what and who to regulate, with no oversight from the Legislative and Executive branches. Its director cannot be fired and his decisions cannot be overruled.
Recess appointments, however, can only be made during a recess, and the Senate decides, with the approved of the House of Representatives, when it is in recess. Barack Obama does not have the constitutional authority to dictate its time for recess, perhaps for Sasha and Malia, but not for the U. S. Senate.
The Executive controls only the Executive branch, not the Legislative branch. Refusing to recess is the prerogative of the Senate and a tool used very effectively by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats, with the full support of Senator Obama, to prevent George W. Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.
In essence, Barack Obama has unconstitutionally made Mr. Cordray a king of what is probably an unconstitutional agency, with the power to regulate all aspects of the American economy.
The President also illegally diverted TARP funds, without the consent of Congress, toward bailing out political supporters -- the UAW and the auto industry -- while simultaneously reversing the order of creditors and ignoring a hundred years of bankruptcy law.
He dedicated much of his trillion dollar stimulus to crony-capitalist ventures like Solyndra and Light Squared, and transfer payments to the states to ensure that no backer of Barack would have to suffer through the economic downturn.
He decided that there would be no more drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, on land or off our shores, ignoring court orders and making a mockery of the permit process, while costing the nations hundreds of thousands of potential jobs.
Hope and change has left 25 million Americans unemployed, but our President doesn't care about jobs in the fossil fuel industry. He would rather trumpet the decline in the unemployment rate, which happens as discouraged people stop looking for work. As a result, labor force participation has plummeted to 64%, the lowest in decades.
Cap and Trade legislation, his carbon trading scheme, died in the Senate. Yet, Mr. Obama has decided that green energy is our future, tasking his EPA and various other agencies to wage war on America's fossil fuel industry through regulation. After all, we don't need coal, natural gas and nuclear energy for electricity, or to heat our homes. The bright, hot intensity of his brilliance will light our way and keep us warm.
We don't need gasoline to power our cars, we have high-speed rail and electric vehicles that cost $40,000, and have a range of 40 miles.
So-called "Dirty" Coal produces 50% of the electricity needed to charge electric cars. A hybrid costs an extra $10,000 to save $3,000 in gasoline, while saddling humanity with hundreds of years of heavy metal, battery disposal issues.
It's for our own good. After all, he does know best. Didn't he go to Harvard? Wouldn't it be so much easier to be president of China, if only for a day, or emperor, or anyone who makes all the decisions and decides all the important stuff? Who are we to disagree or question his judgment? Who are we to expect him to obey rules, when others clearly won't do what he tells them to do?
Most Americans are just happy to kiss their children goodnight, and make enough money working to pay their mortgage, and perhaps not die too soon after they retire. Few aspire to be king and fewer still, would ever become tyrants. But we are not Barack Obama.
When you are the food stamp President, the anti-business President and the anti-jobs President, as well as the anti-energy President, what do you have left but tyranny?
The Fast and Furious scandal is the perfect metaphor for our tyrant. This administration, in order to bolster arguments for additional gun control, deliberately and illegally, promoted the arming of Mexican cartels, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. While the "my people," Attorney General Eric Holder has turned the Justice Department into a gun running enterprise, the administration acts as if it is no big deal, and that the uproar is somehow racially motivated.
The lawlessness of Barack Obama and his minions is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of human beings and they don't care, because they're only Mexicans. Yet, those outraged by this are the ones labeled as racist. It's staggering the mental gyrations a tyrant will go through to justify his tyranny.
And, make no mistake, Barack Obama has crossed the dictatorial Rubicon to become a full fledged tyrant, and tyranny never ends well.
Today, we stand on the cusp of history. Will we be governed or ruled? Our parents and grandparents had World War 2; we have our battle against the tyranny of Barack Obama. So far, he's winning.
Yet he is winning the way Charlie Sheen was winning. While Mr. Sheen was the only one hurt by his actions, Barack Obama's addiction to power hurts not only the nation and its future as a constitutional republic, but each and every one of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Mitt Romney: The Last Republican President?
By Steve McCann
There now appears to be an inevitability surrounding Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination for president. Are the American people prepared to sit through another term of George H.W. Bush? The chances are that Romney would be the last Republican president, as the Party may fly apart under his rule. The country would then have to face another round of the Left-dominated Democratic Party in charge and the inevitable collapse that would bring about.
The forces arrayed against the conservative challengers from the Romney money machine, the Party establishment, and the so-called conservative and mainstream media appear too formidable to overcome; particularly as the conservative movement cannot coalesce behind one candidate. The Republican Party will have succeeded in once again nominating a moderate under the guise of electability.
However, the landscape of the country is far different from days past. There is a growing awareness and unease among many that the best days of the United States are behind it and the future is indeed grim. An overwhelming 70 per cent of the populace is of the opinion that the nation is headed in the wrong direction and that the "American dream" is no more.
There is also a growing consensus, as epitomized by the Tea Party movement, that only a dramatic 180 degree course reversal can save the country.
Any nation that increases its Gross Public Debt by nearly sixty-six per cent in just four years (end of 2008--$10 Trillion; end of 2012--$16.6 Trillion), and has over $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, is facing a long-term financial crisis that will dwarf the ongoing dilemma in Europe. American society has fractured along secular, racial, and ethnic lines; there is no longer the cohesion that once was the hallmark of being an "American." The education system is in shambles as the Left and their allies in the public sector unions have succeeded in making this their ideological fiefdom at the expense of those they were hired to serve.
Total spending by government at all levels now exceeds 41% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, up from 28% just 40 years ago. This results in less capital available for business expansion and creating personal wealth. There are now 160,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (22,800 in 1960) and over 72,000 pages in the tax code (10,000 in 1960), thus aiding and abetting the destruction of job creation and forcing businesses to locate overseas.
In the December of 2000 jobs report, the employment-population ratio was 64.5% (per cent of those employed as compared to the civilian noninstitutional population); in December of 2011 it had fallen to 58.5%. Were the country on the same footing as this point eleven year ago then there would be over 155.2 million Americans employed as compared to an actual of 140.8 million (a difference of nearly 15 million).
Because of the failures of the Obama regime, the world has become a much more dangerous place with the Middle East is now fully dominated by the radical element of Islam. As in the Balkans in the early part of the twentieth century, a minor misstep or misunderstanding in this region could ignite another global conflict. China, despite its own internal fault lines, is determined to exert its power and influence not only in the Far East but throughout the globe. A worldwide financial meltdown in the next 12 to 18 months is not out of the realm of possibility.
At no time in the past 150 years has the nation needed a bold and decisive leader that could not only initiate change but be honest with the American people.
Yet the current governing class and in particular the Republican establishment is treating this election cycle as if it were no different from any other during the past sixty years. Their reaction to the Tea Party movement is indicative of this mindset, as they choose to denigrate and dismiss this grassroots uprising as just another passing crusade by conservative ideologues. They fail to understand that the appeal of Ron Paul is that he is willing to stick it to the ruling class. The primary concern of the establishment, either Republican or Democrat, is to retain power through the control of the purse strings, and to put off any difficult decisions while "compromising" with the opposition.
The campaign strategy of Mitt Romney mirrors that of all the past moderate nominees chosen by the Party. The formula: speak the language of the conservative majority in the Party, claim only a moderate can get elected, divide the vote among the conservatives running for the nomination, mobilize the media to destroy any real conservative challenger, and overwhelm these same challengers with money from the deep-pocket establishment contributors.
The only criterion for people running for president should be: what have they actually done and accomplished in their previous jobs or positions? If there is one lesson to take from the Obama 2008 campaign, it is that relying on words and image can result in choosing a man that is a disaster for the country.
Mitt Romney, by his actions in Massachusetts both campaigning for the U.S. Senate and as Governor, has shown himself to be more than willing to compromise with the Left and the Democrats. He has proposed and passed the socialist RomneyCare policy, pro-abortion regulations, and gun control, and raised numerous taxes and fees while increasing spending dramatically. During the current campaign he refuses to call Barack Obama what he is; instead Romney refers to him as just "being over his head."
If ever a candidate mirrored the mindset and approach of George H.W. Bush, it is Mitt Romney.
This is the last hurrah of the Republican establishment. The conservatives and libertarians will vote for Romney in November, but only because he is not Barack Obama. There will be no enthusiasm, which will hurt the down ballot contests for the U.S. Senate, the House and state governorships. Despite the factors weighing against Obama in this upcoming election, it will be a much closer contest that it should be; perhaps a razor thin victory for Romney.
If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise. If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation's problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.
This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Joint US-Israel drill called off by Netanyahu, to Washington's surprise
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
Contrary to recent reports published in Washington, Jerusalem - and this site too - it was Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the biggest ever joint US-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 scheduled for April 2012.
Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel's disapproval for the administration's apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran's nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.
This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.
This week, Netanyahu further orchestrated a series of uncharacteristically critical statements by senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon called the Obama administration "hesitant" (Jan. 15), after which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged the Americans to "move from words to deeds" (Jan 16).
The underlying message was that the Israeli government felt free to attack Iran's nuclear sites on its own if necessary and at a time of its choosing.
Netanyahu decided on this extreme course after careful consideration when he judged the Obama administration's resolve to preempt a nuclear Iran to be flagging, as indicated by four omissions:
1. Washington has taken no action against Iran's capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 more than a month after the event, and not even pressed President Obama's demand of Dec. 12 for the drone's return.
Tehran, for its part, continues to make hay from the event: This week, our Iranian sources report, the Islamic Republic circulated a new computer game called "Down the RQ-170." Players assemble the drone from the components shown on their screens and then launch it for attacks on America.
2. Silence from Washington also greeted the start of 20-percent grade uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom when it was announced Jan. 9. Last November, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned in two US TV interviews (Nov. 17 and 22) that as soon as the Fordo facility went on stream, Iran would start whisking the rest of its nuclear facilities into underground bunkers, out of reach and sight of US and Israeli surveillance.
Barak made it clear at the time that Israel could not live with this development; therefore, the Netanyahu government believes Israel's credibility is now at stake.
3. Exactly three weeks ago, on Jan. 3 Lt. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran's Army chief, announced that the aircraft carrier USS Stennis and other "enemy ships" would henceforth be barred from entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz . Yet since then, no US carrier has put this threat to the test by attempting a crossing. Tehran has been left to crow.
4. Even after approving sanctions on Iran's central bank and energy industry, the White House announced they would be introduced in stages in the course of the year. According to Israeli's calculus, another six months free of stiff penalties will give Iran respite for bringing its nuclear weapon program to a dangerous and irreversible level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)IDF preparing for major Gaza action within months
By YAAKOV KATZ
Concern growing over anti-tank missile smuggling into Strip; senior officer
says Hamas, Islamic Jihad have increased weaponry.
The IDF General Staff has ordered the Southern Command to prepare for a
possible large Gaza operation that could occur within the next few months,
The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Preparations include finalizing operational plans and distributing them
between the various units that would be deployed inside Gaza.
During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s anti-Hamas ground incursion launched in
late 2008, the IDF established brigade-level units that combined armor,
infantry and combat engineer forces.
A similar model would likely be applied in a future operation in Gaza as
well.
The Gaza Division, under the command of Brig.-Gen. Yossi Bachar, is
spearheading the preparations for such an operation, which senior officers
said could be significantly larger than Cast Lead.
“Every officer will need to know where he needs to be with his troops and
what his mission will be,” a senior officer explained. “Gaza has changed and
the weaponry in Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad’s hands has significantly grown in
quantity and quality.”
Hamas is believed to have a fighting force number over 20,000 armed men who
are split into five brigades corresponding with different sections of the
Gaza Strip. Each brigade is then split into a number of battalions. In
addition, Hamas also has special teams for surveillance, anti-tank missiles,
mortar and rocket fire and anti-aircraft shoulder-to-air missiles.
The IDF, officers stressed, has not received orders from the government to
launch an operation and the preparations are being done so that it will be
prepared at a moment’s notice and if needed.
“Gaza is possibly Israel’s most volatile front today,” a member of the
General Staff said this week. “It is a front that can explode at any given
moment.”
While the situation along the Gaza border is currently relatively quiet, a
single attack by Hamas or another Palestinian terrorist group – by a
Katyusha rocket or an anti-tank missile – could force Israel to retaliate in
a way that would lead to a broader escalation.
In April, for example, Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus,
killing 16-year-old Daniel Viflic and just moments after it dropped off a
group of schoolchildren.
In 2011, 680 rockets and mortar shells were fired into Israel, including 80
longrange Grad-model Katyusha rockets in comparison to just 2 Grads in 2010.
Currently, the IDF believes Hamas’s interest is to retain quiet in Gaza as
it works to stabilize its control over the territory.
At the same time though, the IDF is extremely concerned with the smuggling
of sophisticated weaponry into Gaza – such as the Russian-made Kornet
anti-tank missile and shoulder-to-air missiles that were stolen from Libyan
military storehouses.
The IDF believes Hamas and Islamic Jihad currently have just a few hundred
advanced anti-tank missiles in Gaza but that the number will continue to
increase reaching close to 4,000 by 2017.
4a) No-kidding red lines: U.S. response to an Iranian nuke may be bluster, but Israel's won't be
Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel's disapproval for the administration's apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran's nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.
This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.
This week, Netanyahu further orchestrated a series of uncharacteristically critical statements by senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon called the Obama administration "hesitant" (Jan. 15), after which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged the Americans to "move from words to deeds" (Jan 16).
The underlying message was that the Israeli government felt free to attack Iran's nuclear sites on its own if necessary and at a time of its choosing.
Netanyahu decided on this extreme course after careful consideration when he judged the Obama administration's resolve to preempt a nuclear Iran to be flagging, as indicated by four omissions:
1. Washington has taken no action against Iran's capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 more than a month after the event, and not even pressed President Obama's demand of Dec. 12 for the drone's return.
Tehran, for its part, continues to make hay from the event: This week, our Iranian sources report, the Islamic Republic circulated a new computer game called "Down the RQ-170." Players assemble the drone from the components shown on their screens and then launch it for attacks on America.
2. Silence from Washington also greeted the start of 20-percent grade uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom when it was announced Jan. 9. Last November, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned in two US TV interviews (Nov. 17 and 22) that as soon as the Fordo facility went on stream, Iran would start whisking the rest of its nuclear facilities into underground bunkers, out of reach and sight of US and Israeli surveillance.
Barak made it clear at the time that Israel could not live with this development; therefore, the Netanyahu government believes Israel's credibility is now at stake.
3. Exactly three weeks ago, on Jan. 3 Lt. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran's Army chief, announced that the aircraft carrier USS Stennis and other "enemy ships" would henceforth be barred from entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz . Yet since then, no US carrier has put this threat to the test by attempting a crossing. Tehran has been left to crow.
4. Even after approving sanctions on Iran's central bank and energy industry, the White House announced they would be introduced in stages in the course of the year. According to Israeli's calculus, another six months free of stiff penalties will give Iran respite for bringing its nuclear weapon program to a dangerous and irreversible level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)IDF preparing for major Gaza action within months
By YAAKOV KATZ
Concern growing over anti-tank missile smuggling into Strip; senior officer
says Hamas, Islamic Jihad have increased weaponry.
The IDF General Staff has ordered the Southern Command to prepare for a
possible large Gaza operation that could occur within the next few months,
The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Preparations include finalizing operational plans and distributing them
between the various units that would be deployed inside Gaza.
During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s anti-Hamas ground incursion launched in
late 2008, the IDF established brigade-level units that combined armor,
infantry and combat engineer forces.
A similar model would likely be applied in a future operation in Gaza as
well.
The Gaza Division, under the command of Brig.-Gen. Yossi Bachar, is
spearheading the preparations for such an operation, which senior officers
said could be significantly larger than Cast Lead.
“Every officer will need to know where he needs to be with his troops and
what his mission will be,” a senior officer explained. “Gaza has changed and
the weaponry in Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad’s hands has significantly grown in
quantity and quality.”
Hamas is believed to have a fighting force number over 20,000 armed men who
are split into five brigades corresponding with different sections of the
Gaza Strip. Each brigade is then split into a number of battalions. In
addition, Hamas also has special teams for surveillance, anti-tank missiles,
mortar and rocket fire and anti-aircraft shoulder-to-air missiles.
The IDF, officers stressed, has not received orders from the government to
launch an operation and the preparations are being done so that it will be
prepared at a moment’s notice and if needed.
“Gaza is possibly Israel’s most volatile front today,” a member of the
General Staff said this week. “It is a front that can explode at any given
moment.”
While the situation along the Gaza border is currently relatively quiet, a
single attack by Hamas or another Palestinian terrorist group – by a
Katyusha rocket or an anti-tank missile – could force Israel to retaliate in
a way that would lead to a broader escalation.
In April, for example, Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus,
killing 16-year-old Daniel Viflic and just moments after it dropped off a
group of schoolchildren.
In 2011, 680 rockets and mortar shells were fired into Israel, including 80
longrange Grad-model Katyusha rockets in comparison to just 2 Grads in 2010.
Currently, the IDF believes Hamas’s interest is to retain quiet in Gaza as
it works to stabilize its control over the territory.
At the same time though, the IDF is extremely concerned with the smuggling
of sophisticated weaponry into Gaza – such as the Russian-made Kornet
anti-tank missile and shoulder-to-air missiles that were stolen from Libyan
military storehouses.
The IDF believes Hamas and Islamic Jihad currently have just a few hundred
advanced anti-tank missiles in Gaza but that the number will continue to
increase reaching close to 4,000 by 2017.
4a) No-kidding red lines: U.S. response to an Iranian nuke may be bluster, but Israel's won't be
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
 | |
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Don't do it." That is the message American officials, from President Obama on down, are delivering to their Israeli counterparts in the hope of dissuading the Jewish state from taking a fateful step: attacking Iran to prevent the mullahs' imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons.
This week, the nation's top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin E. Dempsey, will visit Israel to convey the same message in person. If recent reports of other U.S. demarches are any guide, the general will deliver an insistent warning that Israel must give sanctions more time to work and refrain from acting unilaterally.
Such warnings have become shriller as evidence accumulates that Israel is getting ready to move beyond what is widely believed to be a series of successful - but insufficient - covert actions against the Iranian nuclear program, missile forces and associated personnel.
Some U.S. officials reportedly think the Israelis are just posturing. As one put it, they are playing out a "hold me back" gambit - perhaps hoping the Americans will do the job themselves or at least hoping to be rewarded for their restraint.
Others point, however, to evidence that the Israelis are concealing key military movements from our intelligence assets as an indicator that they are going for it and want to keep us from interfering. At a minimum, Jerusalem would have to worry that an American administration that is holding secret negotiations with Tehran in Turkey at the level of Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns would seek to curry favor with the mullahs by compromising any information it obtains about Israel's intentions.
At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the United States and Israel is that the Israelis have laid down "red lines" with respect to the Iranian nuclear enterprise. One of them was crossed two weeks ago when the Iranians announced that they had started enriching uranium in a hardened and heavily defended underground facility near the city of Qom. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency - an organization that under its previous management incessantly obscured the true weapons purpose and steady progress of the Iranian nuclear program - views this step as ominous.
To be sure, the United States says it has red lines, too. It was just last week that Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta pronounced two: Iran would not be allowed either to acquire nuclear arms or to close the world's energy pipeline that flows through the entrance to the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz.
The difference between the American and Israeli red lines, of course, is that the Israelis actually may take seriously the breaching of theirs. Presumably, that would be because the government of Israel has drawn them so as to define existential threats to the state, not simply as a matter of rhetorical posturing intended mostly for domestic political consumption.
By contrast, we know that at least some Obama administration officials are persuaded that the United States can live with a nuclear Iran. They are said to be working up plans to contain, or at least accommodate themselves to, such a prospect.
It is less clear whether Team Obama actually thinks it can tolerate the mullahs' closure of the strait. After all, the oil and natural gas that flow through it from much of the Gulf's littoral states would be severely affected. The effect would be dire for energy prices, U.S. allies and the world economy.
So far, though, in what may be seen from Tehran - whether rightly or wrongly - as submission to the new, Iranian-dictated order of things, we have chosen to remove all carrier battle groups from the Gulf. We also have yet to challenge Iranian assertions that our capital ships will be attacked if they try to return without Tehran's permission.
Worse yet, even if President Obama actually wanted to enforce his administration's red lines, he has further compromised America's ability to do so with his wholesale abandonment of Iraq, draconian defense budget cuts and the emasculated national security strategy he claims is all we can afford.
Thus, the Israelis could reasonably view the United States as less than serious about the threats posed by Iran and as wholly unreliable when it comes to keeping them from metastasizing further. Under such circumstances, if the Jewish state feels it has no choice but to be deadly serious with respect to its red lines, its leaders must be expected to act as Iran violates them.
The likelihood for such action can only have grown as a result of the contempt with which Mr. Obama has treated Israel, our most important regional ally. Dissing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is one thing. Allowing our own red lines to be flouted with impunity signals that Israel is on its own and must proceed accordingly.
If we are going to stop the nightmare of a messianic regime armed with nuclear missiles, somebody had better do it soon - and with something more effective than sanctions. America should take the lead. However, if the Obama administration won't, it should get out of the Israelis' way.
4b)
The Mortal Threat From Iran
Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.
By MARK HELPRINTo assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton. They won't, especially if the oil that is their life's blood is threatened. If Iran does close the strait, we will fight an air and naval war derivative of and yet peripheral to the Iranian nuclear program, a mortal threat the president of the United States has inadequately addressed.
A mortal threat when Iran is not yet in possession of a nuclear arsenal? Yes, because immediately upon possession all remedies are severely restricted. Without doubt, Iran has long wanted nuclear weapons—to deter American intervention in its and neighboring territories; to threaten Europe and thereby cleave it from American interests in the Middle East; to respond to the former Iraqi nuclear effort; to counter the contiguous nuclear presences in Pakistan, Russia and the U.S. in the Gulf; to neutralize Israel's nuclear deterrent so as to limit it to the attrition of conventional battle, or to destroy it with one lucky shot; to lead the Islamic world; to correct the security imbalance with Saudi Arabia, which aided by geography and American arms now outclasses it; and to threaten the U.S. directly.
In the absence of measures beyond pinpoint sanctions and unenforceable resolutions, Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an existential necessity. We have long known and done nothing about this, preferring to dance with the absurd Iranian claim that it is seeking electricity. With rampant inflation and unemployment, a housing crisis, and gasoline rationing, why spend $1,000-$2,000 per kilowatt to build nuclear plants instead of $400-$800 for gas, when you possess the second largest gas reserves in the world? In 2005, Iran consumed 3.6 trillion cubic feet of its 974 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves, which are enough to last 270 years. We know that in 2006—generation exceeding consumption by 10%—Iran exported electricity and planned a high-tension line to Russia to export more.
Accommodationists argue that a rational Iran can be contained. Not the Iran with a revered tradition of deception; that during its war with Iraq pushed 100,000 young children to their deaths clearing minefields; that counts 15% of its population as "Volunteer Martyrs"; that chants "Death to America" at each session of parliament; and whose president states that no art "is more beautiful . . . than the art of the martyr's death." Not the Iran in thrall to medieval norms and suffering continual tension and crises.
Its conceptions of nuclear strategy are very likely to be looser, and its thresholds lower, than those of Russia and China, which are in turn famously looser and lower than our own. And yet Eisenhower and Churchill weighed a nuclear option in Korea, Kennedy a first strike upon the U.S.S.R., and Westmoreland upon North Vietnam. How then can we be certain that Iran is rational and containable?
Inexpert experts will state that Iran cannot strike with nuclear weapons. But let us count the ways. It has the aerial tankerage to sustain one or two planes that might slip past air defenses between it and Israel, Europe, or the U.S., combining radar signatures with those of cleared commercial flights. As Iran increases its ballistic missile ranges and we strangle our missile defenses, America will face a potential launch from Iranian territory.
Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. Subsequently, the U.S. completed 67 water-supported launches, ending as recently as 1980; the U.S.S.R. had two similar programs; and Iran itself has sea-launched from a barge in the Caspian. And if in 2007, for example, 1,100 metric tons of cocaine were smuggled from South America without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds or less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The probabilities of the above are subject to the grave multiplication of nuclear weapons. Of all things in respect to the Iranian nuclear question, this is the most overlooked. A 1-in-20 chance of breaking a leg is substantially different from a 1-in-20 chance of dying, itself different from a 1-in-20 chance of half a million people dying. Cost drastically changes the nature of risk, although we persist in ignoring this. Assuming that we are a people worthy of defending ourselves, what can be done?
Much easier before Iran recently began to burrow into bedrock, it is still possible for the U.S., and even Israel at greater peril, to halt the Iranian nuclear program for years to come. Massive ordnance penetrators; lesser but precision-guided penetrators "drilling" one after another; fuel-air detonations with almost the force of nuclear weapons; high-power microwave attack; the destruction of laboratories, unhardened targets, and the Iranian electrical grid; and other means, can be combined to great effect.
Unlike North Korea, Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, does not have the potential of overwhelming an American ally, and is not of sufficient concern to Russia and China, its lukewarm patrons, for them to war on its behalf. It is incapable of withholding its oil without damaging itself irreparably, and even were it to cease production entirely, the Saudis—in whose interest the elimination of Iranian nuclear potential is paramount—could easily make up the shortfall. Though Iran might attack Saudi oil facilities, it could not damage them fatally. The Gulf would be closed until Iranian air, naval, and missile forces there were scrubbed out of existence by the U.S., probably France and Britain, and the Saudis themselves, in a few weeks.
It is true that Iranian proxies would attempt to exact a price in terror world-wide, but this is not new, we would brace for the reprisals, and although they would peak, they would then subside. The cost would be far less than that of permitting the power of nuclear destruction to a vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never-subsiding fury against the West.
Any president of the United States fit for the office should someday, soon, say to the American people that in his judgment Iran—because of its longstanding and implacable push for nuclear weapons, its express hostility to the U.S., Israel and the West, and its record of barbarity and terror—must be deprived of the capacity to wound this country and its allies such as they have never been wounded before.
Relying solely upon his oath, holding in abeyance any consideration of politics or transient opinion, and eager to defend his decision in exquisite detail, he should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex. When they have complied, and our pilots are in the air on their way home, they will have protected our children in their beds—and our children's children, many years from now, in theirs. May this country always have clear enough sight and strong enough will to stand for itself in the face of mortal threat, and in time.
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, the novels "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt) and "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Europe still refuses to face economic realityEU leaders display a remarkable reluctance to address the root causes of the eurozone’s problems.
Studying the financial headlines, it is easy to get the impression that the eurozone crisis is the subject of frenetic activity. Yesterday, for example, we witnessed a standoff over the restructuring of Greece’s debt; a plea for an “urgent” anti-recession strategy from EU president Herman Van Rompuy; a Franco-Spanish summit that sought to reassure the markets after both nations saw their credit rating downgraded; a Greek delegation heading to the International Monetary Fund, begging bowls at the ready; and a speech by George Osborne in Hong Kong in which he confirmed that Britain stands ready to increase its contribution to the IMF to the tune of billions of pounds.
Peer beneath the surface, however, and the true position is less impressive. For all the air miles they are racking up, Europe’s leaders are still displaying a remarkable reluctance to address the root causes of the eurozone’s problems. While some kind of restructuring of Greece’s debts is obviously a necessity, the broader point remains that they are treating a crisis of competitiveness – due to the inflexible exchange rates imposed by the euro – as a crisis of liquidity. The chosen treatment is to shovel cash at the markets (to stave off an immediate crisis) while imposing self-defeating mutual austerity via the “fiscal compact” so proudly agreed at the most recent EU conference. All the while, the deeper problem, which lay behind the recent mass downgrade by Standard & Poor’s, goes unaddressed.
The fact that the IMF has been drawn into the crisis – and that the Chancellor has been urging Asia’s governments to lend a helping hand – shows the extent of the Continent’s refusal to face reality. Collectively, Europe is rich enough to bail out its more profligate members. But instead, it is trying to persuade the rest of the world to save it from itself. So apocalyptic would the consequences be, were the eurozone and its banking system to collapse, that such moral blackmail might even work. Yet Britain, for one, should feel deeply uneasy about contributing, even indirectly, to a rescue package that is philosophically as well as economically incoherent. Mr Osborne is right that, amid such global uncertainty, we must stand ready to play our part in the stabilisation of the system. But he was also right when he refused to stump up for a European bail-out package back in December; and it is difficult to see what has changed.
Ultimately, the situation now feels eerily like the Phoney War. On the horizon, there are rumblings of downgrades and defaults. No one knows when or how the moment of crisis will arrive. But in the face of such a catastrophe, buying a few more tin hats seems like a futile gesture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)Obama Brings Back the Constitution
Thanks to his executive overreach, Americans take a renewed interest in our fundamental governing document.
By William McGurn
Conservatives can be a grudging lot. That's especially true when it comes to President Obama. Even where he's been in the right—whether it be killing Osama bin Laden or promoting charter schools—we can be stingy with praise.
So let us now, in full public view, credit his greatest public service as president: He is sending Americans back to the Constitution.
Yes, in the Bush years the air was also thick with accusations that the Constitution was being "shredded." We now know that the professed concern for the Constitution was fake. We know it was fake because the same Bush claims of executive authority in war that provoked such apoplexy in our pundits, professors and politicos have for the most part been embraced by Mr. Obama—all to the distinct sound of silence.
Today we have a wholly different order of constitutional complaint. Where the accusations against Mr. Bush were led by prestigious law faculties and law firms, those against Mr. Obama reflect a more popular hue. Where the indictments of Mr. Bush were largely limited to war policy, those against Mr. Obama's extend broadly to all areas of policy: foreign, economic and social. And where critics of Mr. Bush were obsessed with outcome, the discontent with Mr. Obama has been magnified by the uneasy sense that he is changing the fundamental rules of the game.
This awakening started with the tumultuous legislative path to Mr. Obama's health-care victory. Along the way, Americans watching were given an education in words like "cloture" and "filibuster," and saw the leaders of the Democratic House and Senate consider a maneuver whereby the House would "deem" the Senate version of the health-care bill to have passed without having to vote on it. That left a bad taste.
It proved only the beginning. Since then, Mr. Obama's aggressive disregard for any constitutional limit on what he wants to do has come to define his approach across the board.
Corbis
On foreign policy, his State Department hires a Yale Law dean who roared like a lion when the issue was President Bush's war powers but now offers the lamb-like justification for intervention in Libya on the grounds that the shooting there somehow did not constitute a war.
On economic policy, he fills his White House with "czars" to manage important aspects of national policy without the burden of congressional approval. Similarly, he invokes a ridiculous notion of Senate recess to prevent Congress from asking any questions about the vast powers of the dubious new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or its even newer leader. And the constitutionality of his signature achievement—the health-care law—is now before the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile on social policy, the same Supreme Court, ruling 9-0, rejects as unconstitutional and labels "extreme" his administration's argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization's right to choose its own leaders.
If these issues were confined to the law blogs and law journals, they would make for lively debate. Yet Mr. Obama's overreach has provoked something unique. This is the rise of a populist movement with the historically unpopulist priorities of making the federal government smaller and insisting on its constitutional limits.
The press has mostly missed this aspect of the tea party. Perhaps some find it impossible to take seriously the idea that ordinary men and women might have a valid take on the Constitution. Certainly the champions of a living Constitution have done their darndest to load up judicial decisions with whatever gets them to their destination, whether it be evolving standards of decency, foreign law, or the ever multiplying emanations and penumbras of constitutional protections. In this way Justices substitute their own opinion for the law, as William O. Douglas did in Griswold v. Connecticut, where he discovered a hitherto unknown constitutional right to privacy.
These all make constitutional disputes more complex. That complexity in turn contributes mightily to the conclusion that only the courts have the competence to decide them.
We are learning, however, that ordinary Americans who never before heard of the Commerce Clause are perfectly capable of grasping the argument that if the federal government can require a citizen to buy a product in the market, there's nothing he can't be forced to do. As Republicans head into their South Carolina primary, the preferred press narrative appears to be of a party riven by differences that are intractable. What this misses is the larger constitutional point on which Republicans are mostly united and by which so many are driven: that what's at stake in the 2012 election is the process our founders gave us for resolving these debates.
When it comes to the founding document of the U.S. government, many of its teachers must go through life struggling to find ways to make its dusty clauses exiting and relevant. You can say Mr. Obama probably will not like where a greater public familiarity with the Constitution is likely to take us politically. But you can't say the former University of Chicago professor hasn't made it exciting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
