===
===
Whens and Depends! Both are important!
But then Hillary said what difference does it now make? (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
The government shutdown has taken Iran off the front pages but Iran is still there. Iran is still moving forward based on their assessment of a feckless West and their ability to continue duping us because we are so anxious to claim a diplomatic victory. (See 2, 2a, 2b and 2c below.)
===
George Friedman discusses the debt crisis mess from the perspective of our nation's founders? (See 3 below.)
===
A university professor of psychiatry was recently interviewed and asked to explain Obama. He responded that it was his opinion Obama sees himself as a victim - a victim of America's history and this is why he is so angry, why he is so divisive and derisive etc..
Victims are allowed more latitude, are generally not held accountable and their actions generally excused because of their victim hood status.
Maureen Scott offers her insights.
You decide! (See 4 below.)
===
Obama is spending over $60 million buying the loyalty of navigators who are selling his health care program and , in doing so, obtaining sensitive personal records like SS numbers, health records etc.
This from the President who said his administration would be the most open blah blah blah.
Every time Obama opens his mouth he either lies or proves his past comments to be nothing but lies.
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)“WHENS"...
Looking back thru the past 4 years, many "Whens "pop up. Read them all to better understand where we are going as a country..WHEN - he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he said he favors sex education in kindergarten people said it didn't matter.WHEN - his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco- a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home people said it didn't matter.WHEN - it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this Nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he appointed Carol Browner, a well-known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation's largest tax, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.WHEN- Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - as President of the United States , he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our longtime ally, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States , people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he upset the Europeans by removing plans for missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he continued spending us into debt with no hope of repayment, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and 'stating' that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, people said it didn't matter.WHEN - he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.WHEN- he finally completed his transformation of America into an increasingly Socialist State , people woke up--- but will it prove to be too late.Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , North Korea or Iran . Our biggest enemy is our complacent selves.
1a)
Politics-Gov't
Analyst: Expect a disaster when gov't takes over healthcare
By Becky Yeh
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2013/10/18/analyst-expect-a-disaster-when-govt-takes-over-healthcare#.UmHfX1AWJwk
A healthcare analyst says one key provision of ObamaCare is a perfect example of how disastrous a government-run healthcare system will be. - k
House Republicans are planning to investigate the October 1 launch of the federal health insurance marketplace under ObamaCare.
T
he House Energy and Commerce Committee has asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and contractors why the launch of the marketplace proved to be disastrous, because prior to that day, officials claimed the technology associated with the marketplace would run smoothy. USA Today reported Thursday that, according to some technology experts, the federal healthcare exchange was built using technolgy that is at least ten years old.
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2013/10/18/analyst-expect-a-disaster-when-govt-takes-over-healthcare#.UmHfX1AWJwkTwila Brase, co-founder of the Citizens' Council For Health Freedom (CCHF), tells OneNewsNow that while "the exchange rollout is a technological disaster ... it has provided a perfect example of how poorly healthcare would run under the federal government and how insecure our most private data would be."
Users who accessed the federal marketplace, Healthcare.gov, on Day 1 experienced technical issues with the website; and weeks later, those problems have not been resolved. And while Republicans speculated about the readiness of the marketplace leading up to the launch date, officials promised them everything would be operating by October 1.
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2013/10/18/analyst-expect-a-disaster-when-govt-takes-over-healthcare#.UmHfX1AWJwkBrase finds the rough start telling, as she questions how the government expects to control medical treatment when it cannot even get a key ObamaCare feature to work.
"The ObamaCare rollout disaster shows just how disastrous this would be if the federal government is allowed to run our entire healthcare system," she asserts.
Her group warns that the glitches experienced with the enrollment process may jeopardize the private, personal, financial and health information users enter into the system.
"What I see is a federal malfunction leading to delays, denials, errors and data, and no one to talk to when problems occur in enrollment," Brase states. "And that's just enrollment. What will happen when the federal government controls medical treatment, too?"
-
Officials claim the immediate glitches were due to hastily-crafted software and an untested hub. In fact, CCHF notes that the hub made inaccurate eligibility determinations for federal subsidies, which brings into question the reliability of the entire system.
"If the administration has its way, the exchange will lead to a single-seller system of national healthcare, where everyone has nowhere else to go for insurance," the healthcare freedom advocate explains. "And the exchange will control how doctors practice medicine."
The federal marketplace was supposed to provide 36 states with a one-stop site to comparison shop for health insurance. And though the government had three and a half years to plan for the launch, along with billions awarded in contracts, Brase notes that it still is not operating up to par.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Iran vs. the West: Endgame?
By Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall
- Unlike in earlier rounds, this time there have been direct negotiations between the United States and Iran. Today Iran comes to the negotiations with the West in incomparably better geostrategic circumstances than in 2003, when it temporarily suspended uranium enrichment to further advance its nuclear program, then in its infancy. Iran is not entering the nuclear negotiations out of weakness, but, rather, from a position of strength.
- In Iran’s view (which some of the Gulf States share), America’s regional status and deterrence power are in continuing decline. Given Iran’s sense of power linked with both domestic and regional stability, it comes to the negotiations in a mood of confidence verging on hubris.
- Khamenei’s statement that “some of the events in Rouhani’s visit to New York were inappropriate,” which has been interpreted as criticism of his telephone conversation with Obama, and his harsh words about America’s “true nature” generally, have prompted a wave of declarations in favor of continuing to chant “Death to America.” The commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, called the Rouhani-Obama chat “a tactical error and a big mistake….If there are to be additional errors the revolutionary forces will take the necessary measures.”
- Iran now controls the nuclear fuel cycle and can, whenever it decides, break out to build a bomb in a few months, while maintaining its past conduct of exploiting the irresolution and divisions that prevail in the West. Developing nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them within a short time, continues to be a central goal of the Iranian regime. After ten years of talks in various settings, Iran remains determined to maintain and advance its nuclear achievements, perhaps with substantial tactical concessions in return for the easing of sanctions.
- Iran believes that nuclear weapons will buy it the sort of immunity from attack that North Korea now enjoys. It also seeks long-term stability so that it can promote its revolutionary objectives abroad and assume its place in the regional and international power equation as the one who sets the agenda and influences the reshaping of the Middle East in a way that counters and curbs U.S. influence.
Direct U.S.-Iran Talks Begin
This week a further round of talks began between Iran and the West. Unlike in earlier rounds, this time there have been direct negotiations between the United States and Iran, occurring behind the scenes of the talks between Iran and the P5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany).1 Although the telephone conversation between Obama and Rouhani, which transpired at the end of the Iranian president’s visit to the UN General Assembly, is still provoking anger in Iran, it has also aroused hopes that “this time” – ten years after the repeatedly failed negotiations began – there is room for success.
That conversation, and the direct U.S.-Iran meeting on the sidelines of the Geneva meeting, marked the apex of the Iranian charm offensive, which appears to have been well prepared even before Rouhani was elected as the Iranian president. Rouhani and his team (primarily Foreign Minister Zarif), who are experienced at negotiating with the West, have returned to center stage of the negotiations as they exploit – so far with considerable success from their standpoint – the various tools at their disposal in the international media and the social networks (Rouhani and the foreign minister have active Facebook and Twitter accounts). Iran is transmitting catchy messages to the Western ear like “win-win diplomacy,” “heroic flexibility,” and other stock phrases of the international discourse, while also making use of leaks to the top newspapers. High expectations have again been stirred in the West, which is clutching the rope of diplomacy proffered by the “moderate Rouhani.” Following the Geneva meetings, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in his daily briefing that Iran brought to the table “a new proposal with a level of seriousness and substance that we had not seen before.”
Rouhani Reveals His Strategy
During his election campaign Rouhani boasted of how, as nuclear negotiator in 2003-2005, he had toyed with the West. In the course of the negotiations Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, which was then at its inception. Meanwhile, though, it advanced other critical components of its nuclear program including the uranium-conversion facility (UCF) at Isfahan. Rouhani intimated that, if elected, he would continue on that same path. As he put it:
The negotiating team (indeed) agreed to suspend uranium enrichment but was able to complete all the technology needed for the full nuclear fuel cycle….The Iranian establishment is well aware that the nuclear technology was a product of the reformist government [of Khatami]….The citizens of Iran are well aware that the main components of the nuclear technology were completed in 2003-2004. In spring 2005 the uranium conversion facility that supplies the material [UF6] that is fed to the centrifuges, the underground plant at Natanz, was almost completed, Arak [the IR-40 heavy water reactor] was completed….All these components (which are essential to the nuclear program) were completed at that time….The fuel cycle was completed (during the course of the negotiations and while enrichment was suspended).
As part of his election campaign Rouhani promised that, if elected, he would “protect the nuclear technology like all other technology…the centrifuges will continue to spin as the Iranian nation progresses.”2
On another occasion, Rouhani said – while denying opponents’ claims that Iran had suspended its nuclear program completely after acceding to the 2003 Tehran Declaration:
On my watch the centrifuge technology developed, and Iran was able to remove sanctions and avoid tension with the West….We must practice intelligent diplomacy so as to take the nuclear file out of the Security Council’s hands and remove the sanctions….During my tenure Iran succeeded to reach the level of knowledge required to convert yellowcake to UF6, build the heavy-water reactor at Arak, and increase the number of centrifuges for enriching uranium to 3,000….President Bush tried to isolate Iran and instead isolated himself.3
Even though subject to harsh sanctions that are damaging its economy and especially its oil exports and industry, Iran is today in a completely different situation from that prevailing during the 2003 negotiations with the West, when it purportedly agreed to suspend its enrichment program. At that time Iran was affected by the American campaign in Iraq and feared that the War on Terror would reach its own soil. Even then, as Rouhani points out, while the suspension was in place, Iran was able to utilize diplomacy to advance critical components of its nuclear program. Subsequently Iran capitalized on the knowledge and technology it had developed during the suspension to make great strides in its enrichment program. It now had a growing quantity of UF6 from the UCF, which it had completed during the suspension.
Iran Is Not Entering Negotiations Out of Weakness
Today Iran comes to the negotiations with the West in incomparably better geostrategic circumstances than in 2003. Iran is not entering the nuclear negotiations out of weakness, but, rather, from a position of strength. In its view (which some of the Gulf states share), America’s regional status and deterrence power are in continuing decline, the Sunni Arab world is increasingly divided with no unification processes on the horizon, disappointment with the United States is intensifying (especially in light of its irresolution after Syria crossed the “red line” of chemical-weapons use), and Iran’s strategic ally in Syria – Bashar Assad – is surviving mainly thanks to Iran’s military, economic, and propagandistic support (as the IRGC commander reiterated recently).4
Moreover, as the Middle East is forged anew by revolutions, counterrevolutions, bloodshed, and chaos, Iran has been viewed since its (surprisingly quiet) elections as a country marked by confidence in its ability to maintain domestic stability and also to project power toward its neighbors amid the leadership vacuum – both Arab and American – that has emerged in the region. In this vein Ali Saeedi, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s representative in the IRGC, asserted that:
The United States has reached the conclusion that no regional equation is possible without taking into account Iran’s influence in the regional and international arenas….Its influence is what prompts America’s apparent readiness to negotiate with us….This influence of ours stems from our unwavering resolve….The enemy sought to undermine our resilience in an attempt to damage our influence.5
Thus Tehran views its changing geostrategic landscape as congenial to its aims. Given its sense of power linked with domestic stability, it comes to the negotiations in a mood of confidence verging on hubris. The results of the presidential elections, along with the public’s high expectations that Rouhani and his government can bring about a rapid economic improvement if the nuclear negotiations with the West succeed and ties with the United States are renewed, give Rouhani great room to maneuver and considerable boldness as the talks with the West commence.
Rouhani, a dyed-in-the-wool scion of the revolution, is now receiving great credit from the populace that elected him. Along with the promises he dispensed for a major economic change, the regime has been granting the media somewhat more leeway and hinting – not without protests by the conservatives – that certain easements in the dress code are possible. It also has been freeing political prisoners and human rights activists (despite a record number of executions since Rouhani was elected), relenting a bit in the blocking of websites, and appointing reformist figures from the days of the reformist presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami to senior posts in Rouhani’s government and bureau. All this is intended to encourage a sense of a real change of direction in both domestic and foreign policy, certainly compared to the Ahmadinejad period. In actuality, this is the same regime that knows how to adjust to changing circumstances.
Will Iran Normalize Relations with the U.S.?
In the domestic arena, a formerly taboo subject – normalizing relations with the United States, the “Great Satan” – is increasingly out in the open. There are reports of restoring air traffic between the two countries and even setting up an Iran-U.S. Parliamentary Friendship Group.6 The reformist media, which now senses some leniency and is testing the limits of what is allowed, offers analyses claiming that renewed ties with America can lead to a lifting of the sanctions and provide a magic wand for improving the economy. In this context, calls for “Death to America” have become a hot topic. Since the Obama-Rouhani telephone chat, countless figures from all points of the political spectrum have been addressing this issue and analyzing it from every possible angle.
Khamenei’s statement that “some of the events in Rouhani’s visit to New York were inappropriate,” which has been interpreted as criticism of the telephone conversation, and his harsh words about “America’s true nature” generally,7have prompted a wave of declarations in favor of continuing to proclaim “Death to America.” Consider, for example, the peroration of Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, who said in a Friday sermon in Tehran:
We see the United States as a lying government, a trickster that breaks promises. And yet the Americans have forced Iran into negotiations. All this is lies. The lying American president says they do not want to change the Iranian regime, and yet they have tried to do so for 35 years without succeeding. On this, too, the Iranian people’s hatred of America is based. If we want to make a list of the American lies, we will need 70 tons of paper. That is also why the slogan “Death to America” continues to live and resound among the citizens. The United States is the Great Satan, and the Imam [Khomeini], too, said so. Over the past 35 years has the United States become a smaller or a greater Satan? If, until recently, in its machinations against Iran the United States was a “snake,” today it has become a “rattlesnake.”…This slogan is the secret of the steadfastness of the Iranian people, and the more America continues its machinations, the more this slogan will prevail among the citizens of Iran. Our diplomats must do their work, and so must our Education Ministry, each will do his work; in fact, such slogans give our senior officials greater room to maneuver so that they can be tougher in dealing with the United States, and this indeed serves our foreign policy. If one day according to an order of the Spiritual Leader, who holds and will continue to hold the American file, we come to the negotiations and talks, then too our bitterness toward the United States will not vanish.8
Mohammad Javad Larijani, head of the Human Rights Council in the judiciary and brother of the Majlis speaker, stated:
The West and the enemies of Iran want to impose liberal-secular democracy and thus divert the Islamic regime from its ideological course. The Islamic Revolution is advancing on the path of freeing itself of infidels and spreading the pure culture of Islam of Muhammad….The telephone conversation between Obama and Rouhani was a mistake, was not an appropriate act, and should not have been carried out because Iran must function without any mistake or error, even the smallest, in its heroic diplomacy. The Iranian call for “Death to America” can hardly be compared with the insults the United States hurls at the Islamic regime. In the periods of Rafsanjani, Khatami, and at the end of the period of Ahmadinejad, there was much talk about the relationship with the United States, talk that was not appropriate….Even at the end of the Ahmadinejad period some said our grievances could be redressed through a direct encounter with the United States, and even the president [Ahmadinejad] himself was interested in a one-on-one meeting with Obama.9
The great hopes of renewed ties with the United States that the reformist elements are instilling, and the massive response to this camp’s euphoria on the part of the conservative camp, will remain in the wings of the tactical negotiations between Iran and the West and the United States. Rouhani and the nuclear negotiating team will have to pivot carefully between, on the one hand, the high expectations for a rapid economic improvement particularly regarding unemployment and rising prices, and on the other, the Republican Guard and the Leader, who have already criticized the Rouhani-Obama telephone conversation along with Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which “showed that ultimately the position of the United States remained as it was, trapped in Israel’s vise.”
Iran Plans to Divide and Rule
During the negotiations Rouhani and his team, who evidently have been efficiently planning the charm offensive since Rouhani was elected, will try as in the past to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States. (A senior ayatollah, Naser Makarem Shirazi, said the “Zionist lobby” was the main obstacle to improving Iran’s relations with America.)10 They will also try to drive a wedge between the United States and the European states, both those that are and are not taking part in the negotiations. Meanwhile, even before the negotiations had started, Britain and Iran were discussing the renewal of diplomatic ties, and European delegations were arriving in Tehran in hopes of a political breakthrough that will yield economic opportunities. Iran will leverage the economic weight of the companies involved to pressure the governments to show flexibility in the negotiations.
Iran believes it has already managed to change the international atmosphere in its favor. Winds of “diplomacy and compromise” are already blowing in Europe and the United States as the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons begins and the OPCW wins the Nobel Peace Prize, providing further evidence of diplomacy’s benefits. And the buzz of the Rouhani-Obama chat keeps resonating in the diplomatic airspace, purifying the atmosphere, even though the Supreme Leader himself and the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, were unhappy with this development. Jafari called it “a tactical error and a big mistake….If there are to be additional errors the revolutionary forces will take the necessary measures.” As criticism of relations with America keeps mounting in Iran, it is hard to see how the Islamic Republic, which views itself as the only party to have resisted the United States since the revolution and withstood the pressures, could now make a 180-degree turn in its policy.
The telephone conversation, then, emerges as one of Iran’s tactical measures vis-Ã -vis the international community. Even though it has (perhaps) exacted a price from Rouhani domestically, it continues to serve its purpose: Iran’s renewed legitimacy in the international arena. Iran is busily wrapping this renewed legitimacy in terms like “heroic flexibility,” “historic compromise,” “full transparency,” and a “World Against Violence and Extremism” (WAVE). Iran wants to make the most of its enhanced regional status (including its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan), along with its nuclear progress. Iran now controls the nuclear fuel cycle and can, whenever it decides, break out to build a bomb in a few months, while exploiting the irresolution and divisions that prevail in the West.
Iran’s Central Goals
With the renewed negotiations, Iranian officials made clear that Tehran views uranium enrichment on Iranian soil as a red line on which it will not compromise. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that, while Iran was willing to allay “reasonable concerns” about its nuclear program, “making use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment on Iran’s soil, is an inalienable and fundamental right.”11 Before leaving Tehran for Geneva, Foreign Minister Zarif urged “Western governments not pursue a lose-win strategy because they need to understand the reality that Iran has attained such capabilities in nuclear technology that cannot be eliminated through sanctions and pressure.”12
Even if Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, which it claims is needed to operate the research reactor in Tehran (TRR) and for purposes of radiological medicine, to remove from its territory about 180 kilograms of 20-percent-enriched uranium it has already amassed (there may be an additional clandestine quantity), to limit the number of operative centrifuges, and even to enhance the IAEA’s supervision of its nuclear facilities (accepting Comprehensive Safeguards and the Additional Protocol may indicate Iran seriousness)13 and close the Fordo enrichment site, it still cannot promise to cease development of other, mainly military, weaponizing aspects of its nuclear program that are not connected directly to uranium enrichment. As for enrichment itself, Iran has already shown that it can fully perform the process without difficulty while even improving it over the years with advanced centrifuges, even under the vigilant gaze of the IAEA and the mounting sanctions.
Iran will demand compensation for its readiness to give up some of its nuclear assets (but not its capabilities) that are known to the West. If some of the sanctions are lifted, the rest are likely to dissipate as well. Iran has already proved that it can, in the framework of what it calls its “resistive economy,” circumvent some of the sanctions, even those related to its oil industry, and keep exporting oil to China and India (some of it in return for commodities).
Developing nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them within a short time, continues to be a central goal of the Iranian regime (despite Khamenei’s purported fatwa against nuclear weapons, which does not appear in any compilation of the Supreme Leader’s fatwas but is noted by senior Iranian officials at every opportunity).14 After ten years of talks in various settings, Iran remains determined to maintain and advance its nuclear achievements, perhaps with tactical concessions in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran is not concerned at the moment by its domestic scene, which, amid the upheavals of the Arab Spring, has been among the more stable in the region.
Endgame
Iran continues to strive for a regional hegemonic status. It wants to supplant the United States and make the most of its own military power and geostrategic position, along with its oil and gas reserves and the economic opportunities these offer to both the West and the East. Iran was a partner to the chemical-weapons deal that was reached in Syria; the nuclear umbrella Iran aims to provide to its allies is supposed to compensate for the loss. Iran also wields influence in Bahrain, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, countries where the United States and the West have political, economic, and military assets. Iran anticipates that nuclear weapons will buy it the sort of immunity from attack that North Korea now enjoys. It also seeks long-term stability so that it can promote its revolutionary objectives abroad (particularly in Bahrain but also in other areas with a Shiite population) and assume its place in the regional and international power equation as the one who sets the agenda and influences the reshaping of the Middle East in a way that counters and curbs U.S. influence.
In sum, Iran, which has hoodwinked the international community, is preparing a further campaign as it draws toward the final stages of its nuclear program. It needs an abatement of pressure so that it can complete the military components while maintaining the regime’s stability and promising relief for the economy. Rouhani, who previously succeeded as negotiator to buy Iran the time required to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, now needs to traverse the last mile to the bomb. As president of Iran, he stands resolute and strong before a divided region and international community.
* * *
Notes
1. Abbas Araqchi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and number two in the Iranian nuclear negotiating team, met with U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, head of the U.S. delegation, on October 15, 2013, in Geneva.
2. http://www.rouhani.ir/event.php?event_id=86
3. http://tinyurl.com/ovfwky5
4. http://mohandesin.ir/fa/pages/?cid=2362
5. http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/316501
6. http://baharnewspaper.com/News/92/07/15/20733.html
7. “We do not trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America an unreliable, arrogant, illogical, and hegemonic government that is badly possessed and dominated by the international Zionist network….The government of the United States of America is blackmailing the entire world, appeasing the forged Zionist regime….We do not trust the U.S. government. We trust our own officials. We are optimists and we want them [the officials] to take right and firm steps carefully and considering all aspects. They should not forget national interests and dignity even for a second.” http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=bayanat&id=11153
8. http://www.ghatreh.com/news/nn16048161/%D8%A2%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%B2-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%84%D8%AA
9. http://www.asremrooz.ir/vdccmeqe.2bqmm8laa2.html
10. http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=470923
11. http://news.irib.ir/NewsPage.aspx?newsid=37620
12. http://goo.gl/xDmJBU
13. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html
14. http://www.memri.org.il/cgi-webaxy/sal/sal.pl?lang=he&ID=107345_memri&act=show
2. http://www.rouhani.ir/event.php?event_id=86
3. http://tinyurl.com/ovfwky5
4. http://mohandesin.ir/fa/pages/?cid=2362
5. http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/316501
6. http://baharnewspaper.com/News/92/07/15/20733.html
7. “We do not trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America an unreliable, arrogant, illogical, and hegemonic government that is badly possessed and dominated by the international Zionist network….The government of the United States of America is blackmailing the entire world, appeasing the forged Zionist regime….We do not trust the U.S. government. We trust our own officials. We are optimists and we want them [the officials] to take right and firm steps carefully and considering all aspects. They should not forget national interests and dignity even for a second.” http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=bayanat&id=11153
8. http://www.ghatreh.com/news/nn16048161/%D8%A2%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%B2-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%84%D8%AA
9. http://www.asremrooz.ir/vdccmeqe.2bqmm8laa2.html
10. http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=470923
11. http://news.irib.ir/NewsPage.aspx?newsid=37620
12. http://goo.gl/xDmJBU
13. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html
14. http://www.memri.org.il/cgi-webaxy/sal/sal.pl?lang=he&ID=107345_memri&act=show
- See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/iran-vs-west-endgame/#sthash.S4sr9IJu.dpuf
2a)Iran stalls, centrifuges spin
By Jennifer Rubin
First the Iranian foreign ministry learned how to tweet; now we are told their negotiators are using PowerPoint. Can peace in our time be far off?
President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a news conference Wednesday. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press)
That’s the mindset of many eager in the media to help the administration paint a picture of progress at the nuclear arms talks just concluded in Geneva, Switzerland. In fact, in the words of an official of a pro-Israel organization, “Nothing — nothing has changed.” Iran is still enriching, the centrifuges are spinning and Iran is still insisting it has a “right” to enrich and has no nuclear arms program. As the official put it, “This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this rodeo.” The regime has spent all of Obama’s first term and some of George W. Bush’s talking, but not deviating one iota from its nuclear weapons plans.
The mullahs have “offered” a freeze on current enrichment for a period of time and a reduction in its existing stockpile in exchange for lifting all sanctions. This is preposterous in as much as it leaves Iran with a short “breakout” capacity of a few months or less and relief from sanctions. Critics of U.S. policy were emphatic about the need for Congress to act. Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told me, “Congress and the administration should move ahead immediately to ratchet up the sanctions pressure. Doing so may push Iran dangerously close to the economic edge. And that, in turn, might make clear to Iran’s rulers that it will require serious concessions — not smiles and empty rhetoric about ‘trust-building’ — to save their regime.” He adds, “Failing that, only the use of military force will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability — with all consequences that implies.”
Indeed, State Department negotiator Wendy Sherman testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently that if the administration didn’t get results, it would urge Congress to move ahead. Since there are no actions that would constitute proof of Iran’s willingness to give up its stockpile and dismantle its program, shouldn’t Sherman be heading for the Hill to demand lawmakers squeeze the mullahs further, blocking Iran’s access to banking and to U.S. dollars? Don’t hold your breath.
A former official who believes the administration’s approach is misguided e-mailed me: “It would be useful if House and Senate did something to stiffen admin’s spine. I am afraid [Sherman] will negotiate from the Iranian offer, and they will get far more than half a loaf. What the Iranians appear to have offered allows
them to keep their whole program and all their enriched uranium.”
them to keep their whole program and all their enriched uranium.”
Judging from bipartisan letters and comments before the Geneva meeting, there is a good chance Congress will act. A senior Senate aide involved in previous sanctions legislation told me, “The supreme leader saw nothing but Western weakness in Geneva, and so he’s probably feeling pretty good right now about his chances of getting a nuclear weapons capability. That feeling will fade fast because the strength and will of the U.S. Senate is about to send his regime into economic ruin. Most senators are ready to take sanctions to a 10 — now.”
The administration likes to use buzz words — “workmanlike,” “productive,” etc. — to describe these talks. But the only workmen are in the nuclear weapons facility, and the production going on is more and more enriched uranium. The former U.S. official suggests that for starters a full and total acknowledgment of Iran’s previous nuclear weapons program would demonstrate some change of heart. That has yet to happen. The administration seems eager to be conned; Congress will need to be the voice of realism. Otherwise, it seems inevitable that Israel will act militarily sooner rather than later.
2b)Iran wants the bomb – and sanctions relief
Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is lying when he says the Islamic Republic has never had any intention of building an atomic weapon. Defecting Iranian nuclear engineers told U.S. officials in the late 1980s that the mullahs’ program, then hidden, was designed exclusively for such arms. Everything Western intelligence services have tracked since then matches those early revelations.
U.S. participation in the upcoming negotiations doesn’t appear to be premised on an expectation of Iranian veracity. If it were, President Obama wouldn’t send his secretary of state until Tehran had come clean about its past deceits. The exemplary behavior of South Africa’s often-mendacious apartheid government when it decided to go non-nuclear — total transparency about the militarization of its atomic program — isn’t expected from Iran. The clerical regime has already dropped the bar through its “facts on the ground” intransigence: more than 19,000 centrifuges built and a heavy-water plant nearing completion. Washington doesn’t want to go to war again in the Middle East, and the Iranians know it.
The administration and Congress are gambling that sanctions will be enough to overcome the regime’s chronic dishonesty. Economic pain will be so intense, the theory holds, that eventually Tehran will play by Western rules.
In other words, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guards and Rouhani — who had a not-insignificant role in developing Iran’s nuclear program in the 1990s — would be willing to admit that “evil incarnate” (Khamenei’s update to the “Great Satan”), against which the Islamic Republic’s very identity has been built, has defeated their nuclear aspirations.
Every country has an economic breaking point. But achieving that moment in the Islamic Republic will be extraordinarily difficult because such compromise is tantamount to spiritual suicide.
U.S. foreign policy elites play down or ignore God’s role in foreign affairs since the divine has no part in the U.S. worldview. In Western media, Rouhani is a “pragmatist,” as was his mentor Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former major-domo of the political clergy; and as was Khamenei before he backed the election of populist firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in 2005. All of these men have been critical to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. All, even Ahmadinejad, have been politically pragmatic. This doesn’t make them less religious, less anti-American or averse to viewing terrorism as both statecraft and soulcraft.
Iranian leaders probably are entering these negotiations for one reason: to test Barack Obama’s mettle. They want to see whether Tehran can have the bomb and sanctions relief. The strategy for doing so isn’t complicated. The regime could suspend work at the Arak heavy-water facility, the regime’s plutonium path to a bomb, and stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, the big step in processing it to weapons-grade. But without a verifiable end to centrifuge production, the regime could continue to manufacture centrifuges, shrinking the time required to convert unprocessed uranium to bomb-grade stock. With enough advanced centrifuges, a 20 percent stockpile becomes operationally much less relevant given the increased speed of processing.
The only real compromise Khamenei would be making here is with the nuclear calendar. More time would be needed to develop a rapid, undetectable “breakout” capacity, which nuclear expert David Albright has estimated will happen by mid-2014. If the regime could trade heavy-water processing anduranium enriched to 20 percent in return for weakening of the interbank transfer sanctions, regaining the right to trade in gold or loosened restrictions on using euros, then it could easily gain $20 billion — a big sum for a regime that has only $20 billion in fully accessible hard currency. Tehran still has about $50 billion of locked-up cash that can be used for barter trade in a handful of countries. Given Iran’s currency reserves, even without a lessening of economic pressure, nuclear physics is still outpacing sanctions and diplomacy.
Obama has been clear that he isn’t going to war to stop low-grade enrichment, so Tehran needs to figure out whether the president has any “red line” on 3.5 percent enrichment. If Khamenei had to export most of Iran’s stockpile enriched to that amount, a nuclear weapon would be significantly delayed — provided centrifuge production was curtailed and the number of machines spinning reduced.
Khamenei can’t allow the West to stop centrifuge manufacturing. He cannot allow Washington to know where all of the centrifuges are being built or how the regime has avoided sanctions on “dual-use” imports. Such knowledge could massively delay or even end the weapons program, either through a preemptive strike or better sanctions enforcement.
Nor can Iran’s supreme leader implement any additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would allow U.N. inspectors to track centrifuge plants, search military bases (where the regime probably hides its most sensitive nuclear-weapons research) or debrief all of Iran’s nuclear scientists.
The administration and Congress would be wise to hit Tehran with more sanctions immediately. The United States shouldn’t be fooled by false divisions within the regime. Abandoning the long quest for atomic weapons would be an extraordinary humiliation for Iran’s ruling class. That isn’t going to happen unless Iran’s supreme leader and his guards know with certainty that the Islamic order is finished if they don’t abandon the bomb.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iranian-targets officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mark Dubowitz is the foundation’s executive director and heads its project on Iran sanctions.
2c)AS EVELYN GORDON noted this week in Commentary, Israel's defense establishment has been similarly wrong about Iran. Much, if not all of the blame for the fact that Israel has failed to attack Iran's nuclear installations falls on the defense establishment. In an arguably treasonous act, in May 2011, outgoing Mossad director Meir Dagan publicly attacked Netanyahu for considering attacking Iran's nuclear installations. He was joined by outgoing Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin and outgoing IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.
In a similar fashion, in September 2011, when Palestinian terrorists stoned Asher Palmer's car murdering him and his infant son Yonatan, the IDF took more than a week to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack rather than a traffic accident.
2c)AS EVELYN GORDON noted this week in Commentary, Israel's defense establishment has been similarly wrong about Iran. Much, if not all of the blame for the fact that Israel has failed to attack Iran's nuclear installations falls on the defense establishment. In an arguably treasonous act, in May 2011, outgoing Mossad director Meir Dagan publicly attacked Netanyahu for considering attacking Iran's nuclear installations. He was joined by outgoing Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin and outgoing IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.
The three defense chiefs, along with President Shimon Peres, reportedly prevented Netanyahu and Barak from ordering a strike against Iran in 2010.
In repeated public statements, Dagan has insistently claimed that Israel can trust the US to take care of Iran for us. Yet as Obama's latest decisions on Syria and Iran make clear, the Obama administration is not committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or to stemming the flow and use of weapons of mass destruction by Iran and its allies. The administration's repeated claims that "all options are on the table" have no credibility.
In truth, it was easy to discern Obama's abject lack of concern about Iran becoming a nuclear power from the outset. Even before taking office he made every effort to show the Iranians that all he wanted was to negotiate with them. They had no reason for concern from an Obama administration.
On the other hand, as former national security adviser Giora Eiland revealed in August, Obama pressured Netanyahu to call off a planned strike against Iran's nuclear installations in the fall of 2012.
And yet, senior Israeli defense officials have served as Obama's chief lobbyists.
As for the overthrow of longtime Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Ashkenazi stated at the Jerusalem Post Conference in New York in 2012 that neither he nor any of his colleagues foresaw that event. They did not recognize how Obama's open support for the Muslim Brotherhood endangered Mubarak. They did not notice how Mubarak's economic liberalization policies and his plan to have his son Gamal succeed him weakened the military's support for his leadership.
Israel's military and intelligence chiefs did not recognize how Egypt's economic weakness raised public dissatisfaction with Mubarak to unprecedented levels.
They did not consider the possibility that Obama could transfer US support from the man who upheld the peace treaty with Israel for three decades — and so served as the anchor for the US's alliance system in the Arab world — to his greatest enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood, which spawned Hamas and al-Qaida, along with jihadist networks throughout the world including in the United States.
As Gordon noted, this of course is the same IDF leadership that so failed to understand the nature of Syria's subservient alliance with Iran that its members supported an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria in the hopes that such an Israeli move would convince Bashar Assad to ditch his alliance with Tehran. They did not recognize that Syria has never stood on its own. It was run first by the French and then by the Soviets.
Once the Soviet Union broke up, Iran stepped into the breach.
For the past 20 years, the same military and intelligence leadership has insisted that only a political settlement between Israel and the PLO will defeat and end Palestinian terrorism against Israel. The fact that the IDF has repeatedly defeated Palestinian terrorism, and the PLO has consistently organized and abetted that terrorism, has made little impact on the position of the General Staff.
On Saturday night, nine-year old Noam Glick was shot at close range by a terrorist while playing in her backyard. The terrorist had infiltrated her town. Her father reported hearing three gun shots.
Yet for several days, the IDF refused to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack.
In a similar fashion, in September 2011, when Palestinian terrorists stoned Asher Palmer's car murdering him and his infant son Yonatan, the IDF took more than a week to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack rather than a traffic accident.
In both cases, the clear aim of this insensitive obfuscation was to diminish public criticism of the Palestinians with whom Israel is now engaging and was seeking to engage in 2011.
Israel's military leadership failure to notice, let alone grasp the strategic implications of, regional and international developments is not new. It has been going on for at least 40 years.
Ever since our defense establishment fell asleep at the watch in the period leading up to the Yom Kippur War, many causes have been identified to explain its ongoing myopia. Intellectual reliance on the leftist-dominated media; blind trust rather than critical analysis of statements by foreign sources and colleagues; lawyerization of military operations; overdependence on technology; politicization of the senior ranks; and discrimination against religious officers have all been pointed to as factors that have contributed to Israel's senior defense officials' failure to foresee any major development and insistent blindness to their significance. Certainly all have played a role in bringing about this dismal state of affairs.
But whatever the cause of our military and intelligence leadership's insistence on getting everything wrong, the fact is that they are Israel's Achilles' heel. Until steps are taken to rectify this situation, Israel's technological prowess and tactical brilliance will remain of limited value for securing the country and our interests
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The U.S. Debt Crisis from the Founders' Perspective
By George Friedman
The U.S. government is paralyzed, and we now face the possibility that the United States will default on its debt. Congress is unable to resolve the issue, and President Obama is as obstinate as the legislators who oppose him. To some extent, our political system is functioning as intended -- the Founding Fathers meant for it to be cumbersome. But as they set out to form a more perfect union, they probably did not anticipate the extent to which we have been able to cripple ourselves.
Striving for ineffectiveness seems counterintuitive. But there was a method to the founders' madness, and we first need to consider their rationale before we apply it to the current dilemma afflicting Washington.
Fear and Moderation
The founders did not want an efficient government. They feared tyranny and created a regime that made governance difficult. Power was diffused among local, state and federal governments, each with their own rights and privileges. Even the legislative branch was divided into two houses. It was a government created to do little, and what little it could do was meant to be done slowly.
The founders' fear was simple: Humans are by nature self-serving and prone to corruption. Thus the first purpose of the regime was to pit those who wished to govern against one other in order to thwart their designs. Except for times of emergency or of overwhelming consensus, the founders liked what we today call gridlock.
At the same time, the founders believed in government. The U.S. Constitution is a framework for inefficiency, but its preamble denotes an extraordinary agenda: unity, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare and liberty. So while they feared government, they saw government as a means to staggeringly ambitious ends -- even if those ends were never fully defined.
Indeed, the founders knew how ambiguous their goals were, and this ambiguity conferred on them a sense of moderation. They were revolutionaries, yet they were inherently reasonable men. They sought a Novus Ordo Seclorum, a "New Order of the Ages," a term that was later put on the Great Seal of the United States, yet they were not fanatical. The murders and purges that would occur under Robespierre or Lenin were foreign to their nature.
The founders' moderation left many things unanswered. For example, they did not agree on what justice was, as can be seen in their divided stance on slavery. (Notably, they were prepared to compromise even on something as terrible as slavery so long as the Constitution and regime could be created.) But if the purpose of the Constitution was to secure the "general welfare," what was the government's role in creating the circumstances that would help individuals pursue their own interests?
There is little in the Constitution that answered such questions, despite how meticulously it was crafted, and the founders knew it. It was not that they couldn't agree on what "general welfare" meant. Instead, they understood, I think, that general welfare would vary over time, much as "common defense" would vary. They laid down a principle to be pursued but left it to their heirs to pursue it as their wisdom dictated.
In a sense, they left an enigma for the public to quarrel over. This was partly intentional. Subsequent arguments would involve the meaning of the Constitution rather than the possibility of creating a new one, so while we would disagree on fundamental issues, we would not constantly try to re-establish the regime. It may not have been a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson, who hinted at continual revolution, did not participate in the Constitutional Convention.
The founders needed to bridge the gaps between the need to govern, the fear of tyranny and the uncertainty of the future. Their solution was not in law but in personal virtue. The founders were fascinated by Rome and its notion of governance. Their Senate was both a Roman name and venue for the Roman vision of the statesman, particularly Cincinnatus, who left his farm to serve (not rule) and then returned to it when his service was over. The Romans, at least in the eyes of the founders if not always in reality, did not see government as a profession but rather as a burden and obligation. The founders wanted reluctant rulers.
They also wanted virtuous rulers. Specifically they lauded Roman virtue. It is the virtue that most reasonable men would see as praiseworthy: courage, prudence, kindness to the weak, honoring friendship, resolution with enemies. These were not virtues that were greatly respected by intellectuals, since they knew that life was more complicated than this. But the founders knew that the virtues of common sense ought not be analyzed until they lose their vigor and die. They did not want philosopher-kings; they wanted citizens of simple, clear virtues, who served reluctantly and left gladly, pursued their passions but were blocked by the system from imposing their idiosyncratic vision, pursued the ends of the preamble, and were contained in their occasional bitterness by the checks and balances that would frustrate the personal and ideological ambitions of others.
The Founding Father who best reflects these values is, of course, George Washington. Among the founders, it is he whom we should heed as we ponder the paralysis-by-design of the founders' system and the current conundrum threatening an American debt default. He understood that the public would be reluctant to repay debt and that the federal government would lack the will to tax the public to pay debt on its behalf. He stressed the importance of redeeming and discharging public debt. He discouraged accruing additional debt and warned against overusing debt.
However, Washington understood there would be instances in which debt had to be incurred. He saw public credit as vital and therefore something that ought to be used sparingly -- particularly in the event of war -- and then aggressively repaid. This is not a technical argument for those who see debt as a way to manage the economy. It is a moral argument built around the virtue of prudence.
Of course, he made this argument at a time when the American dollar was not the world's reserve currency, and when there was no Federal Reserve Bank able to issue money at will. It was a time when the United States borrowed in gold and silver and had to repay in the same. Therefore in a technical sense, both the meaning and uses of debt have changed. From a purely economic standpoint, a good argument can be made that Washington's views no longer apply.
But Washington was making a moral argument, not an argument for economists. From the founders' perspective, debt was not simply a technical issue; it was a moral issue. What was borrowed had to be repaid. Easing debt may power the economy, but the founders would have argued that the well-being of the polity does not make economic growth the sole consideration. The moral consequences are there, too.
The Republic of the Mind
Consequently, I think the founders would have questioned the prudence of our current debt. They would ask if it were necessary to incur, and how and whether it would be paid back. They would also question whether economic growth driven by debt actually strengthens the nation. In any case, I think there is little doubt they would be appalled by our debt levels, not necessarily because of what it might do to the economy, but because of what it does to the national character. However, because they were moderate men they would not demand an immediate solution. Nor would they ask for a solution that undermines national power.
As for federally mandated health care, I think they would be wary of entrusting such an important service to an entity they feared viscerally. But they wouldn't have been fanatical in their resistance to it. As much as federally mandated health care would frighten them, I believe fanaticism would have frightened them even more.
The question of a default would have been simple. They would have been disgusted by any failure to pay a debt unless it was simply impossible to do so. They would have regarded self-inflicted default -- regardless of the imprudence of the debt, or health care reform or any such subject -- as something moderate people do not contemplate, let alone do.
There is a perfectly valid argument that says nothing the founders believe really affects the current situation. This is a discussion reasonable and thoughtful people ought to have without raised voices or suspicion that their opponent is vile. But in my opinion, we have to remember that our political and even private life has been framed by our regime and therefore by its founders. The concept of limited government, of the distinction between public and private life, of obligation and rights, all flow from the founders.
The three branches of government, the great hopes of the preamble and the moral character needed to navigate the course continue to define us. The moral character was always problematic from the beginning. Washington was unique, but America's early political parties fought viciously -- with Aaron Burr even shooting Alexander Hamilton. The republic of the mind was always greater than the republic itself. Still, when we come to moments such as these, it is useful to contemplate what the founders had in mind and measure ourselves against that.
No comments:
Post a Comment