Happy New Year

The Republican Party – and its conservative backers – are understandably still celebrating the 2013 gift of Obamacare imploding. 

It’s tempting for the GOP to approach 2014 cautiously, even timidly, so as not to distract attention from the failing healthcare law.  But in politics, as in war, matters usually don’t follow plans.  So the GOP must be wary of being perceived as doing nothing.

Public opinion polls, of course, show strong disfavor for the President’s policies, besides Obamacare.  But the general electorate is hardly enamored of Republicans, either.  Plainly, a broad dissatisfaction with Washington politicians is a common attitude across the land. 

So the better course is for the House majority to push alternative policies – on health care in particular – and promote them heavily to counter administration attacks that the GOP “only opposes”.   Success with these efforts – combined with the unpopularity of Obamacare – should increase the prospect that we will be able to congratulate ourselves next Christmas on the earned gift of a Senate majority and continued control of the House of Representatives.

Accordingly, let’s look forward to a very Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas!

This is a time for perspective and appreciation.

Focus on all that’s right with you, your family and your country.  Think of what the birth of Jesus meant and means.  Be joyful.

Life on earth is temporal, indeed.  If you strive to lead a good life, take pleasure in the effort and don’t blame yourself for the shortfalls.  We conservatives are, above all, realists.  Since utopia is not for earth, we can hardly expect perfection in ourselves or in the attainment of our quests.

 

As for politics, the ebbs and flows continue.  We are entitled to bemoan that substantial numbers of our fellow countrymen, and our President, in particular, seem determined to lead America astray, intentionally or otherwise.  But 2014 offers hope.

 

So, of course, the struggle continues, as it will after we are gone.  All we can do in the meantime, really, is be true to our principles and God and carry on.  And isn’t that a fair definition of a good life?

 

Merry Christmas.

How Can a Conservative be a Defense Attorney?

It’s interesting how many people pigeon-hole members of certain professions as holding particular views.

   

Prosecutors support law enforcement so they must be conservatives.  Or defense attorneys represent people accused of breaking the law (who are often poor and mal-educated) and therefore are probably liberals since people on the left are partial to the downtrodden.

There is some truth to these assumptions, but not always. 

In a formal sense, there is no necessary connection.  An attorney is a representative of his client.  His views can be completely independent of his client -- whether that is the U.S. government or an accused bank robber.

 

That said, it is a fair judgment that an attorney who is personally hostile to the police is not likely to gravitate toward employment with the local prosecutor’s office.

 

As for me, I can’t deny that most of my comrades at the defense bar are not right of center.  And while I don’t generally volunteer my political persuasion, I don’t conceal it if asked.   Almost uniformly the announcement generates surprise from those inside and outside the profession.  It shouldn’t.

A criminal defense lawyer doing his job well performs a very important conservative role.

A person accused of a crime has specific rights, in large part recited in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

 

The defense attorney’s job, in part, is to make sure his client’s rights are protected.  What could be more conservative than that?

An equally important task is to hold the prosecutor’s “feet to the fire”.  Make the government prove its case, subject the evidence to critical scrutiny.  Fight the common assumption that only guilty people are charged by the police.

 

This approach is founded on the simple fact of human nature recognized by conservatives; power corrupts.  No matter how well intentioned, people in authority, whether police or prosecutors, are vulnerable to the belief that what they do or believe is always right.  Experience regularly reminds us that that’s not true.

I am a conservative and a defense attorney and proud to be both.   

American Foreign Policy Under Obama: A Report Card

I guess some would expect The Sensible Conservative to hand the President an “F” as obviously deserved.

Certainly, there is a strong argument to be made that indeed it is.  But I do believe in being fair and sensible and so a review of Barack Obama’s five years in office should be done.

First, it’s important to note that candidate Obama never made foreign affairs a part of his campaign (other than ending the Iraq war).  Rather, his political career, including two years in the U.S. Senate, featured conventional liberal prescriptions for domestic concerns.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Administration’s initial forays overseas were marked by naivete and wishful thinking.  The so-called guilt tour of the Middle East and the much maligned “reset” with Russia of early 2009 are prominent examples.

Yet the U.S. reaction to the “green revolution” of Iran’s protesters later that year was of a different sort.  America stood by while foes of the anti-U.S. regime were brutally repressed.  We provided no help and barely uttered a peep in protest.  Did the Administration not understand the opportunity to advance our interests?  Or was the inaction a consequence of an ideological aversion to doing so?

In 2010 the Iraq war wore down as the President announced a date certain for withdrawal.  Military observers criticized the action as premature and likely to cause an unraveling of the stability that so many Americans had fought and bled to secure.  Efforts to obtain an agreement on a long term presence were unsuccessful.

The Administration refocused attention on Afghanistan (which Barack had termed during the 2008 campaign as the “good war”).  Drone strikes were stepped up and U.S. forces increased.

At the same time, the President let the world –and the Taliban – know that our commitment there was not open-ended, either. 

[Announcing that U.S. involvement in an unpopular war will end by a specific date is undoubtedly comforting to Obama’s anti-war constituency, but it can only encourage our enemies on the battlefield to persevere until we depart, thus severely undercutting the objective that was the purpose of our involvement!]

The President continued the hunt for Osama Bin Laden which finally culminated in success.  But despite Administration predictions, his Al Qaeda terror group was not affected.

In Libya, an American foe was toppled.  In this effort, the U.S. famously led from behind as British and French allies took a more prominent role.

The Administration’s relative diffidence about affairs after the  fall of Gadaffi resulted in a deadly cost as the killing of our ambassador and three other U.S. personnel in September of last year demonstrated.

Earlier this year, the “red line” was crossed in Syria and Al Qaeda’s influence there expanded greatly, all without a visible U.S. response except verbiage. 

In the past few months, Obama has entered into a temporary deal with Iran regarding its nuclear activities.  This has been subjected to condemnation by Israeli and Saudi Arabian allies who are most vulnerable to Tehran’s aggression.

Now comes news that America had acquiesced in part to China’s unilaterally-imposed expanded air security zone, contrary to the interests of our ally Japan, in particular.

Further, Russia has succeeded in cowing the Ukraine into renouncing previous plans to join the European Union. 

[Can anyone doubt that these recent actions – plainly in opposition to the interests of America and our allies – were taken after calculating that the U.S. reaction would be tepid and ineffectual at best?]

Naivete and inexperience were probably factors in the conduct of Barack Obama’s foreign policy five years ago.  But Americans did have a right to expect that he would have learned lessons since then.   Instead, reviewing the Administration’s performance, it is hard to conclude that the President understands that his proclivity for grand words and cheap face-saving deals projects weakness (he’s just all talk).  Inexperience is no longer an acceptable excuse.

Our president is one stubborn individual.  But he’s also consistent.  He is loath to accept that his “liberal” view of policy – at home and abroad – is simply wrong and, more importantly, dangerous to America’s survival as a strong and free land.

The grade?  “D-”.  Noting that his policies haven’t been entirely devoid of successes and anyway, in the Christmas season, I may be inclined to be overly generous. 

Senate Democrats Change the Rules – How Should the GOP React?

Late last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats changed centuries-old Senate rules by prohibiting filibusters for votes on Administration appointments and judicial nominees (Supreme Court picks excluded).

The potential requirement of a super-majority remains in effect for other matters (sixty votes would still be needed to cut off debate).

Republicans were outraged by this diminution of their power as the minority.  They wasted no time in shouting “hypocrisy” – both Harry Reid and then-Senator Barack Obama, among other Democrats, had decried threats to impose filibuster limitations when they were in the minority.

More ominously, GOP noted that their time in the majority will come soon again. How will Senate Democrats like the rule change then?  Of course, what goes around typically comes around.  And when Republicans regain a Senate majority, which thanks to Obamacare seems quite likely next year, should payback be the GOP response?

 

No.

Of course the temptation will be strong.  But is yes the right answer?

 

The purpose of a filibuster is to provide a roadblock to majority rule.  That is consistent with a purpose of the U.S. Constitution:  prevent unrestrained simple majority tyranny.

James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, #62, noted the special role of the upper chamber in this regard: 

“The necessity of a Senate is… indicated by the propensity of
 all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse                      of sudden and violent passions… .”

The current Senate majority has undercut this Constitutional restraint.  Although Republicans, when they resume control, can adopt the new rule for short-term partisan gain, such would not be in the Nation’s interest.

Better, I suggest, would be for the Republican Party to demonstrate its higher allegiance to the Constitution by repealing the 2013 rule change.  That act, by itself, would probably carry political dividends for the GOP by illustrating that it is concerned with more than partisan advantage.

 

But of far greater importance to the country, rule reversal will likely serve as a strong deterrent to future efforts to tamper with traditional safeguards for minority rights contemplated by anybody.

 

If Senate Republicans do, indeed, acquire majority status in 2015, they will have the opportunity to set a standard of putting the long term interest of the Nation ahead of all other considerations.  It is reasonable to expect that future generations of political leaders will be inspired – or shamed – into honoring it. 

Media Disenchantment with Obama – Is the Adulation Finished?

Not entirely, but it is certainly waning in a big way.

Of course, The New York Times is holding fast.  To wit, the President’s frequently repeated false statements regarding the viability of insurance coverage prior to Obamacare occurred because he “misspoke”.  

  

Evidently, that dependably leftist newspaper would characterize a blatant lie as merely a misstatement of the truth if the person uttering it were politically agreeable.

 

Other charter members of the liberal media have proven to be less charitable.  The Washington Post and CBS News, in particular, have been quite skeptical of late regarding White House veracity.  Even newer members of the media, such as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show (Comedy Central Network) – usually a staunch supporter of the left – have become quite sarcastic in their commentary on the Administration’s “Affordable Care Act” rollout.

 

Don’t be misled.  They’ve hardly “seen the light” and decided to move to the right.  But media members formerly trumpeting Barack Obama are feeling mighty embarrassed.  Part of the reason may be the recognition (finally!) that our President and his team have a casual relationship with the truth (“Fast and Furious”, Benghazi, wire-tapping and health insurance promises, for instance).

However, I suggest that the obvious incompetence in the White House is a far greater cause of the media’s new-found jaundiced eye. 

Most of the press applauded – and did what they could to support – Obama’s election in 2008 and 2012.  They did so not only because of his liberal/left ideology but also as a result of their belief in his first campaign slogan “yes we can!”.   Obama was viewed, not merely as a fellow liberal, but more importantly, as a president who would be able to implement the liberal agenda.

 

They hoped and expected that he would not only make agreeable promises but actually be able to carry them out with the cooperation of the government controlled by the Democratic Party for the two year period after the 2008 election.  The disaster which is Obamacare has dashed their hopes.  Promises, as the saying goes, are cheap.  The last president who proclaimed himself a liberal was Jimmy Carter.  (Bill Clinton was too smart for that trap.)  We all know how that ended.  Incompetence leaps to mind.

 

Obama was supposed to be different.  He was young, bright, well- educated, and a minority, to boot, who would assuage the guilt of white liberals.  How could he fail?

 

But he has.  So the general media is cutting its connection.

The liberal media may despise conservatives but their attitude toward the incompetent Obama Administration which they have so faithfully supported is now a mixture of anger and contempt.  Their hopes have been betrayed.  Obama will pay.

The Cost of Blind Faith and Arrogance

Do you remember what then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in early 2010 when questioned about the details of the pending health care legislation?  To paraphrase, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it.” 

Fellow Democrats all fell in line, including self-identified moderates such as North Carolina’s Todd Heath and Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Unbending allegiance to the Obama agenda by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reed was to be expected.  But what about others who were supposedly more independently-minded?  How could they so shameless abdicate their duties as legislators to understand what they were supporting?

 

Is the answer that they were under the “spell of Obama” like fans at one of the President’s campaign rallies?

As one who has followed politics for decades and worked in Congressional offices many years ago, I prefer to think not.  Adulation is for the naïve.  Sure, some of those serving Congress are such, but not many.  Most of them are regular people trying to do what seems right (which, not coincidentally, often coincides with self-interest).  But isn’t that largely true of the rest of us, too?

Was there a national emergency that compelled all Democrats to fall into line?

 

Eighty years ago, during FDR’s first term and the depths of the depression, there was a sense of understandable urgency.  Thus, radical legislation such as the National Recovery Act was pushed through a heavily Democratic Congress on a fast track.  It is unlikely, accordingly, that many legislators knew the details of such laws, either, before voting in favor.

But where was the emergency requiring the unread passage of Obamacare?  Evidently, the Administration’s rush was precipitated by the realization that the Obama luster was of uncertain duration.  Who could predict when the tarnish would appear?

For those Congressional Democrats suffering from liberal arrogance (plainly most), recent news on Obamacare constitutes well deserved comeuppance.  Alas, they’ll be unlikely, as true believers, to heed the lessons of humility:  hubris leads to disaster.

For others, one hopes they feel shame and embarrassment.  In the future, maybe, they will be more conscientious in the performance of their legislative duties.

Defending the Indefensible – Obama’s Apologists Wiggle in the Face of the Truth

Recently Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (a fervent Obama apologist) was asked for his reaction to the irrefutable evidence that President Obama had been wrong in saying time after time that no one would lose health insurance he wanted.  Robinson paused, smiled and said that the President was basically right he just shouldn’t have been “so categorical.”

Before even White House spokesman Jay Carney picked up the theme, CNN anchors were remarking that no matter the President’s “inaccuracy” those losing their policies would be able to get better ones under the Affordable Care Act.

So what’s the problem?

Later, the Administration added yet another explanation.  Since the insurance companies were doing the canceling and not the President, he wasn’t at fault. 

Ah, truth can indeed be difficult to explain away.

The President is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  Any lawyer can tell you (myself included) that words are indeed our stock in trade.  Precision matters.  Do not say “no one will lose his insurance” when the truth is some will, particularly when some equals many millions of people.

 

Somehow, that doesn’t sound like a rounding-up problem or a mistake in being too categorical.

Whether the substitute health policies offered an individual are superior to a cancelled policy is rather beside the point.  The choice promised by the President was a mirage. 

Whether the President was lying in saying so is a question bearing on his integrity and character.  For Americans, it’s enough to know they weren’t told the truth.  Why not?  Because the Administration was going to do what was deemed best for Americans regardless of the peoples’ wishes?  That would seem undeniable.

For Jay Carney to lay blame for the cancellations on the insurance companies is disingenuous (a polite way of saying he was being misleading), at best.

Insurance companies are compelled by Obamacare to cancel policies which do not provide the coverage mandated by the new law (including maternity care for infertile applicants!). 

Is the President a Liar?

That is a harsh label to apply to anyone. 

Often it is used to describe a person who simply makes a statement that is not true.  But that is incorrect usage unless the person making the statement knew it was false when uttered or written.

Undeniably Barack Obama spoke falsely in June of 2009 when he said that under his proposed health care law:  “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

He said much the same thing many times thereafter including during the 2002 presidential campaign.  And it was untrue every time.

In the summer of 2010, in fact, federal regulations were written that made clear that Obamacare mandated a minimum level of coverage.  Insurance policies that did not meet that standard would have to be canceled.  Did the President not know that?

Sure, it’s possible, but unlikely.  It seems incredible that someone, somewhere in the Administration didn’t alert the President to the inaccuracy of what he was repeatedly saying.
 

So let’s assume he did know.  That doesn’t mean that he believed it.  Certainly he wouldn’t want to.  After all, Obamacare was highly controversial from the very beginning.  He knew he’d have to work hard to sell it to the American people.  Having to say that millions of people would lose health insurance policies that they wanted to keep would not be helpful politically. 

Particularly arrogant people – and President Obama is certainly one of those – can convince themselves of all sorts of things… including that they can do no wrong, and lying would be wrong, wouldn’t it?

Old political hands will remember the case of Senator Gary Hart, a prominent Democrat with his eye on the presidency.  In 1987, on the eve of his announcement of candidacy, he was accused of being involved in an extra-marital affair.  He responded by telling the New York Times that the allegations were untrue.  “Follow me around.  I don’t care.  I’m serious.”

But involved he was.  Witnesses and photographs soon surfaced supporting the rumors.  He soon withdrew his candidacy and faded from the national political scene.
 

Had Gary Hart been crazy to taunt his accusers in light of the facts he knew?  People not sharing Hart’s arrogance (most of us) would say “of course”.  But Hart wasn’t crazy.  He simply occupied an insular world of his own making in which he could do no wrong.

Such people are not confined to the political realm.  Hollywood and Wall Street come readily to mind.

So maybe Barack is not lying in the conventional sense.  Perhaps, as noted conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer put it, “the President is lying to himself”.

A cynical, more accurate view may be that the statements were intentional from the beginning.  Given the press’s adulation, Obama may have figured that the damaging news – the truth – wouldn’t come out until too late to do him, or the so-called Affordable Care Act, any harm.

Whichever the case, it is clear that the President’s word is untrustworthy if his political standing or policy is involved.  Truth will give way to his interests.  Obamacare, cutting spending, Syria, Benghazi… are prior examples.  The next three years should be no different.

Is Barack Obama As Bad a President As He Seems?

The easy answer is yes and is one conservatives eagerly embrace.  But the easy response, I suggest, is not always the right one.  (No pun intended.)

Of course recent events lend credence to the view.  The Obamacare roll-out highlighted incompetence; the Administration’s handling of Syria’s chemical weapons use displayed weakness and vacillation while Snowden’s disclosure of national secrets caused international embarrassment to the President and harm to the country.

Yet some of these reflect merely bad luck in timing.  (Snowden’s treason could have happened under any Administration.)  Still, Obama has benefited from that very factor.  (Would he have won the presidency in 2008 if Wall Street’s near meltdown had occurred in December of that year instead of September?)

He didn’t seem so bad two years ago. (Don’t misunderstand.  I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama used to be a right-winger.  I’m talking about job performance.)

The President set a goal early on to enact radical health care reform.  He succeeded.  He vowed to change the course of American foreign policy by being more solicitous of the attitudes of allies and foes (the “reset” with Russia.)  He promised disengagement with Iraq and delivered.  And, of course, the killing of Osama Bin Laden came on an operation Obama set in motion. 

In a sense, the former community organizer, state legislator, and two year U.S. Senator has performed better than his supporters had any right to expect. 

But his deficiencies five years into his Administration have become obvious, even to formerly ardent media fans.

 

He may be so enthralled by the fawning attention to which he has been accustomed that he cannot distinguish the difference between his wishes and reality.  He may think that his wish becomes transformed into reality because that’s the way his world works. 

So when he told Americans during the debate on Obamacare, for instance, that no one would lose his current health insurance policy, he may have been expressing his wish that that was so.  [But it wasn’t true.  The law, unread by Congress and perhaps by the President as well, proscribed insurance policies which did not meet Obamacare’s coverage minimums.]

Of course, there could be another explanation.  He was simply lying, saying whatever would serve his immediate political interest and policy objectives.

Excuses for Benghazi (an anti-Muslim video was to blame); Syria (what red line?) and the computer disaster with health law enrollment (no one warned me) are evidence for this cynical view.

Whatever the explanation, and both have merit, Barack Obama has been exposed as a deeply flawed president independently of what I suggest have been generally unwise policies promoted by his Administration.  To be sure, a fair assessment of his forty-two predecessors would cause such a label to be applied to some of them, too.

 

He may prove on balance to be a bad president who, like James Buchanan declining to take necessary action to stave off a civil war, failed to take steps against the looming bankruptcy facing the country.  Or, he may experience an epiphany and follow suggestions from his erstwhile conservative opponents. 

Alas, I am unable to confuse the wish with the reality.  I don’t live in the President’s world.

Democrats Presented GOP with Golden Opportunity During Shutdown

It is awfully frustrating for conservatives to see their leaders and wealthy supporters fail to exploit a proverbial “gift on a golden platter”.

During the recent Senate-caused shutdown, the Democrats were on the wrong side of an emotional issue usually occupied by the GOP.  Alas, conservatives failed to take advantage of the opportunity.

 

Almost automatically, when conservative proposals are made to cut or slow government spending, Democrats trot out “widows and orphans” for the media who will be harmed and warn of cutbacks in, for instance, police and fire department services.

But Senate Democrats were recently on the wrong side of the emotional appeal.

    

During the shutdown, the GOP House proposed continuing all government funding with the exception of Obamacare.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said no.

That set the stage for CNN reporter Dana Bash to ask Reid why he didn’t support immediate resumption of National Institute of Health funding so that cancer patients could receive care?  He paused, mumbled something, and then pretended to have been insulted by the question.

The GOP should have pounced.  The President and the Democrats caused unforgiveable harm to people in need because they stubbornly clung to Obamacare despite its unpopularity.  They were running roughshod over the public good in pursuit of their leftist agenda.

 

Thus, Republicans were presented with the opportunity to attack the Administration and Senate Democrats with a position that had immediate and obvious political appeal.

 

This had the potential to reverse public sentiment ascribing more blame to the Republican Party than the Democrats for the government shutdown.

As the question from the CNN reporter made clear, the GOP position resonated beyond the usual conservative base.  Alas, we failed to effectively exploit the opportunity. 

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal helped but more was needed.  This was the time for coordinated action.  There should have been talking points so that the message was consistent and widely disseminated.  There should have been internet ads hitting the Democrats hard with sympathetic victims featured to help spread the message.  But very little of what was necessary was done. 

It is of little consolation now to say that if Republicans had mounted an effective campaign to exploit the gift given to them by Senate Democrats, political pressure might have been sufficient to have caused the President, instead of the House, to surrender.

Have we learned anything?

Who Shut Down the Government?

House Republicans?  Senate Democrats?  The President?

Unsurprisingly, the media blames the GOP.  After all, didn’t President Obama say he wouldn’t sign a budget that omitted or delayed funding for   Obamacare?  So, therefore, liberals reason, the refusal of the House to agree to Administration demands means that the Republicans are at fault.

Equally unsurprising is that the public agrees.   Given the media’s supportive narrative, and the public’s general lack of interest and knowledge of national affairs, what opinion would one expect it to hold?  The generally disseminated view propounded by the press, of course.

But there’s a different view.

The Constitution places the authority to initiate government expenditures in the House of Representative.  Not the Senate or with the President.  So the House is duty bound to determine whether spending taxpayers’ funds should occur and for what purpose (Article 1, Section 6). 

The President and his allies complain that it is illegitimate to deprive the Affordable Care Act of funding.  After all, Obama says repeatedly, the electorate ratified the new health care law by re-electing him in 2012.  [Hardly.  The stronger argument is that the President was re-elected despite the unpopularity of Obamacare.  Exit polls had it disfavored 49-44%.]

Republicans, noting that the law’s support has now dropped to 39%, can point to the high-handed manner in which the legislation was approved on strict party laws after then-Senator Brown’s special election victory in Massachusetts cost Senate Democrats their filibuster-proof majority.

They, GOP lawmakers proclaim, are the ones carrying out the public’s wishes, not President Obama and Senate Democrats. 

At the moment, the government is at an impasse.  The Constitution requires that the legislature and the executive (leave aside the possibility of a veto override) work together and approve spending.  Traditionally, the solution to a conflict such as today’s would require compromise.

The President and the Senate have repeatedly declined House offers to do so.  So what is to be done?

Can Obama maintain this posture of intransigence forever?  Of course he can, but he won’t.  The President is the national leader.  Ultimately, he can take credit for what goes right but also is responsible for what doesn’t.

Politically, the White House thinks it’s in a winning position (and the latest polls agree), given how its media allies have characterized the dispute.  But time is not on the President’s side.  The public affected by the loss of services will lose patience.  Obama will heed their pain and a deal will be struck.

So what is the answer to the headline?  The House passed the budget which would have continued government funding and sent it on to the Senate.  Once there, it was rejected.  Accordingly, the President has not been presented with a budget since the Senate would first have to agree to a version approved by the House.  Thus, despite what the media would have you believe, Harry Reid and the Democrats are to blame.  

Why America Disappoints Liberals

One of the most baffling and frustrating features of American politics is the consistent dissatisfaction of the left with life in America.

Consider racial relations - long a cause celebre with American liberals. Slavery formally ended one hundred and fifty years ago.  Of course, racial equality hardly existed in a de facto sense back then.  Jim Crow legislation in the South was initiated to “keep blacks down”.  Prejudice in the North, though not formal, was just as prevalent. 

But look where matters are now.  The President is black, prominent political leaders across the land share African heritage, and voter turnout in 2012 in the South was higher for blacks than it was for whites.

Such progress, one would have thought, would be cause for jubilation on the American Left.  In fact, one might have hoped that they would, like most other Americans, stop automatically viewing events involving other races through a racial prism.  Wishful thinking.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court told Congress to revisit the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Conditions in the South which prompted its passage 50 years ago are no longer present.  It was, therefore, a violation of Constitutional Federalism to keep South-specific restrictions in place.

Oh my!  Did you see prominent liberals donning their Chicken Little outfits to pronounce that the sky was falling?  The Ku Klux Klan, they might as well have announced, was now able to rise again. 

And how about initial reactions to the Zimmerman case in Florida?  Professional race baiters like Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, of course, didn’t miss the opportunity to fling “racism” around.

 

But more telling was the reaction of a mainstream organ of the left – the New York Times.  Its initial editorial on the killing suggested that racial overtones were present and labeled George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.

[The term Hispanic is commonly applied to people of Latin origin.  Using the Times approach, perhaps Barack Obama, who has a mixed racial background, should be termed a “black white man”.]

To the left, it often appears that America can’t do anything right.

 

One would get a similar reaction if the topic pertained to any liberal objective such as eradicating poverty or improved healthcare.

To them, American hasn’t done enough.  But the truth is there will never be “enough” to satisfy the left.

 

Certainly, some of those expressing such views have ulterior motives.   Racial hustlers, such as the aforementioned Al Sharpton, would no longer have a podium if race relations were deemed to be healthy.

But I suspect that the bulk of the left is dissatisfied because of strongly- held philosophical reasons.  Whether they recognize this or not, they are Utopians.

Perfection is not for this world – or America -- conservatives say.  Liberals may superficially acknowledge that truism about human nature.  But deep down they don’t want to accept it.

Liberals are inclined to believe that to acknowledge progress is a mistake.  An appreciation of progress generates satisfaction which, in turn, saps the drive to continue the quest for perfection.

[Do you remember Michelle Obama’s statement after her husband won the Iowa caucus?  “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”  By the way, Iowa has a miniscule black population.  Had Iowa’s whites been racists the year before?]

Non-liberals, looking around the world, see how fortunate we Americans truly are.  Those on the Left see something different.

They see that the world’s troubles are often our fault (remember President Obama’s early 2009 apology tour of the Middle East?).  Anyway, America, they tell themselves – including those reading the New York Times or watching MSNBC – is so deficient in its possession of virtue that it does not fail to disappoint.  If only America weren’t so flawed, all would be fine. 

Will Syria Really Give Up Its Chemical Weapons -- And If It Doesn’t, Will President Obama Fulfill His Threat To Attack?

No and No!

Syrian Bashar al-Assad will not agree, no matter what he, his government or Russia may promise.  Syria is embroiled in a civil war “to the death”.  Assad’s chemical warehouses are resources he believes he may need as a hole card to secure his survival.  Why else have them?  Can there be any doubt that Assad is not – will not be – restrained by so called international norms?

Undoubtedly, he and Russia wish to discourage an attack by the U.S. military.  They will say anything to give the U.S. a plausible excuse for postponing “punishment” for Assad’s crossing of Obama’s red line. But the promised surrender of control will not – cannot – be genuine.  Roadblocks will be raised, interminable objections raised, negotiations broken off, and resumed, as time passes.

America’s fruitless efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons program have been noted and lessons absorbed.

Of course, Obama will set deadlines for action (November is the first one) which will surely pass without compliance.  And Russia, on behalf of Syria, will ask for more time and offer more promises.  The White House will credit itself for its resolve… and agree to more time and more talk… and nothing will happen.

Face it.  There will never be a forceful military response against Syria or, I fear, against any U.S. enemy so long as Barack Obama is Commander in Chief.

His attitude was on display during a recent series of TV interviews.  He thought there was a case to be made for military action in Syria but would welcome a diplomatic resolution.  In one sense, that sentiment is commendable.  Peace is to be preferred over war.  But what if there is no diplomatic resolution?  What then?

The logic will not be pursued by our President.  The red line in the sand will be blown away by time.

He is a believer – along with most fellow leftists – in the silly bumper sticker slogan “war is not the answer”.  [Tell that to Hitler’s, or Assad’s, victims.]

Should Congress Give the President Authority to Attack Syria?

Absolutely. 

There is a segment on the right that would vote no simply because Obama says he wants it. 

As I suggested last week, Barack Obama was never serious when he warned the Assad regime against crossing the “red line” on the issue of chemical weapons.  He was merely doing what he loves to do best, posture. 

Even if I’m wrong, we should not be focusing on political tit-for-tat when our national interest is involved.

Without question, the President put his credibility on the line by painting lines.  If you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor, Obama may deserve to be hoisted on his own petard.  But that’s not an appropriate or sensible reason for a policy decision. 

[Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton lambasts the President saying that Obama’s credibility on the world stage cannot be resurrected.  I say we  have to try for America’s sake.]

If we accept that credibility is a vital aspect of foreign – and military – affairs, we cannot ignore that the President’s credibility or lack thereof potentially affects us all.  He represents our nation to the world.  Assessments of Barack Obama’s credibility, therefore, bear heavily on how America’s true intentions are judged.  Misjudgments on that score can cause our foes – and friends – to make decisions which are harmful, indeed, to them and to us.

If, for instance, President Obama is unable or seems unwilling to enforce his red line, it’s likely that the potential users of chemical weapons will be emboldened.  And, if so, won’t the possession and use of chemical weapons spread?  Some will use it offensively while others will feel a need to possess them as deterrents. 

It is beside the point to say that there would be no crisis if Obama had not talked about red lines a year ago.  So what?  He did.  And now his credibility problem is the nation’s.

Congress, in my view, has no real choice but to give the President  the authority to act he claims to want.  Our national self-interest requires it.

If such is done, one is left to hope that a sense of obligation compels the President, however reluctantly, to use that authority for his and the nation’s sake.

Barack Obama: Posturer-in-Chief?

President Obama’s recent comments on the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons has solidified his reputation in the world as one who posturers rather than acts. 

He had, for several months, largely ignored the imperative for action seemingly mandated by the Assad regime’s breach of the red line on the use of chemical weapons.  About all he would concede was that its suspected use was cause for “grave concern”. 

Things changed last week with televised images of nerve gas victims in Damascus.  A semblance of action, provoked by political and perceived national security reasons, was seen by the White House as being essential.

Intelligence was released bolstering the argument against Syria and the case was made by administrative spokesmen that a strong response could be expected.  On Friday night, in fact, Secretary of State John Kerry uttered a fierce condemnation of Assad with an insistence that a forceful military reply was necessary for reasons of both morality and world order.  That, and the presence of cruise missile-equipped warships in the Eastern Mediterranean, left little doubt that military strikes were imminent.

 

Nothing happened.

The President announced on Saturday that he was ready to take action but since the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, had advised that the decision was not “time sensitive”, the military could act “tomorrow, or next week or one month from now”.  But Obama expressed no urgency in giving the necessary orders with the announcement that he would first seek Congressional authority.  And Congress doesn’t return from the Labor Day recess until Sept. 9.

What’s going on?  I suggest the answer is simple.

The President never had any intention of backing up his “red line” threat.  [See last week’s Sensible Conservative post]   He postures and thinks that’s enough.

 

But the graphic images meant he had to sound as if there really would be consequences.  His advisors undoubtedly told him that his credibility was suffering both at home and abroad.  It was.

Certainly he tried.  Leaks of America’s intention were abundant as to the limited nature of the assaults to come.

But the President couldn’t follow through.  So he decided to buy more time.  Referring the matter to Congress had never been deemed necessary before by the Administration.  But this option became attractive given the box Obama occupied.  (He certainly couldn’t acknowledge that his “red line” comments had never been sincere.)

Given his record, it’s fair to assume that the President hopes and expects his bluff will not be called.  That may be probable.  After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public does not want further involvement in the Middle East. 

So if he wins his gamble, Obama will be off the hook.  Congress will have vindicated his inclinations by “denying” him authority to act against Syria.  The sigh of relief emanating from the President’s quarters in the White House will be audible.

The President’s Words Cost Him Nothing – But the Price for the Nation May Be Dear Indeed

“Reset”, “Unacceptable”, “Red line”, “Grave Concern”, are all words bandied about by President Obama.  Judging by the lack of consequence, one might conclude that he must think that words alone are enough. 

Is it simple arrogance?  Is it an expectation that stating his desire about what should be – as it has so often been in his star-struck career – is enough to bring it about?

Probably that was at least part of the answer during the early stages of his presidency.  But can it still be after so many failures to achieve stated objectives?  He would be a fool indeed if that were the case. 

The President is deserving of many pejoratives; fool is not one of them.

Obama has never concealed his lack of interest in foreign affairs.  His focus has been on directing America sharply to the left, whether in “health reform” or in income redistribution.

But he can hardly escape his Constitutional duty to serve as Commander–in-Chief.  So the President says what he does not in any expectation that foreigners will follow his directives but, rather, because he thinks it is his obligation to voice them. 

He doesn’t really believe in his words and certainly has no intention of following through.  The President is mainly – if not entirely – playing to his domestic audience. 

Unfortunately, there are serious consequences for America stemming from Barack Obama’s insincerity.

The outside world has no use for the President’s domestic policy concerns.  But calculations on what the U.S. will do on the world’s stage are critical indeed.  Words from the leader of the earth’s most powerful nation cannot be ignored unless experience proves they are empty.  In fact, this Commander-in-Chief has provided ample proof that such is exactly the case.

The consequences of this conclusion can be disastrous indeed for America’s national interest and safety.

Bin Laden was reportedly much encouraged by Clinton’s largely symbolic response to his attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.  (A few cruise missiles were fired into his Afghan training base.) 

Al Qaeda was persuaded that the 9/11 attacks would trigger a similarly timid reaction.

  

[To note that George Bush was not Bill Clinton misses the point.  For most foreigners the President is America in the sense that he speaks for all of us and represents our attitudes.  Of course, that’s naïve.  But the perception is the reality that affects behavior.]

Failures to fulfill promises – or back up threats – have the potential for tragic consequences.

 

It would be better by far if Barack Obama would simply keep his mouth shut.  His personal desire to do nothing wouldn’t have to change – he’d merely need to stop posturing.  At least that would leave the outside world to wonder about what the U.S. would do in confronting a particular threat.  Alas, the vain, self-righteous occupant of the White House appears incapable of doing so.

Last week’s commentary focused on America’s popularity in the world.  Such matters little if divorced from respect.  Is there a more obvious historical fact than that nations base their actions on self-interest, not on affection?

It is appalling – nay, alarming – that members of the President’s own party have not lambasted his irresponsible disregard of our national self-interest.  They are Americans, too.  Is party loyalty so demanding that no prominent Democrats (forget about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) feel obligated to publicly state the obvious?

And what about the media?  How can it be that, with the usual conservative exceptions, there has been no general condemnation of the President’s vapid rhetoric?  Will nothing shake their allegiance to Barack Obama – not even the dangers his conduct invites?