The Debt Deal rises again.

The next phase of the summer showdown which resulted in the debt deal is playing itself out in Washington this week. Mr. Obama is preparing to ask Congress for approval to dig America's debt grave another $1.2 Trillion deeper. That, of course, is with the debt already diving past $15.2 Trillion.

It isn't likely to be a political hot potato for anyone, however. The debt deal was structured to guarantee passage of the debt increase; all Obama had to do was to wait until Congress was out of session. The deal allows the President's request to automatically pass unless Congress actually meets and passes an objection to the request, which the President is allowed to veto. The only way to stop the request, therefore, is to muster a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the Democrats and "moderate" GOP members who negotiated the deal knew the Tea Party freshmen would never have the clout to bring that about. And that is assuming they had the stomach for a new political dogfight over the debt increase. As it stands, members of Congress can ignore the debt increase, or complain about it while saying "their hands are tied with Congress out of session," to score political points.

This is how professional politicians game the system. Bad deals, like the debt deal, and unpopular bills, like Obamacare, are set up to take effect at a later time, when those who passed the bill are long gone. That way, the professional politician hopes, the blame and anger by those affected is dissipated and the buck is passed; the politician survives. Yet there is a price to be paid. In this case, somebody (and that's the taxpayers- not the Occupy Welfare Services crowd) is going to owe another $1.2 Trillion Dollars.

This debt deal was supposed to be enough to get the Federal Government through to the 2013 budget year, but if Obama couldn't make it 4 months without borrowing another Trillion plus, he isn't going to make it to 2013 without coming back for more, either.

Ready for Court?

This will seem like a reasonable idea, if you are a part of the New World Order and entrenched in the climate-change movement. The UN, ascending into its proper place as the new Federal Government of the World, will establish a Court to hear legal disputes arising from the effects of climate change.  This Climate Court will have jurisdiction over all nations of the world and will have power to award damages to countries affected by actions of other countries.

In other words, countries like the United States, which are developed and therefore consume more energy than undeveloped countries, would be liable to lawsuits for the "excess emissions" and "climate damage." In such a case, the US could be ordered to pay damages (that's money) to the "damaged" countries, and the Climate Court could order the US to institute laws and regulations to bring down national emissions of carbon, greenhouse gases, or whatever the UN chooses to regulate, and to bring them down to whatever level the UN dictates.

The practical effects would be disastrous. The financial costs out of pocket wouldn't be inconsequential; if the damages demanded were in the Millions of Dollars, you'd be getting off easy. And there would be both the cost and effect of the United Nations required regulations. What would be the effect on most Americans of a requirement to reduce your automobile usage to the daily per-mile usage of automobiles? Americans drive an average of about 15,000 miles per year - how many miles do the rest of the people in the world drive per year? 100 miles, 10 miles? Most Americans do not have access to mass transit; it might mean losing your job - or your home. And what about heating your house; does it use more energy than a mud hut in Africa? If you haven't thought about your carbon footprint, you can bet these climate folks will. And they will expect Americans and the developed nations to pay for it.

Perhaps you think this can't happen in America. Perhaps you think your representatives would never do this to you. If so, the next time some obscure UN treaty comes before the Congress, remember Speaker Pelosi's famous statement about Obamacare; "We have to pass it so you can see what is in it."  Are you ready for Court, America?

Clinton and Obama: America's Foreign Policy Disaster

The American public has been preoccupied with the economic problems in the country brought on by exploding government regulation, debt and spending coupled with chronic high unemployment in the private sector (not the government; they have plenty of money to hire more bureaucrats,) and millions of illegal aliens either taking Americans' jobs and benefits, or pursuing other, less friendly agendas. The American public has also been intently watching the related collapse of the European Union's socialist economies, as news leaks out that the Federal Reserve Bank has loaned Trillions of Dollars to U.S. and foreign banks in addition to the Billions of Dollars they announced publicly.

The American public, with all of these domestic issues, has not been focused on America's foreign policy as it unfolds under Clinton and Obama. Sure, we've been hearing about the revolutions sweeping the Middle East, and we've seen the fall of Mubarak and Quaddafi. That is supposed to be good news, since, the pundits and news articles tell us, democracy is rising in the Middle East, and there will be peace.

The pundits and journalists are wrong. With the fall of the dictators, there will be elections. And that will be the extent of, and the end of, hopes in the Middle East for democracy as we in the West understand it.

What is rising, and will continue to rise, in the Middle East is the Islamist movement. Take a look at Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood Islamist movement is being elected into majority control of the country, and the coalition they are expected to form with the even more Islamic fundamentalist Nour party will allow Islamists to design the new constitution.  The Islamists will undoubedly include Shari'a Law and other Islamic principles.  Libya's new leaders have likewise announced that their new government will be built upon Shari'a Law. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-libyan-government-to-impose-sharia-law-tells-world-we-are-moderate/ The government of Kuwait has resigned, and is in caretaker mode awaiting elections over allegations of corruption. Under pressure by "opposition leaders," the Prime Minister has resigned for the first time since the country became a democracy - who might oppose democracy, do you suppose?  In Tunisia, what the BBC characterized as the "moderate"Islamist Ennahada party won the majority of seats, which provoked protests among secularists who fear the radical Islamization of the country.  Pakistan and Turkey, both formerly aligned with the United States as allies, have moved away from American alliances, with open rioting breaking out in Pakistan.

The foreign policy of Clinton and Obama has led to the most radical transformation of the Middle East that has been seen in decades. It is not a change to be taken lightly, as the implications for the United States are serious, and frightening. Yes, the previous governments were unpleasant and unsympathetic dictators, but not particularly averse to working with the U.S. In their place, we now have new governments controlled by Islamists who have openly declared that the destruction of the West is their goal.

Worse yet, the Administration continues to steer full steam into the foreign policy disaster they have caused. Perhaps there isn't any alternative at this point, but it seems that the Administration is simply without a clue and is too arrogant to even recognize the extent of the disaster they have fostered.  For her part, Hillary seems blithely oblivious to the goings-on in the Middle East; it's hard to find any statement of substance by her in the news, although it seems she is working hard to bring peace to Myanmar. Meanwhile, unbelievably, Defense Secretary Panetta hasblamed Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, which is probably our only remaining ally in the Middle East, for causing this situation, saying Israel should "mend fences" with Turkey and Egypt.  Mr. Panetta, if the Arab Spring is anybody's fault, it's ours, not Israel's.  So while the Middle East explodes with the rise of violent Islamism, while Iran builds nukes, while China and Russia form new alliances with Islamists out to destroy America, this Administration is all for it, as if millions of people shouting "Death to America" is somehow a good thing.

The abysmal lack of understanding of foreign policy issues by the Obama Adminstration is both appalling and dangerous. This country would be safer if we would send this bunch packing; if they stay in Washington, it can only get worse.   Perhaps they could collectively manage a hot dog stand on Coney Island; but then, perhaps not, since none of them have any real-world business experience, either.

Remedial Politics 001

The GOP Senior Republicans, Washington's Inside-the-Beltway Oldtimers, seem to have become confused about the purpose of politics. Members of the House Appropriations Committee are pressuring Speaker Boehner to discipline his caucus to force the newcomers to the House to get in line and vote with the GOP caucus.

The cause of this furor was a vote in the House on a "minibus" appropriations bill, which passed with 133 Republican votes and 165 Democrat votes. 101 Republicans voted against the bill, and the House leadership is upset that these Republicans didn't vote with their caucus. As quoted in Newsmax, one GOP congressman told The Hill. “We’ve got some people who need to learn Politics 101. It either hasn’t been explained to them or they haven’t felt the need to play team ball."

That might be, but it probably isn't. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., is quoted as saying “As we negotiated these last three bills, we went into it with a fairly strong position, and it was really House Republicans and Senate Democrats that drove the train. Now it’s going to be House Democrats at the table in a major way because we have to have their votes to pass the bill." Read that again, and the problem jumps out at you. The House GOP "leadership" went to the Senate Democrats to work out a bill that the DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate wanted, and kicked their own caucus to the curb - and then had the gall to be "offended" that the House conservatives couldn't support them.

The Senior Republicans in the House seem to need Remedial Politics 001 before they take politics 101. Republicans are elected to support the Republican platform. 101 Republicans did that; the Senior Leadership did not. Apparently the Senior House Leadership is so inured to the Number Two position that they can't help but run to the Democrats for leadership ideas. Of course the House Democrats will be at the table in a big way, Representative Kingston; you had the Senate Democrats design the bill, and possibly unbeknownst to you, Senate Democrats and House Democrats are in the same party.

Remedial Politics 001. Senior Republicans need to get on board the Republican platform with their constituents. While it is true that a Representative is obligated to serve all constitutents, these Republicans were elected by a majority of people in their districts who chose to have the Republican ideals represented. Craft bills the Republicans can support and then go negotiate with the Democrats - without giving away the farm. Compromising principles is not the best solution - it really is better to pass no bill than a bad bill.

So enamored of the Democrat party platform is this Senior House Leadership that they can't even properly represent their constituents. And they are confused and offended when other Representatives in their party seek to represent the party as they should.

This sorry excuse for leadership is why the House has been so ineffective at controlling spending and limiting Obama as he bypasses and lawlessly ignores the Constitution. If the Senior House Leadership can't or won't change their ways, Republican voters need to replace them with Representatives who can, like the 101 who stood firm.