Iranian Nuclear "Agreement": continued

Apparently the Administration is presenting the Iranian Nuclear "Agreement" to Congress in a manner and form that looks more and more like the AHCA (Obamacare) on steroids.  Anyone who remembers that debacle recalls Ms. Pelosi declaring, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."  Sure!  Did that ever work out.  As I recall, there were...and remain...so many errors in that bill that it continues to reward our citizens with pain and disappointment.  Not only were there technical errors that required a subservient Supreme Court of the United States to abandon legal analysis and assume the role of proof reader for Congress to bail them out, but the failure to thoroughly think through how the new bill would affect everyone left many with higher costs and higher deductible after being "promised" that this would not happen.

But...back to the Iranian "Agreement"...notice that we now know that two diametrically opposed conditions have been established; 1) We have a written agreement that when carefully read and analyzed fails to provide for inspection of Iranian Military locations under any conditions; and/or 2) We have been told of two "secret" side agreements, not subject to examination by Congress or known to U.S.citizens that are alleged to proved some sort of examination of Iranian Military sites under written conditions and terms that will NOT be made available to Congress, although promises have been made that oral assertions as to the contents will be made known to our "Representatives" (as if they really do that..."represent" us) in classified sessions.

So...the real and proper choices for Congress would be the two following scenarios:  First, judge the Agreement ONLY on the written portion presented and made public, fully available to all to read and interpret; and, Second, judge the Agreement on assertions of "Trust Us" made by the Administration without their even knowing (according to their sworn testimony before Congress) the written details, but relying on assertions by the AEIA...the equivalent of Ms. Pelosi's assertion, "We have to pass it before we can know what is in it"...except that in this case we will NEVER know what is in the secret side deals.

I don't know what others think, but I have already contacted my Congressional Representative in both he House and the Senate informing them that I still have not forgotten their passing the Healthcare bill without reading it...an obligation on their part that they failed to perform...and that any vote by them to approve the Agreement with Iran would constitute a far worse abdication of their duty to protect the country.  The written "Agreement" is inadequate; the alleged side "secret" agreements must be considered inadequate until and unless they can be examined in their written executed forms for specifics and analysis.  Minus such detail, there is no way any individual would bind him or herself to such obligations...why would any official do the same to an entire country?

This entire matter only serves to reveal the incompetency and amateurishness of our Administration...and perhaps also their desparation.

Is Jonathan Gruber wrong?

In the past two weeks multiple videos have surfaced in which one of the consulting architects of Mr. Obama's Affordable Healthcare Bill is seen and heard referring to the planned obfuscation in the wording and design of the bill so that the American voter would not be aware that money was going to be taken from younger people to pay the medical bills of older insureds; that if that fact were made generally known, the bill would never have passed.  He goes on to refer to the general "stupidity" of the American voter in accepting the misleading wording.  He does this in many different videos taken at different times before different groups...and he is clearly proud of his accomplishment.

Is he wrong?

And just a vital a question is: was the public mislead by his efforts?

Before I discuss the possible answers to those questions, a little historical review is in order.  First...let us keep in mind that the human is always looking for "free" "stuff."  Usually it is in the form of a bargain, sometimes it is a gift, but always we feel good if we get something for less than we thought we would have to pay or work.

Second, Politicians have for years proven that they were serving "us" by "bringing home the bacon."  How often did we hear during campaigns of how many projects were brought back to us from Washington, how many federal tax dollars were made available to us because of our representatives' efforts?  Did any of us...ever...consider that federal tax dollars originally came from US?  That our politicians didn't give us THEIR money...they were giving us OUR own money, and taking credit for it?  Not many even thought about it.  Local pols would brag about a project that wasn't going to cost us anything because they had gotten FEDERAL money...glibly glossing over the fact that Federal Money is our money too.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.

However, because everyone in Washington was doing the same thing, and because over time the distribution of money evened out around the country, no harm was done; we all paid our federal taxes and we all got some of it back.  No harm, no foul, right?

Unfortunately, however, there was a harm.  We got used to accepting political lies and assuming that we weren't being hurt by them.  That is incorrect.  We were being, and have been, indoctrinated to accept without challenge politicians' promises of "free" stuff...even as deep inside we knew that no such thing existed.

The Healthcare Bill, however, was a break from the traditional, "you protect my back and I'll protect yours" attitude that was largely based on district based "pay backs."  This was nationwide and involved what may turn out to be a one time country wide taking from an entire class of people in order to benefit another whole class of people.  No foreseeable payback here at all...yet it was sold much the same way, with the added twist of planned and carefully considered lies and misstatements designed to support getting enough votes to enact the bill.  The Leaders of the Democrat Party as well as the Democrat President took a Healthcare model that they ideologically favored and crafted a bill that would put this model into place.  In the process, the drafted both language and construction that hid the fact that one main element and result of the bill would be re-distribution of wealth.  They also knowingly failed to announce this, and when opponents pointed the facts out, lied and denied that it was so.

Adding to this con, the President knowingly assured the American public that the bill would not require anyone who was happy with existing healthcare plans to change anything about their coverage...even as he constructively had to know that he was lying.

And now we are presented with the filmed proof that Mr. Gruber, who was considered the "go to" guy by the administration on the design and construct of the bill, not only worked to hide the facts and present wording that would keep the CBO from considering the true costs of the bill, but was effusively proud of his ability to mislead a "stupid" electorate.  And...with that, all members of the administration and of the Democrat members of Congress have developed a curious case of amnesia regarding Mr. Gruber;  they only dimly remember the name and cannot recall any substantive dependence on his abilities to design and craft the bill.  Suddenly there is no recollection of his being one of 4 people who met in urgent session with President Obama 3 days prior to the Senate vote that passed the bill on pure partisan lines to figure out how to reassure (falsely as it turns out) wavering Democrats who's votes would end up being critical to passing the bill.

Now, any thinking person would think through the process used to conceive, draft, and promote the oddly named "affordable" Healthcare Bill and perhaps some to the conclusion that those that came up with this bill perpetrated a fraud on the American public and on the Congress as a whole, and abdicating their responsibilities under their oath of office in the process.  I feel that way, but am not sure that, as self-protective of federal office holders as Federal Law is (note that the RICO statutes exempt Congress for consideration thereunder) seems to be, there is any legal recourse.

The main thought of this particular post, however, is...was, and is, Mr. Gruber wrong in his attitude about the intelligence of the American voter.

One can argue both ways.  Surely, there was an effort by opponents to point out that the claims by Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi and the rest of those in office were false and could not be accomplished under the claimed financial considerations.  At some level, we all know that there is no such thing as a "free" lunch, yet we did not react with either anger or disbelief, but sat silently by as Congress acted.  And even recently, many of those Democrats who voted for the bill were re-elected...and this was done with them acknowledging that they never read the Bill before voting in favor.  These are certainly facts that seem to support the accuracy of Mr. Gruber's characterizations.

On the other hand, people in a bad economy are focused on working, earning money, stretching their available funds to take care of their families and they believe, with certain fairly minor deviations, that their elected representatives are looking out for them...at least in the major areas.  And Healthcare involves about one-sixth of the American Economy...so I could also argue that the electorate could reasonably rely on their elected officials to do the right thing...even as the opposition was shouting "fraud" and "you lie" to the high heavens.

I suspect that many of those that partake of the Progressive, Socialist, Liberal, Democrat ideology do indeed see themselves as of superior intellect, an elite group that truly does the entire country a favor by not only knowing what is best for everyone, but doing it despite any desire on the part of the "others" to disagree.  That is the attitude so clearly demonstrated in Mr. Gruber's commentaries.  He may be right.  I happen to think he is wrong...but I don't count.  Elections have consequences and recent elections certainly have seemed to support a general acceptance of Mr. Gruber's ( and those of Mr. Gore, Mr. Soros, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi, among many others) point of view.

One wonders if we have reached a tipping point in this country where no longer will the electorate insist on government being responsive to the public, but allow the government to cause the electorate to serve the government.  After all, when was the last time that the government gave you back a personal freedom...or granted you a new one?

Perhaps Foreign Policy SHOULD be a factor this year....?

As we get into the mentally dangerous election season, we focus quite correctly on our domestic lack of jobs as well as our unwillingness to be financially accountable. In so doing, we logically reflect our most immediate concerns about personal and familial well-being; we (apparently unlike the Federal Government) need to balance our budgets while providing subsidence and pleasure (in that order) for our families. The result of this targeting of concern, of course, leads to the quite unsupported conclusion that foreign policy is either “fine” or “not important.” And that is, quite frankly, not only wrong...it is disastrous, particularly long term.

Consider the acts and attitudes that this administration has taken and expressed:

The missile shield for easter Europe was scrapped for what was claimed to be an equally effective (but later shown to fall short) mobile system;

Support has been shown for regime change in courtries where the result was either unknown, or guaranteed to put Islamic militants in power;

Support has been denied to uprisings in Iran where the result would be guaranteed to put less theology-based rule in effect;

The U.N. Has received both financial and vocal support for plans to place control of small arms under treaty-based International Control under the aegis of the U.N., thus abrogating the United States Constitutional protections of such ownership within the United States;

Support continues to be expressed for Agenda 21, which would decimate the rights of personal property ownership, and remove state and local control of land and natural resources;

And the one democratic country in the Middle East, Israel, has found that the official administration support for its safety and well-bing is illusory at best, and non-existent at worst.

Some of you might argue to the contrary, quoting the statement of Mr. Obama while still a U.S. Senator in 2008, to AIPAC on June 6^th, “That is the change we need in our foreign policy.  Change that restores American power and influence.  Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security."

Sounds great, right"  No doubt what he said or the plain meaning of his words...

However, might I suggest we look at his, and his administration's, words and actions since then to see if those wonderfully clear words translated into consistent action?  Or did they prove an easily voiced dis-ingenuousness on the part of Mr. Obama during an election season?

Consider the following:

!. Without any "heads up" to Israeli leaders, he calls for Israel to unilaterally return to 1967 borders as a precondition to starting negotiations with the self-proclaimed "Palestinians";

2. Mr. Obama makes a speech in Cairo in 2009 in which he equates Israeli and "Palestinian rights;

3. The President then compounds the insult by failing to include a visit to Israel and it's leaders as a continuation of that same trip;

4. Mr. Obama reveals his true feelings about Israeli leadership in a conversation with French President Sarkozy when he respond to a complaint from Mr. Sarkozy with the infamous reply, "You're Fed up, but I have to deal with him every day" as reported on November 8th, by CBS News (and how painful must that have been for them!);

5.  And in December, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was quoted as telling the Israelis, regarding peace talks, "Just get to the damned table."

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered merely a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship with Israel.  The administration has claimed just that, and the media has accepted them as such, looking at each of these occurrences in isolation and as a minor glitch.  But...when looked at as a whole they show not only a constant degradation of the importance placed by this Administration on the American/Israeli connection but rather a disregard that is diametrically opposite of Mr. Obama's words back in 2008.

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship.  But when taken together they reveal a pattern of both disregard and greatly reduced (and, perhaps, even the absence of) concern for the well-being of Israel;  there is, instead, evidence of a greater concern with ameliorating and placating those who oppose the well-being and welfare of the United States in the world, encouraging Islamic-themed theocracies in the Middle East, and reducing the stature and power of the The United States of America throughout the world even as he personally acts in a manner designed to further his own self-aggrandizement.

So, while all of the elements noted above can and have been written off as relatively insignificant and/or meaningless indicators of diplomatic direction if viewed individually, when viewed as a whole they reveal a disquieting pattern...one that surprisingly has failed to garner the attention of either the public or the media.  The United States is likely to pay dearly for this lack of interest.