Riley™

In the past ten days or so, President Obama sucked up a lot of airtime droning on about constitutional rights and the mosque near Ground Zero. But, his lectures amount to a zero because whether constitutional rights apply depends, not on Obama’s view, but on judicial review. He knows as well as anyone in America that freedom of religion, like other constitutional rights, is not absolute. If competing interests are strong enough, they can prevail.

So why is he making premature constitutional pronouncements? Evidently, trying to bluster an end to the debate about the mosque in a show of support for the Muslim community. What he should have done was encourage a frank discussion of the bottom line issues between the opposing sides. But, he punted and a whirlwind of political damage has been cutting a wide swath ever since.

One of Obama’s big agenda items is improving relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World. From his inaugural address, to his speech in Cairo, to his political appointments and beyond, he’s been a prodigious promoter of Islam. And, that’s not necessarily bad. Other things being equal, getting along is obviously a lot better than not. But, Obama’s single-minded purpose blinds him to virtually everything else, causing him to miss the mark too often. In this case, pulling a false trigger to force people to cozy up was bound to blow up instead. Right now, we’re suffering the fallout that political leadership may have prevented.

According to Daisy Khan, one of the two main initiators of the Islam Center project, its purpose is to celebrate diversity and detente. Since 2005, she’s spoken of it as a place of community fellowship for Muslims, and, as importantly, an overture to American-Muslim harmony. Through interfaith programs and other outreach efforts, she believed the Center would help repair the breach created by the 911 attacks. Driving a constitutional stake in the ground was not one of her talking points.

It’s not surprising. Two Mosques have existed in lower Manhattan for decades, located four and twelve blocks, respectively, from Ground Zero. Non-muslims do not protest the presence of these houses of worship. True, they are low-key, but the Islam Center won’t look like a mosque either. A thirteen-story glass and chrome structure, it will house a large auditorium, theater, performing arts center, sports center, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, 911 memorial and the mosque.

How did a brawl of disagreement breakout over this idyllic purpose? In an article published before Obama opened his mouth, the New York Times listed several bridge-building missteps taken by the Center’s backers. They boil down to one thing: a failure to recognize the possibility that the Center could be viewed as a monument to the ideology that felled the twin towers.

There are several major dividing points that the article failed to discuss. Although now called Park51, the original name for the Center was Cordoba House. The effort to build it is called the Cordoba Initiative. For Muslims, Cordoba refers to Cordoba, Spain, the Muslim capital during centuries of political and military domination over that part of Western Europe. Then there’s the backers’ refusal to rule out terrorist sources of funding for the Center. Chief among them is the Iranian government, which, according to our State Department, is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.

Lastly, Daisy’s husband and the Center’s co-founder, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has an unfortunate habit of making very explosive, anti-American allegations. Take his September 2001 60 minutes interview and his 2005 Australian interview. He accused the U.S. of being an accessory to the 911 crimes, directly responsible for bin Laden and worse than Al Qaeda. Now days, Feisal says his 60 Minutes statements were “edited out of context”. But, for the past nine years, he’s gotten a lot of favorable mileage out of them in the Muslim World.

How this will ultimately play out is anyone’s guess. Following Obama’s initial religious freedom speech, the mosque builders dug in their heels and refuse to budge. Talk of rapprochement has been replaced by a mute determination to claim constitutional rights that were never the issue. Obama botched an opportunity to engage both sides in a dialog that may have resulted in an amicable resolution. Instead, he poured gasoline on a smoldering flame, exploding it into a white-hot election year issue. Where is the cool head of effective leadership?

See you in the mirror.

We’re hearing it more and more now days. Entitlements threaten our national survival. They’re like a gargantuan poisonous spider trapping taxpayers, the economy, even our social fabric, in a web of taxes, spending and debt. The web seems unbreakable because it’s spun from threads of insatiable political greed so strong they threaten to destroy over 230 years of national prosperity. And we kind of ho-hum our way through it all because the debt, at least, is old news.

In fact, we’ve known it for years. Way before the Obamacare cost burden. Entitlements are sinking us. But, we’re also told that reducing them is politically impossible. We can’t afford them but we can’t escape them, either. So taxes have to get higher, a lot higher, at least for the rich. Trouble is, you can tax them only so much before they go extinct, and then where will we be? Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said we’ll always have the poor with us. He could see 21^st Century U.S.A. when everyone became poor trying, in vain, to finance increasing entitlements.

About that “we can’t escape them” thing. According to “experts”, reducing entitlements is just too politically dicey. No U.S. politician wants to be like his Greek counterpart. There, mere legislative debate of entitlement reductions led to riots in the streets, fire bombings and civilian deaths. Of course, we’re no where near any of that now. But, there are signs of increasing rancor and division within our Country. Much of it is spurred by politicians pushing class and race disunity and general prejudice within their power bases. The resulting political climate is a significant impediment to fiscal responsibility. It’s also one of the great disservices of our elected representatives. So, except for one guy, our Congress people run for cover if the entitlement paring knife even starts to come out of its sheath.

But, they don’t have to worry much about the knife right now. Barack Obama, former community organizer, has a supremely well-developed sense of entitlement himself and that’s not about to change. Put in the White House mostly on a promise of hope-filled bipartisanship, he has become the Great Divider of class, race and cooperation. The community organizer gig was, according to his wife, the defining moment of Obama’s life. It, and a stint as an Illinois state senator, instilled an abiding purpose: permanent social change forced through the politics of social division.

As President, Obama’s biggest weapons of social change are comprehensive reforms and the tax code. With them, he forces wealth redistribution from those who earn it to those who support his social agenda. Business has been under heavy fire from the start. Today, its being attacked for ‘hording’ cash that, as Obama sees it, could jump start the economy. So, he wants to take it from companies through higher taxes and let the government spend it for them. Never mind that the economy is so weak, and the latest government regulations so stringent, businesses can barely inch forward. After all, Government knows best. Except for the other fact that all Government spending has gotten us is a very temporary, and expired, uplift. And a ton more debt.

Through it all, Obama never even eludes to a sense of individual responsibility. You know, self-reliance. Work hard and achieve. Live within your means. He acts as if John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you”, was about raising taxes. Speaking of which, rich folks are in Obama’s crosshairs, of course, because they have money. Regardless of how they achieved “wealth”. Regardless of the choices they made that precluded some of life’s finer benefits. Regardless of how hard or long they worked or what they denied themselves in the process. They must be taxed because, to paraphrase the bank robber Willie Sutton, that’s where the money is. And Obama needs money. Trillions and trillions of dollars to permanently shift the economic balance in the U.S.

So the rewards don’t go to those who earn them. In Obama’s normal, those folks are on the wrong side of the new social divide. And will be as long as he has the Congressional majorities to sustain one. Or until the spider finishes its destructive work. At least something works.

See you in the mirror.

Our illegal immigration gravy train runs mainly on the railroad built by the politics, and economies, of two countries, the U.S. and Mexico. You can’t blame people for jumping on board as quickly, and as often, as they can. I mean, look at the stops along the way. Better jobs, better pay, better living conditions, free education, free healthcare and a bunch of other free welfare stuff. The conductor doesn’t even have to yell, “all aboard”. The passengers are already there. Because it’s like Disneyland, only they don’t pay for the ride. Somebody else does.

If life were like a free Disneyland, it would be magical indeed. There’d be all kinds of gravy trains, running every which way, taking people wherever they want to go. But, we don’t live in a fairy tale Magic Kingdom that can support everyone who wants to live here. We’re in a Country with national debt careening out of control like a runaway freight train. With the highest level of persistent unemployment since the Great Depression. With an economy so slow in recovering that, right now, it’s stalled on the ragged edge of double-dip.

Part of the not so magical picture is the $100 billion annual net cost of illegal immigrants to our taxpayers. And it’s not going to change because the illegals are unskilled labor. They’ve been likened to 10 million high school dropouts. That may have a harsh ring to it, but it’s also the truth. Here’s another truth: immigration should be about what’s good for the Country, not what’s good for the people who want to immigrate. What’s good for reducing our skyrocketing debt problem is shutting down the illegal immigration launch pad.

But, how about just one more wave of amnesty? How about, no way. Amnesty begets amnesty. Grant it now and there will be a next time. Guaranteed. Just look at recent U.S. history. Amnesty to millions in 1986, a worse problem today. Why? Two reasons. First, amnesty removes the pressure that motivates politicians to act. Once the special interests are satisfied, the best interests of the Country, its citizens and economy are forgotten. You don’t think so? You don’t have to look as far back as 1986 for an example. Look at the past 18 months. Congress has turned itself into a slaughterhouse creating all the special interest pork in our new ‘reform’ laws. And the majority of taxpayers? Gone begging.

Plus, you can’t reward illegal behavior and expect the behavior to end. The 1986 amnesty inspired four times the number of illegals to immigrate to our Country. It continues to entice people to act illegally in the belief that the next amnesty wave is just around the corner. To permanently derail the gravy train, it has to stop.

This means deporting people who are here illegally. To the claims of “social injustice”, I say let’s talk about reality rather than firing off emotionally charged words designed to disengage the brain. People here illegally know their status. When they entered our Country, they consciously took the risk that they would be caught and deported. They made the decision to become line cutters, crowding ahead of people waiting to immigrate legally. Now, they go to the back of the line to fill out their papers and take their turn like everyone else.

If you want to be upset about something or someone over a deportation solution, try aiming your guns at the Mexican Government. If that bunch did not keep most of its people in abject poverty, they wouldn’t opt for illegal entry into the U.S. If they had jobs and decent living conditions, they’d be happy at home. After all, do you see U.S. citizens streaming illegally into Canada for work? If you really want to help illegal immigrants, join Amnesty International, and similar organizations, and fight the problem at its roots.

If we want to do something else in the best interests of the Country, we could enact a righteous guest worker program. One that is not a pathway to citizenship but is a way for people temporarily in our Country to work “above ground”. No families, just workers. Employers pay taxes and fees for them similar to those paid for citizen employees. An economic win-win-win for the workers, the employers and the Country. Now, that’s a change we can believe in.

See you in the mirror.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law an immigration amnesty bill called the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It had three key provisions: amnesty for people, predominantly from Mexico, who were living in this Country illegally; securing our borders with Mexico; and cracking down on businesses that employ illegal aliens. At the time, there were less than 3 million illegals living in the U.S.A. Of the three major provisions of the 1986 Act, only amnesty happened.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed into law an immigration enforcement bill known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. It sought to prevent and combat the entry of illegals into the Country and the availability of fraudulent immigration documents. It permits state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law. The agencies must be trained and supervised by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

How has the enforcement of the 1986 and 1996 Acts worked out? Three states have declared themselves “sanctuary states”, meaning they refuse to obey federal immigration law and openly harbor illegals within their borders. There are over 100 cities in 24 other states that are also “sanctuaries” for illegals. Tough business sanctions are scarcer than hen’s teeth. There are almost 4 times the numbers of illegals in the Country now than there were in 1986, the vast majority from Mexico. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the U.S., thanks to the unfettered presence of the Mexican drug cartels.

Obama’s place in this sorry landscape? For starters, the upcoming DHS budget reduces money for border security. Yet, with less than one American agent per mile along the border today, there is already a shortage of protection. If you played dare base or steal the flag as a kid, you’d want to be on the Mexico team. With these kinds of odds, you can’t lose. You’d be across that border and in a nearby sanctuary in a hot flash. Olly, olly oxen free. What a great game for kids.

But, who are the game masters really trying to kid? Against the collapse of immigration enforcement, Obama is demanding another amnesty law while suing a state that’s been thrown to the border wolves. What’s the fuss really about? Arizona has embarrassed Obama by focusing the public spotlight on his formerly low-key immigration agenda, which is to punt on enforcement against workers.

His new “silent raid” policy allows ICE-verified illegals to walk away. And, while he cuts border security funding, he rewards sanctuary hangouts by turning a blind eye. Arizona’s law has forced him on the offensive to win back eroding support of Hispanic voters who want more. So, Arizona is now facing big federal guns for its sins of mimicking existing federal law and of preempting Obama. Of course, according to the latest opinion polls, Obama is suffering for his own sins.

If that were the end of it, it would be shabby enough, but it’s not. The most shameful episode in recent congressional history was the standing ovation given by many of our politicians to Mexico’s President as he castigated Arizona. In fact, Mexico is so high on Amnesty International’s list of human rights violators that you need a ladder to reach it. And the U.S. should sue Mexico for failing to stop its murderous drug cartels from storming our Country.

Instead, Mexico has joined one of the lawsuits against Arizona. So, arrayed in opposition to the State is Mexico, with its human rights violations and invading cartels, and the President of the United States. How did it get this wrong?

If Obama and Congress have any stomach for more reform this year, they should reform themselves. Live up to the commitments in the legislation already on the books. Truly secure the border. Truly penalize businesses that employ illegals. Politicians have to stop asking us to believe that they’ll do this time what they didn’t do the first two times. We can be gullible for only so long.

See you in the mirror.

The G20 Summit ended on Sunday with a basic disagreement on how to restore global financial health. Or, in other words, how in the world to get us out of the worldwide recession. Do countries spend their way out or cut their way out? The cutting idea comes into play because nations are deep in debt as well as deep in recession. Among the big countries, the U.S. is alone in preferring to spend our way out of the recession. The others favor severely cutting back on debt.

We can’t have it both ways and I guess the spending-to-economic-health deal would be a good one if it actually worked. And maybe it does. In theory. But, in practice, or at least as Obama practices it, all we’ve gotten is deeper in debt with no sign of letting up. In fact, under his proposed budgets, Obama will double the Bush deficits in the same time period. At that rate, we’ll be toast by 2020.

But, 2020 is not the point of this discussion. It’s the fact that spending, Obama’s big recession killer, isn’t getting the job done. Even proponents of the Stimulus admit that the recovery has been “shallow”. I’ll say. Take a look at the series of reports on this year’s first quarter economic “growth”, for example. The first reports were modest but encouraging. The second set revised the results downward to pretty much flat. The third, and latest, reports, lower the results even further. All the way down to “disappointing” and “unexpected”, words we hear a lot now days.

So, we’re getting all the Summer of Recovery hype. But not much about why the first 18 months of recovery haven’t ignited the booster rockets. Here are a couple of ideas. First off, the government can’t figure out how to spend money in a way that makes sense. This whole spending failure part of it is Sidney’s latest blog. So, let’s skip to the second idea. The crush of all those micromanaging reforms, which, translated, mean higher taxes and increased regulation to the point of stifling economic recovery.

Look at just two sectors invaded by the micromanagers, healthcare and industry. Obamacare’s cost to taxpayers and its negative impact on healthcare processes will be devastating, if the essentially identical Massachusetts law is any example.

And industry? The Business Roundtable, consisting of the leaders of some of the largest companies in the country, advises Obama and his aides on economic recovery. Last week, members protested the “increasingly hostile” industry environment Obama’s decisions have created, particularly regarding growth and job creation. In support of the protest, the Roundtable itemized hundreds of separate White House actions and decisions that stifle productivity and job growth. The protest has fallen on deaf ears.

Why do so many politicians ignore the persistent failure of large-scale government programs? You’d think the recent Social Security, Medicare and Fannie and Freddie face-plants would be enough to discourage further federal forays into overreaching control. But, those lessons are either lost or ignored.

Which brings us back to the G20 Summit. While spending may end recession and reducing it may ease debt, spending that merely deepens debt is a fool’s choice.

See you in the mirror.

Today, there’s a lot of back and forth about the validity of Israel leading the investigation into the Gaza Flotilla deaths. You know, whether it can fairly judge the legality of its own blockade or the actions of its Navy SEALS. To those against the idea, it boils down to whether the accused can also be the prosecutor, judge and jury. But, is that really all there is to the question of whether a country, or any political component, can judge itself?

If history is any judge, there’s quite a bit more to the question. First off, it’s not fair to characterize Israel as the “accused” anymore than to label those killed as “terrorists”. The whole point of an investigation is to determine what happened, not pre-assign roles. So, the Turkish Foreign Minister’s characterization of Israel as the “defendant” is wrong. Turkey may be excused its bias since most of those killed were Turkish citizens. But, that bias, and the political pressure that comes with it, spells big trouble for a just international inquiry.

More on that later. Let’s turn to history. Just yesterday, the British released the report of an investigation into the deaths of 13 people killed by British paratroopers in Northern Ireland in 1972. That’s right. 38 years ago. Known as Bloody Sunday, those killed in the incident were unarmed civilians, mostly teen-agers in fact. They died when the paratroopers opened fire on a crowd at a civil rights demonstration. The report, produced by an internal commission, found the actions of the Army wrong and “shocking” and vindicated the dead as innocent victims. The report is being criticized in Britain for taking too long to produce and, at $280 million, costing too much. Even so, the commission’s findings put its own Government squarely in the crosshairs.

How about a little history closer to home? Each branch of the U.S. Government judges itself all the time. In fact, our Constitution mandates that the Senate investigate charges of unethical member behavior internally. Ditto for the House. Why? Back in the day when the Constitution was written, our leaders wanted to safeguard each branch from the overreaching of other branches.

In keeping with that view, Inspectors General were created in the 1970s to investigate questionable activities within their own Executive Departments. Then there’s the Special Counsel, which replaced the Independent Counsel in 1999, and Special Prosecutors, all connected to the Justice Department, and so on. There’s a very good NPR radio broadcast from six years ago, detailing all this and more. Take a listen for yourself.

The Obama Administration currently supports Israel’s internal investigation, which, everything considered, is the way to go. The notion of an international commission of inquiry does not send out any fairness warm and fuzzies. There are too many international politics involved, with too many personal agendas running around out there. Exactly the type of thing our forefathers cautioned against in our own internal political structure. Let’s at least give Israel the same consideration on the international stage. If they fail the fairness test, we can always do over.

See you in the mirror.