Politically Incorrectile Dysfunction Newsreel


Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Robotic History Is Made

Meet Pepper. It is a highly developed robot which will be the first ever television host and emcee of a TV Tokyo daily children’s series titled “Oha-sta.” Pepper also is making history by being the very first robot capable of reading human emotions and responding appropriately.

What may be the most surprising thing about Pepper is that although it will be featured as the main star of its own television show in Japan, a country most recognized as a giant in the robotics industry, Pepper is not a product of Japanese technology. It was developed by Aldebaran Robotics, a country based in France. But, relax it is still a product of the robotics geniuses from Japan since Aldebaran Robotics is a subsidiary of Japan’s own SoftBank, Inc.

On “Oha-sta” Pepper will not only host the show but also will provide entertainment by means of dancing, singing, emceeing games and other performance surprises. Currently Pepper is busy doing commercials for SoftBank and making personal live appearances hawking its new TV show.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

"iZombie" - A Review

Before 1968 zombies were generally portrayed in films as people under the influence of dark forces from some voodoo cult, walking around in the mode of the Thorazine Shuffle and not in search of brains. However, George Romero forever changed how zombies would be perceived and portrayed after his landmark film “Night of the Living Dead.” From that moment on zombies became bloodthirsty driven killers in search of human brains for daily consumption and could only be killed by decapitation or a bullet straight through the frontal lobe.

There have been many copies of Romero’s groundbreaking work, most not very well done except for a few like the “Resident Evil” franchise, and particularly the AMC Channel’s revolutionary “The Walking Dead” which made zombies a financial goldmine for anyone willing to do it right. Even mega stars like Brad Pitt have gotten on board with his “World War Z” feature film.

The CW Network, noted for successfully bringing vampires back in vogue with its two highly rated shows “The Vampire Diaries” and “The Originals” has now dipped its toe into the world of zombies with the new series “iZombie.”

The pilot episode, directed by Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars) centers around a young medical student named Liv Moore (Rose McIver) with aspirations of one day becoming a heart surgeon. She is engaged to a real hunk, comes from a prominent family and seems to have the world on a string until the evening she decides to attend an old friend’s boat party. Suddenly attendees start getting sick after partaking in a drug and are turned into brain eating zombies. Liv makes a beeline for the ramp but is accosted by one of the newly turned zombies played by David Anders (Once Upon A Time, The Vampire Diaries). Though not bitten she receives deep scratches to her arm and the zombie infection is passed on to her. Awakening in a body bag on shore her life is forever changed from her old Type-A personality to an “I don't care" fatalistic pasty lass with little to no ambition. She literally becomes a real slob which is so not her.

With her dreams of becoming a brilliant heart surgeon dashed she does what any intelligent zombie would do ... become a medical examiner with an endless supply of brain matter at her disposal with a touch of the connoisseur.

So far “iZombie” is sounding pretty much like typical zombie fare, but, this show has a unique twist. Liv begins having visions of the lives of the people whose brains she has devoured. When Detective Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) appears in the morgue to get a report on his latest homicide victim her visions become instrumental in helping him begin piecing together the case.

Liv’s ME partner is Dr. Ravi Chakrabarti wonderfully portrayed by Rahul Kohli who is a Indian Alan Rickman. Ravi knows Liv is a zombie and while he begins studying her and trying to find a cure he also encourages her to use her unique gift to help with homicide cases.

I think this show is capable of catching on with audiences if the pilot episode is a prelude of what is to follow. Rose McIver is witty, smart, funny and a brilliant actress who seems to have been made for the part. The chemistry between her, Kohli and Goodwin works immediately which is a must for any show to have legs. If the writing and direction can keep up with the talent in front of the camera then The CW can rack up another hit show to add to their growing list which also include “Arrow,” “The Flash,” and the aforementioned two vampire successes.

I will keep watching this series to see if it can keep up the pace.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Practical Thoughts on Immigration

The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy. Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., he will do so himself. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is.

Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the “problem” that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up—arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.

On February 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.

Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional question. He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just as scathing.

The administration will likely fight the ruling through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. Democrats should hope that the administration loses. They are assiduously pretending that Obama’s executive amnesty is merely an innocuous exercise of prosecutorial discretion. But if Obama’s power grab is upheld, they will rue the day that they acceded to this travesty when a Republican president decides, say, to privatize Social Security because Congress has failed to do so.

Obama’s executive amnesty is the most public and egregious example of immigration lawlessness to date. But beneath the radar screen has been an equally telling saga of cascading lawlessness that is arguably as consequential: an ongoing attack on the Secure Communities program and on deportation more generally. Because of this attack, the rallying cry of so many conservatives that we must “secure the borders” is a naïve and meaningless delusion.


The Secure Communities program is a commonsensical response to illegal alien criminality. Whenever an illegal alien is booked into a local jail on suspicion of a crime, an alert is automatically sent to federal authorities in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. ICE agents can then ask that the jail or prison briefly hold the illegal alien after he has served his time rather than releasing him, so that ICE can pick him up and start deportation proceedings. This is known as a detainer.

You would think that such a program would be wholly uncontroversial. An alien who crosses into our country illegally already has no claim to undisturbed presence here. He has voluntarily assumed the risk of deportation. But an illegal alien who goes on to break other laws has even less claim to protection from deportation. Yet Secure Communities has been the target of incessant protest from illegal alien advocates since its inception. Those advocates make the astonishing claim that it is unfair to remove an illegal alien who commits other crimes.

Even more astonishing, nearly 300 jurisdictions agree, including New York State, California, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They have openly refused to honor ICE’s requests for detainers, but instead have released tens of thousands of criminals back on to the streets where they easily evade detection. Not that ICE would be likely to try to pick them up! Indeed, the irony regarding the agitation against Secure Communities is that ICE rarely uses its power under the program. In 2012—the last year for which we have complete figures—the agency was notified of over 400,000 illegal jail detainees, but removed only 19 percent of them. And about 50 percent of the criminal illegal aliens whom ICE chooses not to deport reoffend upon release.


There are two aspects of the campaign against Secure Communities that bear particular notice: the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the campaign’s advocates, and the hypocrisy of big city police chiefs.

In 2012, Arizona became the target of universal contempt among the country’s elites for passing a law that encouraged local law enforcement officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement. According to illegal alien advocates and the Obama administration, this law, known as SB 1070, was an unconstitutional state usurpation of the federal government’s plenary power over immigration matters. The Obama administration sued Arizona for allegedly interfering with federal authority over immigration and won an injunction against SB 1070. Yet now these same advocates are urging states and localities to defy the federal government’s requests for immigration assistance, resulting in the creation of local sanctuary zones where federal immigration authority cannot reach.

If ever there were a lawless usurpation of the federal government’s power over immigration, the open revolt against Secure Communities is it. Yet the Obama administration, rather than hauling these recalcitrant jurisdictions to court, has lain supine and chastely looked the other way. And late last year, it threw in the towel completely. It dismantled the Secure Communities program except in a few narrow instances, agreeing with the activists that it was unfair to worry illegal alien criminals about deportation.

There is another aspect of the campaign against Secure Communities that shows the corrosiveness of our tolerance of lawlessness. Major police chiefs in high immigration jurisdictions are under enormous political pressure to protect illegal aliens. And that has meant tossing aside everything that they know about public safety and policing. One of the great insights of policing in the last two decades was the realization that low level misdemeanor offenses like graffiti, turnstile jumping, drunk driving, and drug sales have an outsized impact on a community’s perceptions of public safety and on the actual reality of crime. Enforcing misdemeanor offenses is an effective way of incapacitating more serious criminals. And even when an offender does not go on to commit more violent felonies, such allegedly minor offenses as shoplifting and illegal street vending create a sense of lawlessness and disorder that breaks down the fabric of a community. Police chiefs like New York’s William Bratton and Los Angeles’s Charlie Beck know this. Yet they have fiercely opposed cooperating with the federal government on Secure Communities, on the ground that misdemeanor offenses are too trivial to worry about and should not subject illegal aliens to deportation. This is pure hypocrisy—the result of the enormous pressure of demographic change on our principles.

The ultimate goal of the campaign against Secure Communities is to delegitimate deportation entirely as a response to illegal immigration. If it is morally unacceptable to repatriate even a convicted illegal alien criminal, then it is all the more unacceptable to repatriate someone who has “merely” crossed the border illegally. This undermining of alien-removals is behind the constant protests demanding to “stop deportations now.” It is behind the claim that it is Americans who are to blame for separating families, rather than the alien who knowingly came into the country in violation of our laws and assumed the risk of being sent home.

The campaign against deportation does not name itself as such, but it has been highly successful. Despite the false rhetoric of the Obama administration, deportation has basically disappeared from the interior of the country. The removal rate in 2014 for illegal aliens who were not explicit ICE priorities was one-half of one percent. If aliens cannot be removed for illegal entry, then there is no more immigration law. Deportation is the only remedy for illegal entry that corrects and deters the original lawbreaking. That is why Mexico, along with virtually every other country, practices it unapologetically. Lose deportation, as we are doing, and the U.S. will have formally ceded control of its immigration policy to people living outside its borders. National sovereignty will have become meaningless.

The delegitimizing of deportation makes the conservative rallying cry to secure the borders sadly naïve. An utterly secure border is impossible; people will always find a way to cross. But if, once they cross, nothing can be done to them, then we may as well not have borders. That’s why the advocates have spent all their energy fighting deportation rather than fighting increased border security—because they know that eradicating the former is far more important.


The erosion of the rule of law is bad enough. But the social consequences of mass illegal immigration are equally troubling. We are importing poverty and educational failure. If you want to see America’s future, look no further than my home state of California, which is a generation ahead of the rest of the country in experiencing the effects of unchecked low-skilled immigration.

Nearly 50 percent of all California births are now Hispanic, and the state’s Hispanic population is now almost equal to the white population. The consequences of this demographic shift have been profound. In the 1950s and ’60s, California led in educational achievement. Today, with a majority Hispanic K-12 population and the largest concentration of English language learners in the country, California is at the bottom of the educational heap. Over a third of California eighth graders lack even the most rudimentary math skills; 28 percent are equally deficient in reading. The mathematics performance gap between Hispanic and white eighth-graders has not budged since 1990; the reading gap has narrowed only slightly since 1998.

California is at the epicenter of the disturbing phenomenon of “long-term English learners.” You would think that an English learner would be someone who grew up in a foreign country speaking a foreign language, and who came to the U.S. only later in life. In fact, the vast majority of English learners are born here, but their cognitive and language skills are so low that they are deemed non-native English speakers. Nationally, 30 percent of all English learner students are third-generation Americans.

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown pushed through a controversial law to try to close the achievement gap between California’s growing Hispanic population and its Anglo and Asian populations. That law redistributes tax dollars from successful schools to those with high proportions of English learners and low-income students. It remains to be seen whether this latest effort to raise the education outcomes of the children of low-skilled immigrants will prove more effective than its predecessors. Working against that possibility is Hispanics’ high dropout rate—the highest in the state and the nation—and their equally unmatched teen pregnancy rate.

To be sure, many illegal Hispanic aliens possess an admirable work ethic and have stabilized some moribund inner-city areas like South Central Los Angeles. But thanks to their lack of social capital, many of their children and grandchildren are getting sucked into underclass culture. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in California and the U.S. is 53 percent—twice what it was in the black population in 1965 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his prescient warning about the catastrophe of black family breakdown. The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans in California shoots up eight-fold between the first and second generations, to equal the black incarceration rate. Gang involvement is endemic in barrio schools, giving rise to a vast taxpayer-supported army of anti-gang counselors serving the children of single mothers.

This social service bureaucracy in barrio schools is just the tip of the iceberg. Welfare use among immigrants and their progeny is stubbornly high, because their poverty rates are stubbornly high. Hispanics are the biggest users of government health care and the biggest supporters of Obamacare. They favor big government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it. The claim that low-skilled immigration is an economic boon to the country as a whole is false. It fails to take into account the government services consumed by low-skilled immigrants and their children, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons.


So what should be done? First of all, we must reassert the primacy of the rule of law. At the very least, that means rehabilitating deportation and ceasing to normalize illegal immigration with our huge array of sanctuary policies. Liberals appear indifferent to the erosion of law, and even too many conservatives are willing to excuse immigration law-breaking in order to placate what they imagine to be a conservative voting bloc in waiting. But let us hope the rule of law is not lost.

I would not at present offer an amnesty to those who have voluntarily chosen to violate the law, since every amnesty, both in the U.S. and Europe, has had one effect and one effect only: more illegal immigration. People who come into the country illegally or overstay their visas do so knowingly. They assume the risk of illegal status; it is not our moral responsibility to wipe it away. Their children, if they are born here, are already American citizens, thanks to the misguided policy of birthright citizenship. The illegal status of their parents is a problem that will eventually fade away as that first generation dies out. The Obama amnesty, however, actually incentivizes the use of birthright citizenship, since it rewards with legal status illegal aliens who have American citizen children.

I would also radically reorient our legal immigration system towards high skilled immigrants like the parents of Google’s founder, Sergey Brin. Canada, Australia, and other countries are already benefiting from placing a priority on skilled immigrants.

Immigration policy should be forged with one consideration in mind: America’s economic self-interest. Immigration is not a service we provide to the rest of the world. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be one. No other country welcomes as many newcomers. But rewarding illegal immigration does an injustice to the many legal immigrants who played by the rules to get here. We owe it to them and to ourselves to adhere to the law.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

About the Author:

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She received her B.A. from Yale University, and earned an M.A. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School

She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including — with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga — The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Budget Balance

In the midst of America’s many challenges—deep political divides, halting economic progress, ongoing conflict in the Middle East—our government is gearing up for the critical but difficult work of the budgetary cycle. I share the concerns of many people who worry about spending and growing debt, not to mention the frustration at our inability to reach a consensus on budgetary sanity.

Partisan sniping and competing claims in the news complicate the impression of the process. Although budgeting rarely follows an orderly procedure, the prescribed order is fairly easy to understand. The House and Senate propose, work on, and agree to a budget number. The President also submits a budget, which does not necessarily have bearing on the Congressional version. With an overall number, the Appropriations Committee sets discretionary funding levels for federal agencies and programs ranging from the Department of Defense to National Parks, from the Peace Corps to Veterans Affairs. Other programs in Washington are called mandatory and include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs, along with interest on the debt, account for more than two-thirds of the overall budget.

Repairing our national budget is one of my highest priorities in Congress. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have frontline responsibilities for delivering smart and effective government while moving us toward fiscal stability. Under the normal process, the discretionary budget is divided into 12 separate Appropriations bills. After these bills pass the Committee, they are considered before the entire House. This ensures more transparency over the vast enterprise of government.

I serve on three subcommittees with specialized roles. State and Foreign Operations has jurisdiction over the State Department, certain treasury procedures, and aspects of military financing. Military Construction and Veterans Affairs oversees our military infrastructure, including our nuclear architecture, and important veterans programs. Energy and Water Development helps govern a broad spectrum of energy programs, nuclear weapons security, and vast infrastructure projects across the country.

The critical annual task of budgeting is underway. Fortunately, through aggressive work and negotiation, we have brought the discretionary budget below 2010 levels. However, the government still spends more than it receives. This year's projected spending is $3.677 billion. Our country currently has a budget deficit of about $500 billion and a debt of $18 trillion, which has grown by $7 trillion in the last 6 years, harming economic recovery and national security. Although the deficit has fallen significantly due to spending reductions, tax code changes, and some economic growth, our debt continues to have consequences. It unfairly pushes the tax burden onto the next generation; it effectively shifts the assets of America to other countries, like China, which buy the debt; and it causes economic distortions that hurt the poor and those on fixed income the most. If we were to pay the debt off all at once, every American would owe more than $56,000.

Confronting such significant numbers, Congress should have a new urgency as it reengages the slow, hard, messy process of keeping the government running. Disruptions to the normal budgeting process are counterproductive and result in year-end legislative packages called omnibus bills. While last minute omnibus packages are not the best way to govern, they often do reflect many of the changes made throughout the year by the Appropriations Committee.

To help facilitate better understanding, I have created several charts that try to communicate this vast and complex topic in a digestible manner. They are visible on my website, which you can visit at fortenberry.house.gov, or you can download them here. I hope they help illustrate our current spending, our current programs—and where the math doesn't add up.

About the Author:

JEFF FORTENBERRY has served as the U.S. Representative for Nebraska's 1st congressional district since 2005. He is the Chairperson for the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry. Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights and has a seat on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. He is a member of the following Caucus groups: Civil War Battlefield Caucus - Congressional Biofuels Caucus - Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus - House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus - International Conservation Caucus - Sportsmen's Caucus.

Congressman Fortenberry has become the most knowledgeable representative on Capitol Hill for nuclear security issues.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Netanyahu's American Speech Should Open Eyes and Shut Mouths

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday to the American Congress did reveal one very important thing about politics in the United States - it showed that politicians are willing to politicize just about anything and everything.

The Prime Minister of Israel gave a rousing, insightful and clear headed speech about why the current round of U.S. negotiations with Iran over their nuclear ambitions is not only a bad idea being led by a very bad plan but it is one in which the only nation on the planet that will benefit from it will be Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu convincingly spelled out what should be so apparent to not only the members of the House and Senate but also President Obama, the State Department and his team of negotiators ... Iran has a long and consistent track record of breaking the rules and ignoring any agreements when it comes to their nuclear ambition.

What I found equally interesting was how certain members from the Senate and House who are members of the Democratic party were so deliberate in their attempt at shooting down the Israeli leader. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who was among the packed room who gleefully applauded Mr. Netanyahu and then turned her back on him, refusing to even make eye contact once his speech was over. Her hatred for the illumination that came from his speech was so deep that she told anyone willing to listen that she felt the speech was “insulting to the intelligence of the United States.” I’m not quite sure what she meant by that, but then when it comes to Ms. Pelosi it’s never quite clear what she means by anything that slithers out of her forked tongue. I assume she meant that Netanyahu thinks the intelligence he receives about Iran from Mossad is more reliable than what President Obama gets from the C.I.A. Well, I got news for Pelosi, Israeli intelligence is several heads taller than what comes out of Langley, particularly where the Middle East is involved.

The liberal press has been attacking Netanyahu since it was first announced several months ago that he was invited by the Speaker of the House John Boehner to speak to the joint session of Congress. Politico believes Netanyahu has some kind of agenda or big plan by coming to the U.S. to make his case directly to the people and their elected representatives. If that was his plan can anyone fault him for it? He certainly hasn’t been getting the kind of warm reception from Obama and most Democrats, at least not publicly. Mr. Netanyahu tried to quell the rumors of a growing rift between he and Mr. Obama reminding those in attendance that while it is important that a public appearance of solidarity is important it is what happens privately and in secret between the two leaders that binds Israel and the United States together as strong allies. This may be true but Obama and his team certainly have gone out of their way to make it look like the space between the two men is getting wider every day.

If one were to believe the headline from The Huffington Post right after the speech the reader would have been misled into thinking the day didn’t go well for the Prime Minister on Capitol Hill today. There blazing headline in 6-inch letters proclaimed “BUPKIS” with a picture of Netanyahu giving his speech just below it. Bupkis is a Yiddish word that means - nothing at all. Huffington would have us believe that the Prime Minister’s speech of 45-minutes in length, that was interrupted 43 times with thunderous applause and standing ovations was nothing more that hyperbole. That may carry weight with brainless liberals willing to let the likes of Arianna Huffington, Ali Watkins, Akbar Shahid Ahmed or Daniel Kurtzer do their thinking for them. They may really believe deep down in that damp, dark, cold place they call a soul that Netanyahu changed nothing by coming here and giving a speech that did call into question the wisdom of the U.S. policy to sit down with the thugs in Iran and basically give them everything they desire with no real accountability, and a plan that Iran will totally disregard anyway - remember, they have a long and dependable track record for doing just that.

It is true that the current talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and the leadership in Iran will likely go on unimpeded by the Prime Minister’s speech today. But what the folks on the left don’t realize is that Netanyahu has now come public and shed light into that darkness and has shown these negotiations for what they really are - a bad plan leading down a bad road that ends with a nuclear Iran. Mr. Obama and his trailed out band of mouthpieces will not be able to shower the American public with lies about the success of the plan. Oh, the plan will succeed in getting accomplished, make no mistake about that, but that same plan has been exposed for the lie it is and it took a statesman from another country to make it legible to the American public. That should have been the job of the U.S. President, but since he is either incapable of knowing a bad plan when he sees it or is culpable in its creation there will be no honest discourse coming from him or out of his White House.

I don’t believe Mr. Netanyahu came to the United States with any delusion that his speech would alter Mr. Obama’s current direction in negotiations with Iran. He is a lot smarter than that. He came not with a plan to be divisive but to shed light on a really bad course of action on the part of this administration’s approach to Iran. Since the American people are not going to hear the truth from the one person they should be getting it from, the Israeli Prime Minister took it upon himself to be that harbinger of light. To make clear his true intent he reminded those gathered in the Congressional chamber, those watching and those in the administration that Israel isn’t the only one threatened by the ambitions of a nuclear Iran and its sponsored terrorist activities, but the entire world, especially the United States, are now the targets for the fundamental jihadist running that country. He was also quick to iterate that Israel is an ancient land and “an ancient people." In its nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people ... and, “when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy!”

Israel is the greatest and closest ally that America has ever had and will ever have. The fate of these two countries are intricately bound to the hip with one another. But, Netanyahu, in one of the boldest and most revealing statements in his speech reminded the American President that “standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is” ... but, “history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.”

Mr. Netanyahu has given a call-to-arms for the U.S. and Israel to stand together and be strong against such an adversary. Not succumb to a bad deal just for the sake of having a deal. UN Ambassador Susan Rice was so terribly wrong when she told reporters “a bad deal is better than no deal at all.” Did you hear that pathos in her words? She speaks for an administration that is willing to place the fate of an entire world with words on a page that will be totally ignored by Iran knowing full well that the Ayatollah will take whatever advantage he can to usurp its progress at the same time he is signing it and shaking Mr. Kerry’s hand. Is this to be America’s Neville Chamberlain moment. Will this plan with Iran be the defining moment for the decline of American influence and steady hand in a world gone mad? It very well could be if the words spoken today by Mr. Netanyahu are not heeded by the American people and their leaders.

Israel and the United States remain strong allies. I have little doubt that once the Obama administration is a page in the history books come January 2017 that whomever sits in that Oval Office will do all they can to repair the breach so haphazardly created by this current U.S. President. However, until such time Mr. Netanyahu did have a reminder for America and its leaders. The Israeli people have learned the hard taught lesson of “Never Again!” Israel will never “sacrifice the future for the present; not ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.” Netanyahu, in humility reminds us that the Jews “are no longer scattered among the nations,” as they were for centuries. They are no longer “powerless to defend” themselves. They have restored their long awaited sovereignty in their 4000 year old ancient homeland. “For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.” “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand!”

Fortunately, at least for now, Israel still has a partner and will not need to stand alone. The support for Israel among the American people is stronger now than at any other time since it returned as a nation to the Land in 1948.

The Prime Minister’s final message to President Obama, America’s political leaders and to the citizens of the most powerful nation on Earth was quite remarkable. Closing with the final words of Moses to his people before they were to enter their promised land the great leader said - “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

We the People need to be strong, without fear and willing to make our voices heard by our elected officials in Washington D.C. and throughout the nation to not take a bad deal for the sake of a short term and valueless battlefield victory when it is the war that is at stake.