In a Broken Democratic System, Donald Trump, An American Billionaire Clown, Is Bidding for the Presidential Crown!!

Here is a buffoon with billions of dollars.  Running on his riches with 25% approval rating.  Talking like a thug, yet aiming at the U.S. presidency on a Republican ticket.  Calling his other 15 contenders all kinds of nasty names.  With none of them standing up to him.  Including Jeb Bush about whom he said: "He cannot negotiate himself out of a paper bag!!"

On Donald Trump's head, a cap reads: "Make America Great Again."  Now none of his crowded field of opponents can use this phrase in their campaigns.  He has copyrighted it.  How?!  It is difficult in the law of patents (intellectual property) to protect such a common phrase.  You cannot patent "Hello!!"  But he did.

Trump, a real estate developer, is riding the wave of discontent of the general public.  People are weary of Washington, D.C.; of sluggish economic recovery; of partisan feuding between the Democrats and the Republicans; of economic inequality; of illegal immigration; and of the rise of China whose economy is today's second only to America's.  The words "establishment politics," evoke mistrust and anger across party lines.  On the scale of political respect, local measures are at the top; federal measures are well below them.

Several years ago, I read Trump's book "The Art of the Deal."  There is nothing exciting about that book.  With this publication, Donald Trump makes it sound as if it were the yellow brick road to richness.  And in the age of super commitment to riches, Trump peddles his persona along the line: "I can make you rich too.  I know how to make deals."

So what deals is he promising America if ever he became president -a very doubtful proposition?

• He will vanquish ISIS!  How?!  He says: "I can't tell you;"
• He will stop Mexican and other illegal immigrants from coming to America!  How: By building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  Then insanely he adds: "I shall have Mexico pay for it;"
• As to China, Trump claims that he, if president, will force China to open up its markets to US products.  "They buy my condos!!"
• How about Russia?!  Trump will rebuild American military might that would scare off Putin from challenging the U.S.; no specifics;
• Thousands gather to hear him.  After insulting a woman anchor on Fox News, his popularity with women jumped in numbers.  His being foul-mouthed makes the public like him.  "He talks like any one of us," they say.  

"Make America Great Again" is repeated by that man who has never before run for any public office.  Through sneers, bombast, vulgar sound bites, Trump has shaken the system.  On both the Republican side (especially Jeb Bush), and the Democratic side (especially Hillary Clinton).  Diagnosing American  democracy, one spots cancer.  Money has subverted this great constitutional system, primarily through one fateful decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of "Citizens United," the Court, by 5 to 4, made a bad judgment.  Decided that spending money on electioneering is constitutionally valid.  Why?  A form of Free Speech!!  We know that "money talks."  But that is a saying applicable to transactions.  Not applicable to controlling the outcome of elections -the expression by the citizen of his or her choice as to who represent them in the enactment of legislation.

To American democracy, Citizens United is a cancer whose diagnosis is not hard to find.  That diagnosis is learnt from its impact whose best illustration is the Koch brothers.

• Charles and David Koch, the famous private billionaire brothers are, in the words of Time Magazine of August 17, 2015, "Power Brokers Recharging To Elect a Republican in 2016."  In a brilliant article by Philip Elliott, the brothers, through their unlimited funding of conservative candidates to Congress, "have retooled with more money, better strategy and a new plan for victory."
• How do they subvert the free will of the American people through their massive wealth?  One recent example: They convened for dinner a seaside summit for 450 like-minded conservative donors.  And Charles Koch welcomed his guests by triumphantly declaring: "we grew up with every advantage."
• Their institutional mechanisms include: The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce; Americans for Prosperity; Generation Opportunity; and Concerned Women for America.  Their philosophy is limited government; their biggest focus for the next two years is on four States (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia).  Without winning these States, no Republican nominee can win the White House.
• Transparency is not required of this conservative enclave which plans to spend $889 million before Election Day in 2016.  Obama is their political adversary.  While conservative Republican nominees like Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz are their favorites.  Said one of the loyal Koch donors, a lawyer by the name of Tim Busch: "These guys are using business principles to create political solutions."

So you can shout "one person one vote" all you want.  But the high dam of dollars lets through the sleuths (openings) selective publicity for or against candidates whose backgrounds may not be widely known.  TV ads are very expensive; massive mailings add to the cost, and the average citizen is caught in the web of hearsay that an enlighted decision on election day is quite difficult.  For this is an electorate as culturally diverse as the American pool of voters.  That is not democracy, but plutocracy -the rule of the wealthy.

Juxtaposing Trump with the Koch brothers yield the same undemocratic results.  For Trump prides himself on being his own funder to accomplish the defeat of the Democrats in 2016.  Thus trying to bring all three branches of government under the low stifling ceiling of conservatism.  Congress, the Executive, and a right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.  Mixing extreme language with rudeness, he, in a search for "Make America Great Again," yells:

• "I am rich;" and he brags about his prior donations to his very Republican opponents; for the purpose of embarrassing them into silence; 
• On the wings of his private Boeing 757 plane, and his $7 million Sikorsky helicopter, he swaggers like a prize fighter wading into adoring crowds;
• Trump vulgarly mocks the modesty of Jimmy Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.  He spreads his hands, curls sneeringly his lips as he says: "Carter had it wrong when he would walk off Air Force One carrying his own suit bag in a show of solidarity with regular folk...  They don't want that.  They want someone who's going to beat China, beat Japan;"
• With untethered megalomania, he looks upon dealing with the world as if he is selling condos.  In his words: "Trump gets things done.  I know how to get things done."  "Jeb Bush (one of his 15 opponents) shall be unable to get things done with China, with Mexico;"
• He claims that other world leaders are "more cunning" than American leaders.  Proof: "The U.S. cannot get its products in China."  And Trump blames American indebtedness to China in the amount of $1.4 trillion, on the claim that "Our people are babies."
• "When was the last time that you saw this country have a victory?  We don't have victories.  What things am I going to do different?  Almost everything."
• Regarding ISIS, Trump has a solution: "We are going to have to do something very strong... One of the elements of what I said is that we go and take over that oil.  We just go in there and we blast the hell out of them, we take over that oil."
• On the Iran deal, he denigrates the expertise of Secretary of State John Kerry, plus that of the foreign ministers of the US other five partners.  "There are things in the deal that I'm sure (Kerry) doesn't even know about that I will find.  And if they make a mistake they've got big problems."

In the present broken democratic system in America, Trump flaunts his billions as a sure way of aspiring to the U.S. presidency.  On the unregulated campaign funding, he dismisses his need for outside donations.  "I'll take your money, if you insist.  But I shall spend a billion dollars of my own money to fund my campaign."

Unfortunately, the present system has availed idiots like Trump a hospitable environment.  His approval rating stands at 25%.  That of Congress is a miserable 9%.  In a recent survey, participants were asked to provide the first word that comes to their minds upon hearing specific names.  The result: "Liar," for Hillary Clinton; "Killer," for Jeb Bush; and "Arrogant," for Trump.

No wonder, David Duke, head of the Ku Klux Klan (anti-blacks), has supported Trump.  Trump's racism has been glaringly manifest.  Calling Mexican immigrants "rapists, criminals, and drug users."  White supremacist feelings are back.  People are, as per the description of The New Yorker magazine dated August 31, 2015 "fearful and frustrated."  By 2030, the Latino population shall be a full one-third of all Americans.  And by 2050, the whites in America are expected to be a minority.

Again to money as a determinant of electoral victory.  With Jeb Bush having raised $140 million, and Hillary Clinton $100 million, for their respective campaigns, the public sees in these figures, an early indication of pre-eminence.  Add to the mix what another Republican contestant, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the darling of The Tea Party, proclaims.  "All politicians are liars and thieves."

In support of that perception, a former political consultant for Trump, Roger Stone, adds his voice.  "There are two things going on.  One is the total revulsion of American voters with politicians and the entire political system.  And secondarily, just the belief that he (Trump) can't be bought."

As a decisive judgment by the Supreme Court, Citizens United has enhanced the cracks in the facade of the representativeness of the American system.  The power of that Court to impact the presidential election system was manifest in putting George Bush II ahead of Albert Gore in 2000.  A disastrous presidency in both birth and war-like approach to foreign policy.  Especially in warring on Afghanistan (2001) and on Iraq (2003).  Both losing wars.

In his new book on the need to amend the Constitution, retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, put in perspective the central issue of the dangerous absence of regulating campaign financing.  Said that venerable Justice: "I shall explain why it is unwise to allow persons who are not qualified to vote -whether they be corporations or nonresident individuals -to have a potentially greater power to affect the outcome of elections than eligible voters have."

Centuries before Justice Stevens, the Romans defined the primary motivation for good governance.  In two words: "Liberum arbitrium" (Free will, free choice).  So with the present enfeebled democratic system in America, where clowns like Trump is now bidding for the presidential crown, we should ask ourselves: "Is America entitled to advise other nations on how to practise democracy?"

To me, the answer is No.  Why?  When your own door is broken and left un-repaired, you have no credibility telling someone else to fix their broken windows.

Egypt's "Field of Dreams": Connecting the Seas Began in 1380 B.C.

That great American film, "Field of Dreams," captures the imagination by one sentence.  "If you build it, they will come."  The reference was to a mid western hope in the future of a corn field.  A corn field from which the ghosts of great baseball players, long departed, appear to the field owner.  Playing, then disappearing in the thick of corn stalks.  Wondering if it was a signal for carving out a baseball arena on his farm.  Yet afraid that no spectators would come, he was advised: "If you build it, they will come." 

So it was the case with Egypt's field of dreams.  Connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Seas.  A dream that began in Ancient Egypt in 1380 B.C.  A canal that shows Egypt as a world crossroads.  Making of commerce a rational substitute for conflict.  Yet when the dream became a reality with the opening of the first Suez Canal in 1869, it brought both commerce and conflict.

The Suez Canal of 1869 was the successor regime of all the prior efforts.  Beginning with Pharaoh Sitti I (1380 B.C.) through Amre Ibn Elass in the 7th Century A.D.  It was the latter who led the Arab and Islam into Egypt during the Second Caliphate of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab.  Amre wanted to link the two seas.

But Omar, with his clear Bedouin cum legal mind, vetoed the connection.  Allowed only a link from the Nile to the Timsah Lake to the Red Sea.  Omar feared foreign intervention if the two great seas were linked.  Amre, a successful military leader, didn't mind courting that challenge.  But Amre was over-ruled by his boss in Madina.

Amre couldn't play circles around Omar again.  He had done it before and gotten away with it.  Omar had instructed Amre not to march into Egypt -at least not yet.  Quick over-expansion of Islamized territory was not an acceptable formula for the Omar Khalifate.  But Amre, nonetheless, crossed over into Egypt with his armies.  Pretended that Omar's instructions arrived a bit too late.  Resulted in Omar keeping his "General Mac Arthur" (Amre Ibn Elass) under constant watch.  The first instance in history of civilian control over the military.

A digression intended to link the name of Suez to the inner core of the Egyptian psyche, and spirit.  Not with numbers. But with symbols often missed by Egyptian media for lack of connection to the Suez connectedness.  Lack of "Egyptianess!!"

Now Egypt has Suez I and Suez II.  A whale of a difference between the two symbols.  Though tied at the hip, implicating Egypt's sovereignty.

Suez I was a project spearheaded by Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French Vice-Consul in Alexandria.  Received from Khedive Said Pasha, a son of Muhammad Ali, the great founder of a strong Egypt, permission to dig the canal in 1854.  The hesitant Khedive needed England's view.  Though France and England were allies during the Crimean war, the British Consul offered no clear opinion.  Resulting in the signing of an agreement dated January, 1856.

An unconscionable agreement as far as Egypt was concerned.  An "adhesion contract," so heavily restrictive of one party, Egypt, while non-restrictive of another, the Canal Company.  This grave inequality of bargaining power is manifest in the following:

• The Company builds a feeder canal drawing fresh water from the Nile, covering all needs for work on the Suez Canal;
• In return, Egypt donates all land for work and construction, tax-free;
• The Company has the right to charge all Egyptian users of that fresh water.  Together with the free use of Egyptian mines and quarries; 
• Egypt provides for free, four-fifth of the labor needed, with new shifts of manpower every three months;
• All dues of passage in the Suez Canal, whether for human or cargo per tonnage to be collected by the Canal Company;
• Profits are to be debited 10% as interest on investment.  The balance is then divided between Egypt 15%; 10% for the foreign Canal founders; 75% for the canal administrators and upkeep.

So for 15% of the net profits, Egypt provides land, labor, fresh water, natural resources, and security.  For 99 years, a colonial regime was established by a foreign company on lands deducted from Egyptian sovereignty.  What an imperial bargain!!  The nominal suzerain, the High Porte of the Ottoman Empire responded: "Hell, No!!"

Ignoring that refusal, de Lesseps, went ahead with open bids for subscription, in November 1858.  Nearly  half a million shares were snapped up at 500 francs per share all over western Europe.

Egypt did not own the Company.  The Company owned Egypt.  And 1 million of its peasants (25000 each 3 months for 10 years), most of whom perished for lack of care.  While slavery was outlawed in Africa south of the Sahara, indentured slavery was instituted in Egypt by a contract with a Government which existed in name only.

British Prime Minister Palmerstone protested to Istanbul the loss of Egyptian lives.  Not primarily for humanitarian reasons.  But for fear of growing French influence in Egypt, the gateway through Suez to India where rebellion was seething.  Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt focused on the Canal.

That was Said Pasha.  But with Ismail Pasha succeeding him in 1863, Egypt acquired new claws.  The strong State was back, clawing at the illegally gotten advantages.  Attacking the enslavement of its citizens, to the applause of Great Britain.  Paying the avaricious Company two million Egyptian pounds for 177,642 shares bought by the weakling Said, but had remained unpaid.

Then Ismail labored for the reduction of the number of Egyptian Canal diggers; forced the Company to disgorge State land sequestered by the Company through machinations and bribes.  And with approval of the Ottoman High Porte, the Company received an eviction notice: Accept the reformation of that stupid contract or get the hell out!!

De Lesseps nearly had a heart attack; the astute Ismail agreed to have Napoleon III arbitrate; decision for Egypt on July 6, 1864: No enslavement; no crack of the whip on Egyptian backs; restitution of the huge swathe of land to the sovereign owner -Egypt.

The Company was left with only 200 meters on the two sides of the Canal.  The price was steep:  Nearly 3.3 million Egyptian pounds; an enormous price to retrieve what Egypt owns.  But Ismail paid up, saying: "I want the canal to be for Egypt, not Egypt for the Canal." The Ottoman Empire issued the firman (Imperial Executive Order) approving the deal in March 1866.

And with a big bang, the Suez Canal was inaugurated in 1869.  Monarchs were personally invited by Ismail who travelled to Europe, personally carrying to them invitations.  All expenses paid from his personal funds.  Ismailia, the city on the Canal, which was appropriately named after the patriotic Khedive, was bathed in light and splendor.

The French Empress, Eugenie, danced all night, and still asked for more.  A palace in Cairo by the Nile was built in her honor (now the Marriott Hotel).  Roads were paved to the Pyramids.  And the Opera Theatre was built at Opera Square, in the heart of Cairo.

By the standards of 1869, the cost of the party was huge, 1.5 million Egyptian pounds - i.e. pounds sterling.  Ismail, like the U.S. of today, was well practiced in deficit funding!!  The debts led to the British occupation of Egypt in 1882.  The Sudan also came under British hegemony.

The Canal continued to be the lighting rod for Egyptian nationalism; Sinai was ceded by the Ottoman Empire to Egypt in 1906; with the collapse of the Ottomans in World War I, Great Britain's creeping annexation leaped over the Canal and Sinai into Palestine.

From the records of the Canal Company, the aggregate cost of the Suez Canal was 17.5 million pounds.  Of that amount, Egypt paid the staggering amount of 16 million pounds.  Not counting the huge human cost and Egypt's exposure during times of weakness, to foreign intervention.  But with the end of World War II, Egypt, thanks to the impetus of the Canal, rediscovered its sinews of power: location, demography, diversity, cultural cohesion, and national fervor to wipe out any vestiges of past humiliation.

By 1956, the British occupation of the Canal Zone was gone; and Nasser, the new strong man of Egypt, nationalized the Suez Canal Company.  Egypt's adversaries cried foul; propagated in policy, media and foreign affairs, that "Egypt has nationalized the Canal!!"  Utterly stupid.  You don't nationalize what you own.  The nationalization was for the Canal Company which had been chartered under Egyptian laws.  And every shareholder was paid in full.

But the myth was propagated in order to "cut Nasser to size."  A prelude for the Israeli, French and British vicious aggression of 1956 against a country, Egypt, for daring to exercise its inherent sovereignty.  With the cessation of hostilities, peace-keeping by the UN was born.  But for a life of only 10 years.

For in 1967, Israel struck again in the so-called 6-day war.  Sinai was reoccupied; thousands of Egyptian military lives were lost in both Sinai and at the Canal.  Yet Egypt, under Sadat, burst again across the Canal in October 1973, destroying a newer myth: Israel's invincibility.

Now in little over than 40 years, a second Suez Canal has been dug.  Inaugurated on August 6, 2015 by El-Sisi, the present-day advocate of "the Strong State."  

But what a difference between the environment of building Suez Canal I and building its younger sister Suez Canal II.

We have seen from the above, the miserable circumstances surrounding the de Lesseps project (Suez Canal I).  Suez Canal II is the concretizatoin of the New Egypt:

• A historic symbol of washing away the oppression meted out to the Egypt of the 19th century;
• An abashed declaration of an Egyptian equivalent of "Yes, We Can;"
• Dug by the armed forces, under the command of Vice Admiral Mohab Mameesh, in less than one year;
• Funded in mere 8 days by totally -Egyptian subscriptions induced by the spirit of Egypt of January 25, 2011 and June 30, 2013;
• An impetus for China to build the Kra Canal in Thailand to bypass the Malacca Strait.  A new maritime silk road shortening the voyage by 1200 kilometers.  Ending up in Suez welcoming two arms;
• China is also planning road and rail routes through Pakistan.  All ending up in Suez "aller et retour;"
• 85% of world trade carried expeditiously by the giants of canal containers plying their cargo "24/7;" from Port Said to Suez, and vice-versa.
• Seventy kilometers of daily transit from 49 to 85 crossings over the next 10 years.  The volume of world trade moved by sea is expected to double in the next 20 years.
• CNN described Suez II, the new companion of Suez I, as a "game changer for the future of world trade;" "the most strategic waterway in the world;" "a vital lifeline connecting the East and West;"
• MAERSK, the largest shipping company in the world declared: "It is more profitable for us to use the Suez Canals.  We shall stop using the Panama Canal;"
• Suez II was projected to be dug and operational over a period of 5 years.  Shortened at El-Sisi's insistence to only one year.  "We don't have the luxury of time," declared the Egyptian President.
• And in short order, a Presidential decree was issued creating "The Suez Canal Economic Zone." From ship repairs to rest and recreation, to training in maritime commerce, to amusement parks.

Washing away the shame of yesterday: the slavery, foreign manipulation, and the arrogance of power.  Now all gone!!

Still doomsayers predict less financial and economic returns.  No proof on that.  Only to fulfil a self-induced prophecy of unfulfilled expectations.  But the Suez Canals are primarily about:

• National resurgence; and Arab achievement in the midst of the cyclone of destruction of the Arab Spring;
• An Arab symbol of hope and restored strength, dissecting the Arab homeland by flags of all nations parading on ships on water in the heart of the Eastern Desert.

Commented Judge and Senator, Mrs. Taghreed Hikmet of Jordan: "It is a gift from the nation to the world."  In its present hour of peril, the Arab Nation is in sore need of boosters.  That historic Nation could always count on its big sister, Egypt, to faithfully provide.

In a way, the Suez project is an Arab iconic project.  Protected by armed might from Port Said in the North to the Gulf of Aden in the South.  Defending the freedom of navigation, world commerce, and, above all, the sovereignty of the host and owner -Egypt of 100 million Arabs.

All of this is while combating terrorism, jihadism, and anti-Islamism.  And at the same time singing the new lyrics inaugurating Suez II: "Tomorrow Egypt Shall Be Sweeter!!"

Why Is the Republican Party (The Grand Old Party - GOP) Deserving of My Grand Contempt?

Mainly for two reasons: Subjecting US sovereignty to foreign interference, and to the power of special interests.  And, in the process, downgrading the majesty of the Office of the US President, for ideological reasons of the evangelical right wing.

Now to evidentiary details:

Starting with the downgrading of the majesty of the Office of the President.  It is impossible not to link between the constant attacks on Obama and his being black.  Racism in the US is a cancer in that body politic since the introduction of slavery.  Cures that have been developed, especially with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, have dealt with the outward symptoms, not with the roots.

Yes the Voting Rights Act was signed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.  But today, several States, called "red States" for being under Republican administrations, are chipping off at those rights.  Measures intended to make it ever harder for minorities (Blacks and Latinos) to exercise those rights.  The alarm bells sounded as of 2008.  The percentage of whites eligible to vote in the presidential elections, won by Obama that year, was 66% of the aggregate voters.  Guess what?  Same percentage of Black and Latino voters who rushed to the polling stations to have a man of color win.

This trend had to be obstructed, so reasoned the GOP in several states.  How could this be done without the appearance of violating the law?  Under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  It is called the supremacy clause.

This is "The United States," 50 of them; a federal system, where the states have all powers except for a few.  The few powers of the federal government are: to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce, and others.  Those "other" powers are listed.  Whatever is not listed, belongs to the states.

As stated above, voting rights are governed by the 1965 Act.  But how to exercise those rights is decided by the states.  In order to make that exercise difficult, regardless of the principle of "equality before the law," the "red" states have been very busy:  Gerrymandering of electoral districts, intended to unfairly secure disproportionate influence at elections for non-minorities.  Shortening the hours for voting.  Placing polling stations at geographically far locations.  Requiring photo identification cards.  Closing polling stations on Sunday.

Yet this is the heart of the democratic process.  A process which the US is eager to have other countries adopt.  Vigorously calling for "respect for the right of dissent."

Such roll back of minority rights is not a mere assertion of states rights.  To understand its dimension in full must include the rejection by the neo-racists of the President.  Never has a US President been more subjected to personal slurs and affronts by the right, the Tea party, the evangelists and Republicans.  The list is endless and truly disgusting.  More importantly, un-American.

Here are samples, and attribution to specific Republicans in search of nomination for the presidency in 2016:

• Marco Rubio: "The President has no class."
• Donald Trump: "I don't know who he is."
• Lindsey Graham: "I don't know whether he is Christian."
• Scott Walker: "I presume he is, because he says he is."
• Mitch Mc Connell: "We shall make sure that he is a one term President.  (On Obama's inauguration day in January 2009).
• Ted Cruz: "He is the worst President in the history of the United States."
• A congressional member yelling at the President during his delivery of the State of the Union message: "You are a liar."  Obama's restrained response: "Thank you."

How can such affronts to the present occupant of the Oval Office not be demeaning to the majesty of that Office?  How can it not affect the credibility of the U.S. world-wide when its Head-of-State is called names (including, "he is a closet Muslim") as a civil polity?  How can the principle of separation of powers, underpinned by constitutional checks and balances, maintain its efficacy in a system where the Republicans have shut down the federal government earlier.  Now, they are threatening to do the same again.

Obama is also threatened by empty Congressional proposals for impeachment.  Faced with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, he has resorted to using his constitutional instruments in defense of the executive branch.  These are: his resort to issuance of executive orders, and of the use of his veto power.  Yet as a constitutional scholar, he had sought these mechanisms sparingly.

Obama's signature accomplishment of the "Affordable Care Act" was challenged by this Republican Congress more than 40 times.  Extending health insurance to millions of uninsured Americans, largely the poor and the elderly, it has been divisively called by his opponents "The Obama Care Act."  All Republican aspirants to succeed Obama have pledged collapsing that historic Act as of "Day One in the Oval Office."

Same totally negative attitude towards Obama's repeated attempts to fix the broken system of immigration; of tax reform; of bank regulation, of income inequality, of education reform (an area reserved for the states), of gun control, and of reforming the criminal justice system.  

Even the historic trade pact with Asia was about to be killed if not for a brief moment of bipartisan support. In Singapore, Secretary of State Kerry on August 5 voiced the obvious.  "No country can expect its economy to grow simply by buying and selling to its own people."

More glaringly is Congressional blocking of Obama's attempts to close down Guantanamo.  That is where more than a hundred Muslim detainees are still languishing in legal limbo since 9/11.

They are neither charged.  Nor are they released.  Several states of the U.S. do not want them loose in their neighborhood.   And foreign States do not want them either, largely for reasons of radicalization through prolonged incarceration.  An ugly relic of the party of war -the Republican Party, which has lurched into xenophobia since the criminal acts of destruction of 9/11.

Moving along into the area of foreign policy and its reflection on war and peace, one reaches the depth of Republican Party conversion.  From the party of Lincoln, the great emancipator, to the party of endless wars.  Especially in the Middle East.

It is well-known that sovereignty is an essential requirement for the ability of a State to conduct its own foreign policy.  Thus the US Constitution has assigned to the President the following powers: "He shall have the Power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

Clear enough!!  So let us examine the chaotic situation in Congress with regard to a present issue of war and peace in the Middle East.  I am not referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where no sane leadership exists on either side: of Israel, a brutal occupier, with no regard for international law or common sense fairness.  Nor on the side of the Palestinians, forever divided, habitually corrupt, and deeply committed to the falsehood of the UN creating their State for them, rather than the State, when in being, applying for UN membership.

I am examining the Iran nuclear deal where US sovereignty and Obama's commitment to disengaging America from the endless wars in the Muslim world are implicated.

Here we have a deal reflecting the coming together of 6 States with Iran's moderate leadership. A historic agreement, reached after 16 months of arduous negotiations.  Its only goal is to prevent Iran from weaponizing its enriched uranium, and be rewarded with the lifting of sanctions and reintegration into the international community.  Iran said "yes;" Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany said "yes."  The UN Secretary Council, usually a dysfunctional body because of the veto, unanimously said "YES."

Not yet America:  In US Congress, the deal has become the latest version of a football game with no rules. Here are the unbelievable details:

• The majority of both houses cried "foul."  Claimed that Obama was "fleeced" (as per the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)  Even prior to digesting that 159 page report, they were asking for a better deal!!
• Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the great nuclear physicist, Moniz, Secretary of Energy, responded: (a) What is your "better deal;" (b) Your "disapproval" shall be vetoed by the President; (c) scuttling the deal will cause the sanctions regime to unravel; (d) Iran could be then forced to proceed to the development of a nuclear bomb; and (e) America's credibility is in the balance.
• Seventeen Republicans aspiring to occupy the Oval Office in 2017 gave these responses short shrift.  Called the deal "an appeasement" a la Munich in 1938; considered war against Iran a viable option; bought into the Netanyahu alarmist propaganda that the deal was an existential threat, not only to Israel, but to the whole world.

Then came Obama's definitive response to these falsehoods.  In his historic speech at American University in Washington, D.C. on August 5, Obama reminded the Republican Party of its horrific war misadventures in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Against the calls of out-of-control war-crazed John Bolton of "bomb Iran now," the President chuckled in derisive amazement: "Those people were wrong yesterday.  They are wrong today."  The party of war, bereft of any logical response, began to froth at the mouth:

• "The U.S. has become the main supporter of terrorism" -said Senator Ted Cruz;
• "Obama is marching the Israelis to the door of the oven." -said former Governor Mike Huckabee;
• "This is the worst President the U.S. has ever seen." -said Donald Trump.

With money pouring in for daily ads against the deal with Iran, the opposition had two very powerful backers.  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Citizens United" which considered money gifted to electoral candidates as a form of "free speech."  And AIPAC (the American Israeli Political Action Committee).  AIPAC is funding "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran" which is planning to spend $25 million to defeat that historic deal.  Of course there is no likelihood of "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Israel."

As the President met with 20 leaders of Jewish groups to win their support, Netanyahu had a packaged response to Obama's arguments about "no alternative other than war."  In blatant interference in US sovereign decisions, Israeli's Prime Minister called Obama's arguments as "utterly false."

For these reasons, the "Grand Old Party" deserves my grand contempt.  The President of the US is the constitutional manager of America's foreign affairs.  Israel is a foreign power, regardless of the degree of its strategic relationships with the US.  

I have not seen Obama pursuing Israel in regard to ending its colonist settlerism in Palestinian territories.  By the same same token, Israel should have no legitimate business in interfering blatantly in US sovereign decisions regarding what defines America's national interests.

Nothing in the annals of diplomacy is found to permit the Israeli ambassador to America to openly delve into an internal conflict between Congress and the President.  Were it the Ambassador of, say, Turkey (a NATO ally of the US), he or she would have been promptly thrown out as persona non grata.

In his speech on August 5 at American University, the US President reminded the Republican hordes of their lying to the country as they led it to the disastrous war in Iraq.  Without mincing his words, he bluntly chided their unending beating of the war drums.  Said he: "Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."

But AIPAC's director of communication, Marshall Wittman, responded to President Obama on the same day.  Lying through his teeth, he said: "To remove any misinformation or confusion, AIPAC took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war."

Then, parroting his real Master's Voice (Netanyahu's), he felt obliged to insult the American President in nearly the same words.  So Wittman added: "This is an entirely false and misleading argument."  This is not mere lobbying.  This is being "an agent of a foreign power -Israel."

Watching the first televised Republican debate among the 17 Republican aspirants for the presidential office on August 6, I turned off that miserable show with one impression: Truly pathetic!!  Felt even sorrier for America when Michele Bachman, standing on the sidelines, was interviewed.

Though she was not one of the 17, Bachman seemed to speak for all of them in regard to the Iran deal.  Her insane solution was: "Bomb Iran now because the window of opportunity is fast closing."  Bachman, the queen of Islamophobia in the U.S. had claimed that God speaks to her!!

Does she have a private God who also communicates with other select Republican war lords like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld?  Two unindicted war criminals, afraid to leave the US for fear of being bagged to the Hague to stand trial before the International Criminal Court.

Isn't America's sovereignty worthy of support?!

In the avalanche of these acrimonious diatribes, it is uplifting to discover some sane voices.  Particularly those issuing from American Jewish leaders.  In a letter to the Editor of the New York Times of August 7, one such voice said: "I believe that Netanyahu's address to American Jews on Tuesday (August 4) and his in person speech to Congress in March were wholly inappropriate, insulting to the American president and people, and constituted an intrusion by a foreign leader into American domestic politics."

The author of that letter added: "It is up to the United States to make a decision on this deal on its merits."  Well said, Mr. Seymour Reich, former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Is America's sovereignty for sale?  

What we have in America today is nothing other than a power grab by Congress of presidential prerogatives; a distortion by money and lobbyists of the popular will through fair national elections, and the demeaning spectacle of a foreign power jumping over the high fence of American sovereignty to subvert an international deal seen by the Obama Administration as in the best interest of the American people and of world peace. Let each State define by itself, and for itself, the requirements of its own security.

Yes, American sovereignty matters!!