ISIS, Assad And The Sopranos- How A Mafia-Style Mentality Could Serve Obama Well In Syria

"When you're bleeding a guy you don't squeeze him dry right away. Contrarily, you let him do his bidding, suavely. So you can bleed him next week and the week after."  
-Christopher Moltisanti                                          

                                                                                         
When thinking about ISIS, Assad and what the US should do in Syria, I keep coming back to this epic quote from The Sopranos. It's helpful because it shows the mindset of a thug: how a true mafia man- a member of the organized crime family- handles their affairs and treats their adversaries.

In this particular quote, Christopher is explaining to the younger guys who haven't been made yet how to handle an unruly "client." Chrissy warns them not to go overboard with their initial punishment, instead telling them to act strategically with tomorrow in mind.

Translation: Don't just kill the guy up front: manipulate the situation, bleed him slowly so he survives long enough to pay off in the long run. Let him do his bidding.

This is how the US, and more specifically, Barack Obama, should approach Syria.

After all, mass-murdering dictators and barbaric jihadists play by a different set of rules. They don't respect diplomacy or international law. As a result, we must treat the thugs of ISIS and Assad the way Christopher and the family handles organized crime. We must think strategically. We must not squeeze them dry right away. We must bleed them slowly with tomorrow in mind.


WHY WE CAN'T WORK WITH ASSAD

Following the gruesome, stomach-churning execution of James Foley, the drumbeat to war against ISIS is growing louder. Americans want revenge. They want justice. They want to punish ISIS for the unthinkable act of terror they've committed against us by beheading one of our own for all the world to see.

But it isn't just the American people who want a pound of flesh from ISIS. Obama himself is considering airstrikes in Syria to take them out where they are strongest. He has already approved surveillance flights to map out ISIS positions and potential targets, a precursor to a bombing campaign.

Unfortunately, this is a big mistake.

While it's true that in order to defeat ISIS we must hit them in Syria, their stronghold, doing so will only create more problems.

First off, by striking ISIS in Syria the US would be indirectly aligning with Assad. This is exactly what Assad wants. We would be doing him a favor by rushing to his defense and acting as his personal air force. We would effectively be saving the presidency of a man whom the US has repeatedly said "must go."

In addition, by aligning with Assad- a maniacal tyrant who has killed well over 100,000 Muslims- we would further alienate moderate Muslims all across the Middle East. This will only cause more anti-American sentiment and support for ISIS, as they would become the only perceived defender against Assad and American aggression.

Secondly, it would represent a massive flip-flop and geo-political embarrassment for the US. After all, almost exactly a year ago Obama was about to bomb Assad for crossing his chemical weapons "red line." Now we're going to work with him?

On a broader scale, what message would it send to the rest of the world if the US worked hand in glove with a butcher like Assad? A man who gasses and barrel-bombs his own people? We would lose whatever amount of international legitimacy we have left.


ACT LIKE A SOPRANO

If working with Assad to strike ISIS in Syria is off the table, what could the US do instead?

Simple: act like a Soprano.

Don't squeeze ISIS dry right away by striking them in Syria. Instead, continue to slowly bleed them in Iraq. Continue to arm and aid the Kurds and work the Iraqi military to beat ISIS back. We've already seen how this strategy can be successful. Just look at the joint-coalition effort to re-take the Mosul Dam.

Because military action can only achieve so much, we must also continue to pressure and guide the new government in Baghdad, making sure they are being inclusive so that Sunni, Shia and Kurdish members are all represented equally at the table. This is key to forming a long-lasting, strong Iraq- one with stability and security that can act as a buffer in the region against ISIS and future jihadists groups.

By hitting ISIS in Iraq we will eventually force them to retreat into Syria. This is a win for the US as it places them directly on Assad's doorstep. Now they are even more of a problem for Assad than they were before. He can no longer pit them in a proxy-war against the Free Syrian Army or other jihadist groups like Jabhat Al Nusrah. Instead, he will now be forced to confront them head on.

This would be great news for the US because by forcing ISIS and Assad into a prolonged battle, both sides will be bled slowly, the casualty numbers driven into infinite oblivion.

We were provided a glimpse of what a full-blown ISIS versus Assad war would look like just this past week at Tabqa Airbase. Thousands of ISIS fighters managed to storm Tabqa and secure it from Assad forces. While it was a major victory for ISIS and an embarrassing defeat for Assad, it was costly for both sides.

In the Tabqa battle, some 346 ISIS fighters were killed along with roughly 200 regime soldiers. Hundreds of others were wounded on both sides. Another 200 regime soldiers were taken prisoner by ISIS and later executed in the desert.

(Also, keep in mind that ISIS has seized heavy weaponry from Tabqa and now likely possesses MANPADs, or shoulder-mounted rocket launchers capable of taking down low-flying aircraft. Imagine if they were able to shoot down a US jet conducting airstrikes in Syria or take our military personnel hostage.)

While forcing ISIS and Assad to kill each other is a sadistic strategy, it is a much better option than conducting airstrikes in Syria, putting boots on the ground or working with Assad.


THINK LONG TERM

Obama can't act like a diplomat in Syria. The rules of diplomacy, international law and basic respect do not apply to barbaric jihadists and mass-murdering dictators. To defeat thugs like ISIS and Assad, Obama must take a page out of the Sopranos' playbook and act like a mob boss.

Obama should heed Christopher's advice: don't squeeze ISIS dry right away with airstrikes in Syria. Don't be consumed by the short-term need for immediate justice for James Foley's death. That will come in time.

Instead think strategically. Think about tomorrow and the next day- the long term. Continue to hit them in Iraq and force them to flee to Syria where they will have to take on Assad. Send them into a prolonged war. Let them do their bidding.

In the meantime, step up US support for the Free Syrian Army so that they are strong enough to defeat whomever emerges victorious from the heavyweight bout between ISIS and Assad.

By following this plan, Obama will save us from the indignity of having to work with Assad and also save us from the unintended consequences of having to conduct airstrikes in Syria or put boots on the ground.

The strategy is laid out for Obama.

All he has to do is abandon the lofty rhetoric and act like a Soprano.

Hands Up, Don't Shoot- How Ferguson Became The Canary In The Coal Mine For Police Militarization In America

Between Israel's bloody war with Hamas, the brutal crusade by ISIS to reshape the Middle East and Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine, it's easy to focus our collective attention on the global chaos happening around us, while at the same time overlook what's taking place right here in America. 

Not anymore. 

With the recent shooting of an unarmed African American teen by police in Ferguson, Missouri and the subsequent crackdown that has ensued, the domestic news blinders have been lifted. Suddenly, international headlines typically reserved for foreign wars and political conflicts have shifted from Israel, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine to the heartland of middle America. 

The spark that lit the flame of unrest occurred on a Saturday afternoon earlier this month when Ferguson police gunned down an innocent college-bound teenager by the name of Michael Brown, littering his body with nearly a dozen bullets in broad daylight.

But what has catapulted the small-town tragedy into a global news event is how the police have responded to civilian protests demanding justice for Brown's death.

They've used rubber bullets and tear gas to suppress peaceful demonstrators. They've arrested and assaulted journalists. They've illegally told reporters and civilians not to record video with their cell-phones. 

Aside from the egregious violation of civil liberties, the most worrying development of the crackdown is how the police have appeared and acted like soldiers, not law enforcement, treating the streets of Missouri as if they were the streets of Kabul or Baghdad.

Instead of black shoes, the "police" are wearing boots. Instead of blue uniforms they're wearing camouflage and swat gear. Instead of holding batons in their hands, they're armed to the teeth with assault rifles. Instead of keeping their side-arms in their holsters, they're pointing sniper rifles directly at civilians, literally drawing a red dot on their chests as targets. They're riding in armored trucks and humvees with machine guns mounted on the roof, ready to fire at will.

Simply put, they are no longer police. They are a menacing, hyper-militarized militia, treating innocent civilians as "enemy combatants," not American citizens worthy of protection.

A SHAMEFUL DOUBLE STANDARD

While the exact circumstances of Michael Brown's death remain unclear (police claim he reached for an officer's gun, an eye-witness says he did not), what cannot be disputed is the horrific, shameful response to the shooting by the Ferguson police. 

First off, the police let Brown's body lie in the street for hours after his death, showing a repulsive lack of respect reminiscent of how pro-Russian separatists disgracefully treated bodies in the aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines crash over eastern Ukraine earlier this summer. 

To make matters worse, nearly a week after Brown's death, the police have still yet to charge the officer who killed Brown with a crime. This is the driving force motivating protesters to demonstrate against police. 

Simply put, they are seeking justice. 

The elephant in the room, which many cable news outlets have tried to gloss over, is the racial divide that exists at the center of the stand-off between protesters and police. 

The city of Ferguson is 67% African American. The Ferguson police force is 94% white. 

Because that statistic alone isn't evidence of racism, it's important to compare the Ferguson protests to others that we've seen recently in America. 

For example, take the Bundy Ranch showdown in Nevada from earlier this year.

When federal authorities threatened to take Cliven Bundy's cattle because he hadn't paid grazing fees for over 20 years, a far-right, anti-government militia rushed to Bundy's defense, pointing sniper rifles at government forces and vowing to "take them down" if they dared to proceed. 

And what did the federal agents do when threatened with violence by an all-white militia?

They backed down, of course. 

But in Ferguson, unarmed African Americans protesting the death of a teenager are tear-gassed, assaulted and arrested. 

The stark contrast between how authorities are treating the Ferguson protests versus how they handled the Bundy Ranch showdown is painfully obvious.

When confronted with white, heavily armed anti-government militias, the police walked away. When confronted with unarmed, peaceful African American protesters with their arms in the air shouting "hands up, don't shoot," they bombarded them with tear gas, rubber bullets and a military force fit for warfare in Baghdad.

WHEN THE WAR COMES HOME

After a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the battles fought in the Middle East are returning to American soil. 

Leftover military equipment from Kabul and Baghdad has been brought home, funneled to local police to use seemingly however they see fit.

As a result, American police are shifting from law enforcement to a paramilitary force, outfitted with heavy weaponry and machinery intended to fight terrorists, not unarmed civilians.

The problem here, aside from the obvious anti-democratic transition of law enforcement from those who protect and serve to those who intimidate and terrorize, is that it adds hostility and instigates fear and distrust in the hearts and minds of civilians.

The police are no longer here to protect us. They are here to provoke, antagonize and terrify us. 

On a broader scale, what's happening right now is Ferguson reminds us that we Americans are not exceptional. We are not morally superior to so called third world countries or immune to the type of police/civilian conflicts normally reserved for places like Egypt or Gaza or Iran.

In fact, in many ways we are no better than Mid-East dictators who crack down on peaceful protesters routinely. The fact that suburban Missouri looks like Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring is a testament to that harsh reality.

Most terrifying of all is that this isn't just taking place in Missouri. It's happening all over the country. And unless we take a stand against the hyper-militarization of American police, we're staring at a future where cops are extinct and soldiers take their place. And they won't just use their superior military equipment to suppress and terrorize peaceful African American protesters in suburban Missouri. 

They'll use it against all of us. Everywhere. 

Yes, We Tortured Some Folks. We Spied On Them, Too

Earlier this month, President Obama dropped an unexpected bombshell when he admitted, nonchalantly, that the United States "tortured some folks" after 9/11. 

The statement came as such a shock because up until that point no US President had even uttered the word "torture" in the post-9/11 sense, let alone acknowledged that it took place.

Similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the fact that America tortured our enemies during the "war on terror" has been such a hideous skeleton in our historical closet that we've collectively suppressed it from memory, vowing never to speak about it again.

But no matter how hard we try to whitewash our shameful past, we cannot escape it.

From the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay to a laundry list of unknown CIA "black sites" in between, it's clear that America committed war crimes in the wake of September 11th.

We beat detainees. We water boarded and electrocuted them. We dragged them on leashes like dogs and laughed as we did it. We forced them to endure psychological hell; blindfolding them and stripping them of their clothes and then blasting deafening music into their ears non-stop until they went mad. We used sleep deprivation, isolation, darkness and barking dogs to send them over the edge. We subjected them to severe heat and severe cold and then hung them by their wrists and arms in "high stress" positions for hours on end.

We didn't just torture them, we humiliated them. We stole their humanity. 

The "them," in this case, are hundreds- if not thousands- of Arab men who were swept up in the "war on terror." While some were indeed guilty, many others were innocent, detained indefinitely and tortured despite the fact they had never been charged with a crime.

Obama's admission, although unexpected, was an important first step in coming to terms with the sins of our past. Not only was it a direct rebuke of the Bush-Cheney horrors of post-9/11 but, more importantly, it was an acknowledgement that America had done something wrong and we were finally owning up to our mistakes in an attempt to ensure they never happen again.

ON TO THE NEXT

While Obama deserves credit for coming clean about one aspect of our shameful past, he is also refusing to admit the truth about another.

For nearly twelve years, the United States has operated in secrecy as a de-facto 21st century surveillance state. Beginning with George W. Bush in the days after 9/11 and continuing deep into the second term of Barack Obama, the powers of government spy agencies have grown exponentially, while the rights of citizens have been trampled on in the name of security. 

The government's cause is noble: to protect Americans from terrorists who will stop at nothing to carry out attacks either on our soil or against our interests worldwide. However, in that pursuit of total security we have allowed our civil liberties to be eroded to the point where they are barely recognizable anymore, forcing us to question what kind of democracy we claim to adhere to.

Our cell-phones are tracked and they have been for years. Our emails and text-messages and social media posts are monitored and mined for information. Our meta-data is swept up in a digital dragnet without our approval, stored indefinitely in a vast, expansive database in the Nevada desert.

However, if it weren't for Edward Snowden all of this would remain unknown. The intelligence apparatus would continue to gobble up information in secret, while Americans would continue to live in blissful ignorance with no knowledge of the government invading their privacy and violating their 4th Amendment rights. 

WHO IS WATCHING THE WATCHMEN?

Much like Bush and Cheney lied to the public about WMDs, the present day Intelligence Community is lying to the public about spying. 

As the Snowden leaks have proven, the NSA has been monitoring the communications of everyday Americans for years now, never once acknowledging that it takes place or asking us for our consent.

They've lied about it too. 

Just weeks before the initial Snowden leaks surfaced, then-director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to Congress when he said the NSA did not "wittingly" collect any type of metadata from Americans, even though they most certainly were.

President Obama has also been less than truthful about spying. When the Snowden leaks were raging, he kept saying "just trust us." Even today, Obama continues to claim that the NSA does not read our emails or text messages, another talking point proven false by the Snowden leaks.

In terms of the stages of recovery, when it comes to spying our Government hasn't even progressed past the first hurdle. We are still largely in denial.

LONG ROAD AHEAD

One of the core philosophies of any democracy is the right of the people to self-correct and progress. All democracies are fluid, subject to change if the people deem it necessary. 

However, if we keep our sins in the dark and refuse to confront them, they drift into nothingness, exiting the collective consciousness like they never happened. This lets off the perpetrators of injustice scot-free and leaves those in power eternally susceptible to committing the same mistake in the future. 

When we torture, or spy, or do something morally unjust that goes against our ideals and principles, we must first acknowledge that it took place. Only then can we begin the long journey of self reflection that comes with repenting our sins and ensuring they never happen again.

Unfortunately, the path to enlightenment is long in the making. Establishment forces fight to the death to make sure the truth isn't exposed so that they can continue to operate with impunity, wielding the power they refuse to let go of.

It took a decade for a US President to admit we tortured some folks after 9/11, so it probably won't be until the year 2020 that a US President admits we spied on them, too.

The Big Lie- How Netanyahu Pulled A Bush/Cheney And Led Israel To War With Hamas

As the war between Israel and Hamas enters its fourth week, much of the debate has been centered on two major issues. 

The first is the horrific shelling of Gaza and the overall humanitarian tragedy that is being inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Heartbreaking images of murdered men, women and, worst of all, children tear at our collective consciousness, forcing us to question just how humans can inflict such pain, heartache and devastation on one another.

The second issue is a more calculated, practical one: When will a peace deal be achieved that puts an end to all the bloodshed?

Unfortunately, despite his admirable, dogged efforts to secure a cease-fire and, ultimately, a resolution to the conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry seems nowhere close to achieving any kind of peace between Israel and Hamas.

In fact, some feel that he's only making things worse. In a devastating rebuke of Kerry's latest cease-fire proposal, Haaretz reporter Barak Ravid called Kerry's judgment into question, saying "it's as if he isn't the foreign minister of the world's most powerful nation, but an alien, who just disembarked his spaceship in the Mideast."

Whether or not the statement is true, it shows how frustrated Israel is with Kerry and how far apart the sides are when it comes to ending the conflict. Combine this setback with the 9-month long failed peace talks earlier this year and it looks more and more like Kerry is a postmodern Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a Mideast hill, only to watch it roll back down each time, forever. 

However, while our attention is split between these two issues- the crime against humanity taking place in Gaza and the effort to end the bloodshed- we must also remember one very important fact. 

The entire premise for war was based on a lie. 

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

While it's true that the Israelis and Palestinians have been deadlocked in a bitter feud for generations and, sadly, violence and bloodshed was bound to break out at some point, this particular war currently being waged between Israel and Hamas didn't have to happen. 

Simply put, it was based on a lie.

Nearly a month ago, three Israeli teens were kidnapped and, after an 18-day search, their murdered bodies were found in a grassy field in Hebron, a small town on the outskirts of Jerusalem. 

Before conducting any kind of investigation of the murders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiantly blamed the killings on Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization that controls Gaza. 

The three teens were "murdered in cold blood by human animals, " Netanyahu said on his Facebook page. "Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay." 

In the ensuing days, a chain reaction took place that quickly led to all out war. First, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was burned alive by Israelis in a revenge-killing for the murdered Israeli teens. Then Hamas began raining down rockets on Israel. Next, before you knew it, Israel began shelling Gaza. Then came the ground invasion.

However, upon further review, the spark that lit the flame for war wasn't true. 

Despite Netanyahu's saber-rattling assurances that Hamas was responsible for killing the Israeli teens, they didn't actually do it. An investigation by Israeli Police proved that the murderers were not part of Hamas, but instead a lone cell that acted on their own "without concern for the repercussions." 

There is no way of getting around it. Netanyahu had pulled a Bush/Cheney- he lied to the public to gain support for war. This time it wasn't about Saddam having WMDs. It was about Hamas having killed the Israeli teens. But in both cases, a blatant falsehood was used to achieve the same goal: whip the public into a frenzy so that the impending war could be not only justified, but backed by popular opinion.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

As the bloodshed in Gaza continues and a peaceful resolution seems more and more difficult to reach, it's important to take a step back and remember how we got ourselves into this mess. 

Netanyahu's lie was the straw that broke the camel's back. He should be denounced for pushing his people into a war that was based on a blatant falsehood, just as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be denounced for doing the same in the wake of 9/11. 

However, it's also critical to realize that none of this happens in a vacuum. The conditions on the ground in Israel are so inflamed by fear and propaganda- some real, some manufactured- that they make it easy for leaders like Netanyahu to twist facts and incite tensions. 

Through it all, one thing is abundantly clear: the situation on the ground must change.

A peace agreement based on a two-state solution must be reached. Palestine must respect the state of Israel and excommunicate Hamas terrorists from their land. In turn, Israel must respect the state of Palestine and end the prison-like strangulation of Gaza. They must open the borders and allow Palestinians to breathe and move freely. 

Until then, the shared hatred between Israelis and Palestinians will continue, as will the the endless cycle of violence and revenge. And in the process, a public eternally on edge will remain easy pickings for future manipulation by leaders who tell them war is the only answer- even when it's based on a lie.

Impeach Obama? Yeah, Right. If Anyone Should Be Impeached It's Congressional Republicans

In January of 2009, before Barack Obama was even sworn into office, Republican lawmakers met in secret to map out their strategy for the next four years. As Mitch McConnell boastfully admitted, their number one goal wasn't to work with Obama to move the country forward, but instead to do everything in their power to make him a failed, one-term president.

First, they tried to make the case that Obama was ineligible for office because he was born in Kenya, not America. Bloodthirsty birthers like Donald Trump demanded his birth certificate and refused to accept it as legitimate even when it was presented for all the world to see.

Then, following the sweeping Tea Party election of 2010, Republicans re-took the House and began their all-out assault to obstruct Obama at every turn. They voted nearly 50 times to repeal Obamacare. They filibustered everything. They refused to hand him any kind of legislative victory, even if it benefited the American people. They measured their success by the depth of the political gridlock.

Last summer, House Speaker John Boehner lifted the veil on the GOP obstruction machine, saying in an interview that Congress should be judged not by how many laws they enact, but instead by how many laws they repeal.

By their own standards, Republicans have failed on both accounts. Obama was re-elected to a second term (sorry, McConnell) and GOP lawmakers haven't repealed a single law passed under Obama (sorry, Boehner).

But they aren't letting that stop them.

Now they want to sue Obama. And impeach him.


THE DO NOTHINGS

Simply put, today's GOP is the party of "Do Nothing." They've stolen the infamous moniker from their Truman-era predecessors and taken gridlock to a near unprecedented level, rivaling only the secession-hungry confederates of the 1860s.

And the numbers don't lie.

The 112th Congress, run by the Republicans after the landslide election of 2010, was literally the least productive ever. Instead of passing legislation, they focused almost exclusively on political showdowns. From the Debt Ceiling to the Fiscal Cliff, they came perilously close to destroying the economy for the sole purpose of extracting a pound of Obama's flesh. Overall, they passed just over 200 laws, the lowest number since the data began getting recorded in the 1940s.

But as bad as the 112th Congress was, the 113th is even worse. As of this Spring, they have passed just 23 public laws, setting a new record for legislative futility.

Instead of governing, they have chosen to ignore all the major issues facing our country and focus all their attention on investigating "scandals." And even when the manufactured, phony scandals are debunked, like Benghazi, they simply ignore the facts and retreat to their Fox News bubble where reality goes to die.

This is the Republican legacy in the Age of Obama: pass nothing, block everything. Turn a blind eye to the plight of the American people and blame everything on Obama. Wash, rinse, repeat.


A HOLLOW POLITICAL STUNT

Although Congressional Republicans have decided to abdicate their duty as lawmakers, the problems facing our country have not disappeared. In fact, they've gotten worse as a result of congressional inaction.

Following the Sandy Hook massacre, public support for background checks was at an all-time high. But Republican puppets in the pocket of the NRA defied 92% of Americans and blocked the bill, ensuring it failed.

At a time of unprecedented income inequality, Republicans refuse to hold a vote on raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, despite the fact that nearly 75% of Americans support it.

Today, the humanitarian crisis at the border is spiraling out of control. More than 50,000 parentless-children are toiling in jail-like conditions. Everyone seems to agree that our immigration system is broken, yet Republicans refuse to lift a finger even though 86% of GOPers think congress should take action to fix it.

The same goes for Climate change. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that 67% of Americans support Obama's new EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions. Yet many congressional Republicans refuse to even acknowledge the existence of man-made Climate Change or Global Warming, let alone are willing to support laws to curb its effects.

As a result of the Republicans' refusal to work with Obama on anything- even issues that the vast majority of Americans support- Obama has decided to bypass them entirely, focusing on ways to use his executive authority to address the critical issues facing our country.

But in typical GOP fashion, they've decided to ratchet up the obstruction to a whole new level, even for them. Boehner has decided to sue Obama for his use of executive authority even though the case lacks standing and is broadly unpopular with the public.

But if that wasn't enough, now Sarah Palin- the driver of the Tea Party clown car- wants to write up articles of impeachment despite having no particular issue to impeach him over.


PUT OUT THE FIRE

As brilliant as the Founding Fathers were, one situation they may not have foreseen was a Congress that turns a blind eye to the American people and chooses to do nothing in the face of critically important issues that must be addressed.

Sure, the Constitution makes clear that laws must be passed through the Legislative Branch, not the Executive, but what is a President to do when the Legislative Branch abdicates their duties and sits on their hands while the country is in free fall?

If a house is burning down and there is a law that says only firefighters can put it out, does that mean a neighbor is wrong to take matters into his own hands and use his garden hose put out the flames?

Should he just stand there and watch it burn?

While Obama's use of executive authority may be controversial and infuriating for Republicans, one thing most sane-minded Americans can agree with is that when America is faced with big, serious problems that require action, the side that chooses to do nothing is much more at fault than the side that chooses to do something.

And while it may be true that Obama's approval rating is at George W. Bush type-lows, compared to Congress he's as popular as the Beatles in the 1960s. Obama currently rests in the low-to-mid 40s, while Congress is barely above single digits, right there with cockroaches and chlamydia.

Boehner and Palin can cry all they want about lawsuits and impeachment, but if anyone should be booted from office, it's congressional Republicans, not the President.

Obama is holding the hose trying to put out the American house fire. Republican firefighters have turned off the tap and are gleefully watching it burn down.

Hillary Clinton Has A Wealth Problem- And If She's Not Careful She Could Become The Democrats' Mitt Romney

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Democrats received a gift from God when a secret video of Mitt Romney emerged.

Set in a Gatsby-like dining room, the video showed an unfiltered Romney letting down his guard to a room full of rich Republican donors.

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for [Obama] no matter what," Romney said. "Who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims... these are people who pay no income tax... and so my job is not to worry about these people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The "47% video," as it came to be known, was such a game-changer because it validated all the Democrat attack lines on Romney- rich, out of touch, hostile to the poor, etc.

Romney was never able to recover from the video and, as we know, the rest is history: Barack Obama was re-elected to a second term and the Republicans suffered their second consecutive presidential defeat.

While Hillary Clinton is certainly no Mitt Romney, she is creating a similarly destructive image of herself. Simply put- she has a wealth problem.


SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS

Hillary's wealth problem started earlier this summer when she told ABC that Bill and herself were "not only dead broke, but in debt" when they left the White House.

What Hillary failed to mention is that, while the two did indeed have debts due to a mountain of unpaid legal fees, they also had millions of dollars in assets, including two homes in New York and DC.

The "dead broke" comment is also laughable because it's common knowledge that presidents are all but guaranteed a colossal amount of wealth once they leave office. This comes in the form of book sales, royalties, speaking fees, endorsements and high-paying positions at universities and consulting firms.

As Ohio State University Business Professor Jeffrey Hoopes put it, "Almost any president leaving office can expect tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in future earnings as a result of their having been president."

If hearing a one-percenter shamelessly exaggerate their past "debts" wasn't infuriating enough, just weeks later Hillary committed another similar unforced error.

When asked by The Guardian if her vast family wealth would make her unfit to speak about income inequality, Hillary said "They don't see me as part of the problem, because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off."

In many ways, this comment is even worse than the "dead broke" one.

First off, no average American calls taxes "ordinary." To them, they aren't ordinary- they are the only kind there is. Regular people do not have Swiss bank accounts and tax havens in the Cayman Islands. They have no knowledge of the "unordinary" taxes that the super rich have access to. The fact that Hillary refers to her taxes as "ordinary" shows how out of touch she is with everyday Americans.

Next, she seems to allude to the fact that her massive wealth, despite being valued at $55 million, still doesn't make her "truly well off." To be "truly well off" you need to have hundreds of millions- if not billions. This tells you about the kind of people Hillary surrounds herself with; so insanely rich that she feels small by comparison.

Meanwhile, as Clinton downplays her wealth, she continues to take in $200,000 or more giving speeches. Recently, students at UNLV protested the fact that Clinton will receive $225,000 to give a speech later this Fall while at the same time tuition is spiking 17%.


JUST BE HONEST

Poor and middle class people don't hate the rich. In fact, we envy them. However, the last thing those of us at the lower end of the economic spectrum want to hear- especially at a time of unprecedented income inequality- is a wealthy person downplaying their wealth, acting like they're struggling to make ends meet when they're not.

With income inequality tearing our social fabric apart, creating two America's, the haves and the have-nots, economic populism is on the rise. The fight for the common man to get a fair shot against a corrupt system- an idea popularized by the Occupy Movement and personified by the politics of Elizabeth Warren- is the direction in which the Democrat Party is moving.

With this in mind, Democrats must tactfully select a candidate for 2016 who espouses this position. They must nominate someone who fights for the common man seeking a $10 minimum wage, not the one-percent CEO class who rakes in 95% of all new wealth.

We will probably never see a "47%" video out of Hillary, but after watching her shamelessly downplay her enormous wealth on several occasions recently, she's teetering on the edge of becoming a Romney-like figure in the eyes of the public: rich, out of touch and clueless about what it means to be an average American.

If the image sticks, it could end up losing her an election.

Just ask Mitt Romney.

An Eye For An Eye- With Peace Talks Dead, Palestinian/Israeli Conflict Reverts Back To Violent Status Quo

Earlier this year, it looked as if the planets had finally aligned and peace between the Palestinians and Israelis was actually possible. 

Led by the dogged efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, the two sides agreed to engage in peace talks, which in and of itself was a major victory simply because for years the two rivals refused to even speak to one another. 

The negotiations continued for nine long months, with Kerry flying back and forth from Washington to the Middle East to relax tensions and hammer out the details of an elusive two-state solution.

Both sides expressed a willingness to make concessions, as Palestine agreed to delay their bid at internationally recognized statehood while Israel offered to release Palestinian prisoners. As time went on, Kerry appeared growingly confident and optimistic that a long-coveted peace deal was finally in reach.

For the first time in ages, it felt as though substantive progress was being made.

But nevertheless, the April 29th deadline for peace came and went without an agreement.

Many critics blamed Israel for blowing up the deal by continuing to build settlements on disputed territories. Others pointed the finger at Kerry, who received stiff backlash from the Jewish community after he said Israel was on the path to becoming an "apartheid state" if they did not come to peace with the Palestinians. 

However, despite the failure of diplomatic efforts, a spiritual case for peace was made that reignited hope, at least in the abstract. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, Pope Francis hosted Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Vatican to "pray for peace."

The trio planted a ceremonial olive tree together and shook hands, sending a strong message that peace was still possible, despite how improbable it may have felt at the time.

BACK TO REALITY

If peace seemed possible them, it's as good as dead now. 

The defining event occurred in mid-June when three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and found murdered in a field in the small West Bank town of Hebron.

The three teens- Eyal Yifrach (19), Naftali Fraenkel (16) and Gilad Shaer (16)- were students at a religious school and had been missing for 18-days. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the killings on Hamas, the Palestinian Militant group.

In response to the heinous murders, Israel launched an all out attack on the Gaza Strip. Rocket after rocket pounded Hamas strongholds, killing an unknown number of militants and civilians.

If that wasn't enough to stoke the flames, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was found burnt alive in a Jerusalem forest, a suspected "revenge killing" by Israelis in retaliation for the three teens killed weeks earlier.  

ROCK BOTTOM

The latest episode of violence and retaliation is evidence that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has hit rock bottom. Both sides have abandoned any shot at peace, instead reverting back to the "eye for an eye" mentality of revenge that has plagued relations for decades. 

Although noble and well-intentioned, diplomatic and spiritual appeals for peace made by Kerry and Pope Francis now seem naive in retrospect. 

Whether we like to admit it or not, it was wishful thinking to assume that months of diplomatic negotiations and joint prayer sessions can cure generations of deeply engrained hatreds. 

However, this isn't to say that such efforts aren't worthwhile or much-needed. They are. 

It's just that, in the end, international diplomacy and religious goodwill can only do so much. In order to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both sides must be committed to peace and have the will to see it through.

Until then, it looks as though the cycle of violence will continue, just as it has for decades. 

But as we all know, the eye for an eye philosophy will do nothing to secure a long lasting peace. 

It will only serve to make the Palestinians and Israelis blind.