Wait till you read this essay! Who could vote for any political candidate who can be tied in, even remotely, with Sheldon Adelson or Haim Saban? Both are probably lovely gentlemen, but their foreign policy views make their influence a cancer for any political candidate. Scott McConnell, founding editor of The American Conservative, lays out the reasoning against the influence of both Adelson and Saban here.

After reading Scott’s thoughtful analysis, look at my series on the foreign policy guidelines laid out by the Cato Institute’s Chris Preble (read about Chris and his work here, here. here and here.). And be certain to order a copy of the best foreign policy book I have read to date, The Power Problem .

Rhetorical bows notwithstanding, Mr. Obama’s recent nonbinding, no-detail, anti-carbon accord with China is less about Chinese emissions than it is about America’s climate politics. Read here from the WSJ, how Obama has found the perfect climate-change partner: “A technocratic elite that can instruct the bourgeoisie how they must light their homes and commute to work.”

All of which suggests that this accord is less about China than American climate politics. One of the main arguments against U.S. carbon rationing has been that such economic masochism is pointless as long as Chinese and Indian emissions continue to grow. Mr. Obama will now claim the Middle Kingdom is signed onto his anticarbon agenda, even if its promises are distant and vague.

In return for Mr. Xi’s assurances, Mr. Obama pledged that the U.S. will cut emissions by as much as 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. This implies doubling the annual pace of CO2 reductions over the 17% marker that Mr. Obama set in 2009. So using the Sino-American deal as cover, Mr. Obama will now say he is obliged to impose a new burst of aggressive carbon regulations, no matter the harm to U.S. growth.

The difference is that American governance, unlike China’s, is supposed to follow the rule of law; companies can’t refuse to obey regulations because the CEO’s brother-in-law belongs to the Party. Yet most of the rule-makings to enforce Mr. Obama’s promises to China will emerge from his administrative-state tunnels like the Environmental Protection Agency without a vote in Congress. Under this President, the political systems of the East and West may share more features than patriots care to admit.

This condominium between the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbonizers is also supposed to inspire a new global climate treaty in Paris next year, but other nations may draw a different lesson about Mr. Obama’s negotiation methods. The Chinese no doubt saw how much the President wanted an agreement and that he would accept nearly anything that could pass as one.

Meaningless global warming promises are much easier than corralling weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, or convincing Beijing to fight Islamic State, or for that matter stopping Chinese cyber-attacks on U.S. military and corporate targets. Mr. Xi must have been delighted to see a U.S. President agree to make America less economically competitive in return for rhetorical bows to doing something someday about climate change.

Elizabeth Warren, is there a bigger (ex Obama) scourge for America? Let me be clear: no member in the Senate understands the needs of small business owners less than does this wholly unqualified person. The Democrats, in elevating such a deeply flawed individual, are inviting loud flushing noises. As the recent election has shown, Americans have awakened. Marxism and income re-distribution are destructive to America. America’s risk-taking small business owners generate most of our country’s good new jobs. Elevating a foe of America’s small business owners is a locked-in, desperate course for Democrats. Panic must be in the air.

In more bad news for Democrats after the thrashing Obama took in the midterm elections, the survival of Obamacare is resting on a new flood of enrollees. The signees in the first wave were “older, sicker and more heavily (gasp) female” to keep O’Care afloat than what analysts believe to be vital for its survival. The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner writes, without new healthy signups, there is more likelihood of an “adverse-selection death spiral.” An expensive pool of enrollees will drive premiums up and cause healthy people to flee the pool, which will drive premiums up and cause even more enrollees to flee. A nasty spiral, indeed.

Then along comes MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of O’Care, to publicly admit that it was necessary to mislead the public in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed. The ACA, intentionally complex to baffle most of America as well as any government entity, was passed because we, the American voters, were too “stupid” to know what’s best for us. As Gruber stressed, the huge transfer of wealth from Obamacare had to be hidden from voters because “if you had a law which … made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.” Furthermore, in that not one Republican voted for the ACA, Obamacare rests squarely on the shoulders of Democrats. So how likely is it that the new Republican Congress will be willing to bail out insurance companies should the entire system collapse?

In NRO, Charles Krauthammer writes that behind Obama’s smooth reassurances was “the arrogance of an academic liberalism that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains, and deliberately, contemptuously deceives.”

Read more here as Mr. Tanner explains that “more people are losing the plans they have been enrolled in, premiums in the most popular plans are rising an average of 8.4% percent next year, and the health-care law will probably cost more than expected and add as much as $131 billion to the deficit by 2024.”

So, if you like your plan, you can … ? Welcome to “the most transparent administration in history.”

Related video:

This exhaustive expose is a report of Team B II at The Center for Security Policy. In the spirit of due diligence, I would tell readers that most often I am not on the same foreign policy page as is the publisher and associate author of Shariah the Threat to America . Frank Gaffney Jr., a highly visible leader in the neoconservative fraternity, was also a signatory to The Project for a New Century’s statement of principles. PNAC’s goal was to promote American hegemony and full spectrum dominance by the United States. PNAC played a significant role in prodding the administration of George W. Bush into the failed Iraq war effort, the negative effects of which carry on to this day. With such disclosure in mind, I do share Gaffney and Team B II’s concern regarding the threat to America posed generally by shariah and more specifically by The Muslim Brotherhood.

Among the recommendations of Team B II: (1) “U.S. government agencies and organizations should cease their outreach to Muslim communities through Muslim Brotherhood fronts whose mission is to destroy our country from within.” (2) “Compounds and communities that seek to segregate themselves on the basis of shariah law, apply it alongside or in lieu of the law of the land or otherwise establish themselves as ‘no go’ zones for law enforcement and other authorities must be thwarted in such efforts.” (3) “Immigration of those who adhere to shariah must be precluded, as was previously done with adherents to the seditious ideology of communism.”

Among Team B II’s Key Findings are (1) “The United States is under attack by foes who are openly animated by what is known in Islam as shariah (Islamic law).” (2) “The Muslim Brotherhood is the font of modern Islamic jihad. It is dedicated to the same global supremacist objectives as those (like al Qaeda and the Taliban) who share its adherence to shariah but who believe that violent jihad is more likely to more quickly produce the common goal of a global caliphate.” (3) “Those who work to institute shariah into the United States intend to subvert and replace the Constitution.”

The real estate market in Key West has heated up to the level of the good ol’ days of 2004/05. This from a friend of ours who is a realtor—someone we’ve known since we got here in 1990. The offshore boat races just ended here amid much excitement and plenty of spending. It looks like it will to be a full house this year in Key West when the weather turns frigid up north.

Here is some intelligence on a brand new addition to the Key West food and beverage landscape. First, with a few exceptions, you want to avoid the Duval Street scene and all the tourist traps so strongly promoted in the national magazines. A favorite new addition is Deuce’s Off The Hook located at 728 Simonton St. in the heart of old town Key West. It is open for three meals daily (except Tuesday). Off The Hook has a distinctly locals feel, so unlike the majority of high profile restaurants in Key West.

There are still a handful of great spots that are much more locals-oriented than tourist-centric. But the Internet has let the cat out off the bag far too often. Off The Hook, like every place in Key West, is strictly informal. You probably should reserve for dinner, as the restaurant is small, but a reservation is not required. Make your first visit a lunch stop. We had lunch at the bar last week and it was very comfortable. The menu is local seafood oriented and fresh, as well as reasonably priced. Oysters, crab, clams, shrimp and snapper head the list. There is a nice selection of draft beer and for a small place the wine list is just fine. We are happy to introduce to you our #1 new Key West place for fresh Key West seafood and a pleasant low-key time. Enjoy Off The Hook.

Click here to see the photos.