The Deal To Give Iran The Bomb

     Early this morning, while three quarters of the country was still asleep, President Obama announced the nuclear deal he and his team inked with Iran. President Obama, like a schoolboy with bad grades trying to hide his report card from his parents, made the early morning appearance and recounted the brilliance of his deal-making. However, like so much we have seen from this administration, reality is a tortured prisoner locked away in a dungeon of obfuscation and political rhetoric of the worst kind.
     When this deal-making process began between the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, Iran, and the United States and its allies, Iran had thirteen red lines that they would not cross in any deal, the United States had three. The deal that was finally agreed to saw Iran not violating any of its thirteen red lines, and the United States violating all three of theirs. The Obama negotiating team, lead by the most feckless Secretary of State since Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, proved itself to be a glittering jewel of colossal fecklessness.
     The Iranians give up nothing and receive in return $140 billion in frozen assets, which I am sure they will not be using for shovel ready infrastructure jobs in their country. Their funding of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations had been feeling the squeeze of international sanctions which froze their assets in foreign institutions. But along comes Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry to save the day and infuse Iran with enough cash to fund terrorist activities for years to come.
     The anytime-anywhere inspections that are part of this agreement are anything but. In order for an inspection to go forward it must be approved by a committee upon which sits members of the Iranian government. This process that the president is so sanguine about could take up to a month to implement, in which time the Iranians could simply move operations from the target of inspection to a different location. It was described by one expert as a criminal being consulted about an impending search warrant and given a month to move his contraband.
      The worst part of this deal is thanks to Bob Corker and his Bill, the president does not need the 2/3 vote of the senate required by the constitution to approve any treaty. The Corker Bill, if one remembers, turned that constitutional requirement on its head and put the onus on congress to muster 2/3 vote to reject the treaty after the president vetoes their initial rejection of the deal. This makes the dangerous deal the president signed with Iran even more likely than it would have been had the constitution been followed.
     If this deal does pass muster and is implemented, in one fell swoop President Obama will have done more to destabilize the Middle East and the world than any world leader of the last 100 years. It will be the start of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East never before seen. Sources have said that Saudi Arabia is already on the phone to Pakistan trying to secure nuclear arms to protect itself from what they know to be a rogue nation, and now thanks to Barack Obama, Iran is a rouge nation that will more than likely be nuclear tipped in the near future.       

Iraq: The Loss Of An Ally

     In March 2003 when President George W. Bush ordered troops into Iraq with the full consent of both Republicans and Democrats in congress, then Illinois sate senator, Barack Obama, said there was no national security interest to do so. In 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama voted against the surge of troops in Iraq which eventually turned the War in favor of the United States, saying once again that there was no national security interest there. During the presidential campaign of 2008, candidate Obama promised to retreat from Iraq because, once again, there was no national security interest in prosecuting the war any further. After becoming president, Barack Obama could not pull troops out of Iraq fast enough, leading to the current enervation of peace, a peace which he was handed by the Bush administration in January of 2009.
     When George W. Bush decided, after digesting all the available information at the time, that it would be necessary to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein according to the official policy of the United States made so by President Clinton, he made his case to the American people and the United Nations. The evidence was clear that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 for blowing themselves up in Israel and taking with them as many Jews as possible. Other evidence showed that Saddam was hosting Al Qaeda training camps inside his country. And of course there was Saddam's own admission, backed by most of the intelligence agencies in the world, that he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
      All the reasons given for invading Iraq eventually revealed themselves to be frighteningly true. Even the weapons of mass destruction, many of which have recently shown up in Syria, was proven to be a valid reason for invading Iraq. My question is that if Barack Obama has spent the last decade preaching the "No national security interest" sermon, why now is he saying his bombing campaign is going to be a protracted operation? If there is no security interest, why provide any military intervention? Certainly Mr. Obama, as well as the rest of the intellectual garbage disposals on the Left, realize that national security is the primary mission of the U.S. military. There is no valid reason to use the military for a primarily humanitarian mission.
     It requires a super-sized portion of denial not to understand that the world is a less safe place with weak American leadership. The current mass killings, kidnappings, and the wreaking of general havoc in many parts of the world is a direct result of a United States president that gave material support to the terrorist group ISIS in Syria, allowed them to escalate violence in Iraq, and then dropped a few bombs to make it look as though he was trying to fix that which he broke. All the while blaming his predecessor, who by the way, has not been president for over five and half years.
     Mr. Obama, as a function of running for president, called Iraq a "bad" war. In typical Leftist fashion, he was more interested in ending a war than in winning it. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, Barack Obama knows he screwed up by pulling troops out of Iraq too soon. But he can not very well send them back in there, so he will conduct bombing raids until they do not work, then he will say Iraq was lost by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama will have trained another ally not to trust the United States. That is the real shame of the president's Iraq policy, it has denied the U.S. an ally in a region where we desperately need them.

Obama's "Get Out Of Political Jail Free Card"

     The Obama administration is crowing about the "capture" of alleged mastermind of the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, like a child bragging about catching a goldfish in a 2 gallon fish bowl. My question is, "What took them so long?" A valid question since they have known where Khatallah was almost immediately following the attacks. And although it may have been difficult for the Obama administration to capture Ahmed immediately after the incident, having already put the filmmaker in jail who they were saying was responsible for the attack, it was not difficult for them to keep an eye on him as he sipped coffee in some of Libya's finest cafes.
     In fact, Obama's Department of State issued official permissions to journalists who traveled to Libya to sip coffee as well while they discussed the price of the fava bean with Khatallah. Khatallah would have been captured by any other administration within a week of the attacks, because most other presidents would have saw him as an enemy combatant responsible for the deaths of an Ambassador and three other Americans. But Barack Obama saw Khatallah as a get out of political jail free card. Just as he saw Osama Bin Laden, and how he tought the Bergdahl exchange would be viewed by the American public, had they not been too obtuse to see the brilliance of his clever negotiating skills. In each situation, action was delayed until such a time that it would provide the greatest political advantage to the Obama administration.
     The pressures on President Obama were mounting in the days and weeks leading up to Ahmed Abu Khatallah's "capture." There was the Veterans Administration scandal, Trey Goudy's committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, Louis Lerner's emails floating around in the ether before a hard drive crash fortuitously removed them from the face of the earth, and of course the backlash of the Bowe Bergdahl trade for the world's top five terrorists. Mr. Obama was feeling political pressure, and then he remembered Khatallah sipping coffee and chewing the fat with American journalists.
     But just when poor Barack was getting ready to pop the cork on the champagne to celebrate an end to Khatallah's café-sitting days, those pesky terrorists in Iraq threw another road block in his path of freedom from political jail. The Islamist States of Iraq and Syria, ISIS for short, completely buried the president's latest accomplishment of "capturing" the mastermind of the Benghazi attacks. Just as the Bin Laden killing was soon buried by Obama's fiscal malpractice in August 2011 when the United States suffered its first downgrade of its credit rating in history. And just like any political benefit from the Bergdahl trade was buried by the fact that he was a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst.
     It is hard to say how many more get out of political jail free cards President Obama has in his bottomless bag of political gimmickry. But the mess he has made of Iraq is surely in need of something more than the tired old escape clause of, "It is Bush's fault." Maybe he has D. B. Cooper on ice in the White House basement being saved for just such an occasion.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

     Well it took Democrats 11 years, and one and half presidential terms, but they have finally assured a United States defeat in Iraq. Mosul has fallen to insurgents, read: terrorists, as well as Fallujah. Baghdad is in danger of being lost and the Iraqi government has had their pleas for support from the Obama administration go mostly unanswered. To be fair, President Obama has been too busy giving the Taliban in Afghanistan their top generals back in exchange for an Army deserter, and millions in walking around cash that they can use to restock their munitions.
     I remember in the early days of the Iraq War, a letter surfaced from Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller to his fellow Democrats in congress on the best ways to sabotage their own country's war effort. This treachery was met with a big yawn by the main stream media, in fact they questioned the methods by which the memo was leaked. Of course we all know the "rest of the story." Democrats did everything in their power to destroy not only George W. Bush, but the progress toward victory he had made in Iraq.
     Now with the Al Qaeda-linked groups having their way with the country of Iraq, "help" for the embattled government there has come not from the United States government, which helped birth a more democratic form of government in that once oppressed nation, but from a once bitter adversary, Iran. It would require the height of obtuseness and naiveté to think that Iran wishes in its heart of hearts to see Iraq succeed as a democracy. If the Ayatollah refuses to loosen the chains of tyranny on his own people, he certainly is not sending Iranian assets to Iraq to ensure freedom for its people.
     No, the intention of Iran in offering "help" to the Iraqi government in their time of national emergency can almost assuredly be for nefarious interests and not humanitarian ones. It was after all the Iranians that were supplying material support to the insurgents throughout the U.S. effort to stabilize Iraq and bring it the benefits of self-rule. It hardly seems that they would now be wanting to eradicate those same insurgents for the sake of a form of government that they abhor.
     This of course is not the first time that Democrats have tarnished the greatness of their own country by actively pursuing its defeat. The Vietnam War was decidedly and firmly in the win column of the United States, just ask any of the North Vietnamese generals who were licking their wounds after the Paris Peace Accords. Until, that is, Watergate and the subsequent take over of congress by Democrats because of it. The Democrats cut off all military and material support for South Vietnam which American soldiers had died and been wounded to secure for the cause of liberty. Without that support, the communist North overran the South and murdered hundred of thousands that would not have otherwise died, all because of Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
     I am without words as a result of the prospect of Democrats once again losing a war that the United States had won, purely for political placation of their radical base. It is a shame that Democrats have so little respect for the dead American soldiers and the dead Iraqis that sacrificed so much to give that country some semblance of liberty, only to have it handed to the forces of evil. But then I should not be surprised that an ideology of weakness and duplicity would surrender its country's laurels to an ethos of hate, despair, and oppression.

The Disaster Of Obama "Lone Cowboy" Foreign Policy

     President Obama, in defending his unilateral and illegal deal with the Taliban of Bowe Bergdahl the deserter for five top Al Qaeda leaders, has used the worn refrain, "We don't leave anyone behind." It is a shame that he did not feel that way in September of 2012 when his foreign policy was directly responsible for doing just that to Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans who died at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. And it is a further shame borne entirely by the Obama administration that the deserter Bergdahl was given greater solicitude by his government than Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who sits in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn and winding up in Mexico with firearms in his possession which were legal in the U.S., and which he disclosed immediately to Mexican authorities.
     Actually, to call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter is an insult to previous deserters throughout history who may have had their reasons not to fight. A deserter is someone who leaves the field of battle to avoid the conflict. Mr. Bergdahl sought to associate himself directly with his country's enemies, which is what is commonly known as a traitor. A unanimous number of men who served with Bowe Bergdahl felt it was so important to dissuade the American people from believing the Obama subterfuge of Bergdahl as a hero, they violated a non-disclosure agreement they all signed with the U.S. military.
     Barack Obama and others on the Left, in the media and elsewhere, have tried to mitigate his disastrous deal with the Taliban by saying that the men released from Guantomino in exchange for Bergdahl were goat herders and farmers who were just swept up off the battle field with other enemy combatants. These men were most assuredly the Al Qaeda equivalent to members of Hitler's inner circle in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, the administration was told by military advisors that these particular five were the last ones the administration should ever release from Guantomino.
     I have read many articles stating that prisoner exchanges are common in U.S.history, but none of the defenders of this concept will give any examples except the exchanges between the North and South during the Civil War, and other trades that consisted of rank for rank and number for number of prisoners from both sides of a conflict. They can not seem to proffer one example where a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst, was exchanged for a group of the enemies most valuable assets.
     The law that governs the kind of exchange made by Barack Obama, requires a president to do more than just give congress a heads-up. It requires the dissemination to congress of much more data in support of the exchange, and it strongly recommends that the president actually seek the counsel of congress. Neither of which the President did. It is the "lone cowboy diplomacy" with which the Left tried to plaster President Bush, in which President Obama has engaged throughout the entirety of his presidency. Contrary to the false narrative promulgated by the Left, President Bush did consult with congress on a host of foreign policy decisions, including two votes for the authorization of the use of force against our enemies in the Middle East.
     President Obama disdainfully ignoring congress and acting in a unilateral manner on domestic policy has proven to be an economic disaster. But in doing the same in the arena of foreign policy, he has embolden our enemies, alienated our allies, and made the United States and the world much less safe in the 21st century.

Recent Military Reduction: A Deriliction Of Duty

     Of all the damage that Barack Obama has done to this country in the arenas of economic policy, racial harmony, and constitutional government, none has been so dangerous as his foreign policy. In  just five short years the Obama administration has transformed the United States from lone super-power status with the ability to influence world events for the good, to a whimpering bench-rider confined to the sidelines. This "accomplishment" not only portends troubled waters for the U.S., but for all the nations of the world who depend on its leadership in the cause of liberty.
     Many on the Left and the Right criticized those of us who said from the beginning that the number one goal of Barack Obama was to manage America's decline. But now, with the decline well under way, only a fool or an Obama supporter would deny it. With the economy barely producing at half its normal pace, the greatest health care industry in the world in the process of becoming just another government nightmare, and now with the recent announcement from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that he is cutting the military by twenty percent, the triumvirate of America's destruction is complete.
     In his announcement, Secretary Hagel said that it was the end of United States military dominance in the world. This move to deplete our defenses, and the announcement to our enemies that we are making ourselves weaker, is also a signal to our allies that they can no longer depend on a strong America to defend the cause of freedom. Barack Obama and his fellow travelers believe that United States dominance is the reason for conflict in the world, not the discouragement of it. Ronald Reagan once said, "No war of the last hundred years has been fought because America was too strong."
     The real tragedy of the Obama presidency is not so much the historic level of debt, the chronically ill economy, or the extra-constitutional president. It is that for the first time in the modern era, and maybe in the entirety of this country's history, we have a president that is outwardly disdainful and hostile to the founding principles of this country and is actively working to mitigate them. Barack Obama has made no secret of the fact that he does not think the liberty of Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson is fair or equitable. That is why from the beginning he said he wants to "fundamentally transform" this country.
      The recent reduction in our military strength is a fundamental transformation from a federal government constitutionally bound to provide it, to an oligarchy that sees itself as unbound from 238 year old documents, the guiding principles of liberty, or any sense of duty to common decency. It is this dereliction of duty by the current president that dishonors the office, the nation, and liberty itself.          

The Evil Empire Returns

     There are very few sure things in this life, and even fewer in the world of international politics. But I can say, without fear of contradiction, that at some point in the near future either Iran will attack Israel or Israel will attack Iran. The Obama administration, with its enabling of Russian power on the world stage, has almost insured that Iran will not abandon its nuclear ambitions, and its well vocalized intentions to try and destroy Israel.
     Using a rouge nation like Iran as its proxy in a war against the west is nothing new for Russia, and its predecessor, the Soviet Union. Two world wars were fought, to a great extent, because of Soviet manipulation of German leaders who believed they were destined to rule the world, or at least as much as they could. And the Soviets were willing to allow them to continue in that thinking as long as it benefited their purposes. The North Koreans were supplied and encouraged in their incursion into South Korea in the early 1950s by the Soviets, and North Vietnam was likewise encouraged to attack the South.
     Even the Gulf wars that we have fought in recent years had Soviet, err I mean, Russian fingerprints all over them. One of Saddam Hussein's biggest morale supporters and suppliers of material contraband against the sanctions in the 1990s was Russia. And now the Russians, helped by weak U.S. leadership in the region, have become the Middle East's puppet master, intent on crushing Israel. The embarrassing second-class world citizenship that Barack Obama has bestowed upon the United States in every situation from Libya to Syria, has Russia salivating at the ease with which they have been able to bring down American influence around the world.
     And recently Russian support of the Ukrainian government against reformers in that country has made the re-building of the Soviet empire more of a reality than at any other time in the last quarter century. Many experts surmise that if the Ukraine falls under Russian control, it will be a fait accompli that the rest of Eastern Europe will follow. The Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan was responsible for defeating will have risen out of the ashes of Barack Obama's inept foreign policy.
       The oppression of Eastern Europe, and perhaps beyond, will be the result of a world view shared by Barack Obama and others that the United States' influence is the source of conflict in the world. But what their flawed thinking does not account for is that tyranny has always been less likely to germinate in the soil of American influence. And oppression shrinks when in the presence of the sunlight of freedom and liberty cast by the United States of America. Sadly the source of that light has been deliberately muted by Barack Obama, and the shadow of the Soviet empire is growing as a result.

The Media's Attempt To Spin Jang Execution To Obama's Advantage

     Recently, the current pot-bellied dictator of North Korea and the world's creepiest Dennis Rodman fan, Kim Jong-un, executed his uncle, Jang Song-thaek. Jang was North Korea's Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission, a position considered to be second to the Supreme Leader himself. Jang was also married to Kim Jong-Il's only sister, making him Kim Jong-un's uncle. He also was rumored to have been in control of North Korea during the former leader's illness and death several years ago.
     Jang Song-thaek was charged with mentoring the young Kim Jong-un a few years back by his brother in-law, Kim Jong-il, then Supreme Leader of North Korea. It is a common occurrence for the mentor to be executed by his protégé sometime after he has taken the reins of power, for fear of being challenged by the powerful mentor. Of course the official charges against Jang read somewhat like a recitation of North Korean law, Jang having been accused of everything from political corruption to pornography.
     Reading the main stream media's analysis of the execution, one would think this was the first time that a dictator in North Korea, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, executed members of his government who they perceived to be too powerful. The dolts in the media even quoted North Korean "experts" who confirmed that Kim Jong-un was an anomaly when it came to any lineage of lunatic leaders, beginning with his grand father Kim Il-sung and being passed to him by his father Kim Jong-Il. But the truth is that both Kim's father and grand father did their share of purging during their tenures in power.
     The reason that the media has gotten it so wrong is partly their disinterest in and incompetence for anything approaching journalism, and partly they consider it to be their divine directive to make President Obama look less feckless with foreign policy than he is. The media has deliberately tried to characterize Kim Jong-un as so much more irrational and off the world leader reservation than was his father, who of course was in power mostly during the Bush years. The media's narrative on North Korea seems to be that no one, not even the Great Obaminator, could reason with a man so unreasonable as Kim Jong-un, who would execute his own uncle and mentor. Therefore excusing Barack Obama for actually ignoring the growing threat to the region posed by Kim Jong-un.
     I am certainly not excusing the mentally ill Kim Jong-un, but nor should the United States be using the recent execution of his uncle to excuse the incompetence and buffoonish foreign policy of our own "Supreme Leader." It may be unfair to compare Barrack Obama to Kim Jong-un, after all, our President has not executed any of his family members or administration officials, only common sense, decency, and a cogent foreign policy.
       

The Loss Of U.S. Influence-The Real Obama Legacy

     The partial shutdown of the federal government which commenced last week and will last until President Obama and congressional Democrats decide it is no longer to their political advantage to continue, has unfortunately distracted the American attention and focus away from potentially devastating world events. And while the petulance of Barack Obama is unfortunately the driving force that animates this administration and therefore governs this country, it has also created abandoned global allies and embolden world enemies.
     A glaring case in point is Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East, and one of the United States' best friends in the world. This island of democracy and decency is surrounded by those who wish to destroy her and banish her to the ash heap of history. The reprobate theocracy of Iran, which was facilitated into existence by Jimmy Carter in 1979, has now sprouted and grown into a full-fledged world menace, and an especially dangerous menace to Israel, who Iran has vowed to "wipe off the face of the map." This menace to the moral ethicacy of the human condition has been legitimized, not only by the United Nations, which one would expect, but by the current United States president, Barack Hussein Obama.
     At the recent United Nations General Assembly, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave warning to Iran that Israel will act to prevent their possession of nuclear weapons, and gave notice to the United States that he did not trust the current leadership to do the right thing in Iran specifically and the Middle East in general. This lack of confidence in America from a friend and ally like Israel is not just a difference of opinion between the leaders of these two great nations, but a divergence of the moral ethos which guides all decent nations of the world. It is also a signal that the United States, at least under the leadership of President Obama, has relegated its authority to be a force for good in the world, to meaningless and impotent words of the increasingly liberty-challenged United Nations.
     I have every confidence that Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu, will be victorious in foiling the profane plans and schemes of Iran. I am not as confident that the United States will be an active participant in that victory, choosing instead under the current leadership to huddle in the comfort of their rabble-rousing domestic community organizing. This loss of ability to influence world events for the good is not only a great loss to the United States, but to the future history of real peace, real justice and real liberty for all the peoples of the world.

Embassy Closings A Sign Of U.S. Weakness

     Over the weekend, the Obama administration announced the closures of some embassies in North Africa and the Middle East until Saturday because of credible threats of terrorism uncovered by intelligence sources. The necessary security to defend the embassies in question apparently was not as cost effective as the 1.4 billion dollars spent last year on the Obama Royal family for their lavish vacations every month and various other trappings related to being First Family. Embassy security in strategic countries to the war on terror is also not as important to the Obamaites as the billions of taxpayer dollars still being doled out like candy at a parade to phony green energy companies run by the President's campaign donors. Or the myriad other wasteful government expenditures like lavish conferences and bonuses to various agencies that spit in the eye of fiscal responsibility and probity.
     Beyond the ludicrous nature of closing embassies that may be subject to attack because there is a lack of funds to keep them open with proper security, is the obvious, i.e., would the terrorists planning these attacks not just wait a week and attack once the embassies are reopened? Now that the Obama administration has publicly informed the terrorists of the closures, mainly so the President can look as if he is being "smart" in the wake of the Benghazi debacle, it allows the terrorist forces aligned against the U.S. to adjust their plans and not be caught off guard by attacking empty embassies.
     In addition to the terrorists being given free intelligence by the Obama administration about the embassy closures, is the pathetic weakness that the closures portend to both our enemies and our allies about the new posture of the United States under the Obama regime. A posture that says it is wiser to close diplomatic outposts than it is to provide proper security for fear of provoking people who mean us harm. According to the Obama philosophy, if we show our enemies that we are weak and unable to defend ourselves and our interests around the world, they will simply pack up and go home without firing a shot. It is a philosophy that truly believes we have enemies because of our conspicuous military superiority.
     President Reagan once said that of all the wars fought in the last hundred years, none were the result of America being too strong. This is a truism that the current occupant of the Oval Office (when he is not on vacation or playing golf) seems to have no ability to understand. But what Barack Obama and others on the Left fail to learn from history and common sense is that the opposite is true. When the United States is either weak or perceived as such, there is more insecurity and outright war throughout the world. A strong U.S. is a benefit to the world, and closing embassies because defending them is a show of strength that this President abhors, only benefits the cause of our enemies.

A Case For American Influence

     The quickly deteriorating situation in Egypt and the ease with which the "Arab Spring" transformed into a Siberian Winter, along with the Syrian government murdering almost one hundred thousand of their own people and Iran inching ever so closer to being nuclear-armed, can hardly be noticed without acknowledging the fingerprints of President Obama. They are, for the most part, fingerprints of a passive leader of the free world. The deliberate non-interventionist policies of the Obama administration is no secret, the President himself has alluded many times to his wish of  reducing America's influence in the world, an influence, he believes in the deepest darkest places of his Leftist ideology, is responsible for enslaving people throughout the world and inflicting war upon them.
     Knowing the preceding truth  about our President makes his intervention in Egypt two years ago ever the more perplexing. But even that was not a full-fledged intervention, but more of an American drive-by where the President exerted the United States government's pressure just until Hosni Mubarak was ousted as the 30 plus year ruler of Egypt and ally of the U.S. Then President Obama backed out of the situation just at a crucial time when the future of Egypt was at stake and not only allowed, but seemed to encourage the Muslim Brotherhood, through Mohamed Morsi, gaining control of the Egyptian government. Now the President is even more withdrawn since his guy Morsi has been removed via a military coup.
     What the President and the implementers and supporters of his disastrous foreign policy do not understand, is that for there to be any hope of democracies in the Middle East that respect human and civil rights, the United States' influence is desperately needed. This is because there is no tradition in that part of the world for self-government or rights of the governed as we had in this country before the American revolution. Even as 18th century British subjects, the colonists that revolted had more rights and understood those rights better than most people in the Middle East today. British subjects and their rulers had lived under the influence of the Magna Carta for over five hundred years by the time of the American revolution. The idea of not only the ruled having rights, but the rulers having responsibilities to those they ruled, is a relatively new concept to the people of the Middle East.
     When the United States fails to participate and influence world events like in Egypt, Iran, Syria and elsewhere, the influences of tyranny and oppression shape those events. This is neither good for the people in those countries or for the United States. I fear that in the next few years, with the comatose foreign policy of the Obama administration, the United States and the world are in for some turbulent times and much more slaughter and mayhem. President Obama and his allies have a world view that is one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase. U.S. intervention does not cause friction and strife throughout the world, but reduces it and ensures the best chance for the people of other lands to live as self-directed lives as we enjoy in this great country. 

The Tyranny Of A Sovereign-Less Nation

      President Obama's speech a couple of weeks ago, in which he supposedly reset his administration's foreign policy, belies the fatal flaw in Leftist thinking. That is, if the United States leaves a theater of conflict with its tail between its legs, all conflict will cease and desist. The President illustrated one of the most infantile and most dangerous idioms of the Left when he stated that since we have pulled out of Iraq and are pulling out of Afghanistan, we are no longer at war with radical Islam and they are no longer at war with us. The President did not even come close to recognition of victory or even the desire for victory over a brutal and barbaric ideology, that not only is the enemy of the United States but civilized people throughout the world.
     Barack Obama, like every other Leftist who acquired their world view from the John Lennon song Imagine (which even the composer himself rejected towards the end of his life when he became an admirer of Ronald Reagan and started to become more conservative), thinks that the United States is the source of all conflict in the world and therefore if we withdraw from it, no one will want to attack us and instead will bring us daisies and fuzzy bunnies. This juvenile thinking presupposes that there is no evil or corruption in the world outside what the United States has brought to it.
     The Left thinks we have enemies because of something we have done and not because of who we are and the freedom and liberty our way of life represents. This severely flawed thought process is an outcome of the Leftist desire for a one world community, where the United Nations issues edicts and member nations blindly follow. We have already seen this dangerous thinking corrupt the inner sanctum of our republic in so much as Supreme Court justices have sighted international law as an ingredient in their decision-making on cases brought before them. There are also U.N. treaties, that if signed by the United States, will essentially subjugate our sovereignty to that of a world body that does not have our best interest at heart.
     For those Americans who define themselves, not as United States citizens, but as world citizens and think that a singular world government is most optimum, I have one question. What great achievements have resulted from the world body of the United Nations that has existed for over sixty years? They failed miserably to stop the slaughter in Rwanda or the genocide in Darfur. There have been no advancements in medicine, technology or industry as a result of its existence, and there is no intelligent case that can be made that the world is better off for the United Nations having existed in it. In fact, one could find merit resident in the opposite argument. The fact that advancement in the human condition comes from individual countries, most notably in the last hundred years from the United States, is reason enough to encourage and promote sovereign nations. Nothing worthwhile ever comes from bloated and overtly corrupt governing bodies that are endemic in the desire to micro-manage individual lives with regulation and laws from the mountaintop of arrogance occupied by those who think they have the intellectual superiority to do so.
     I fear that our current President's foreign policy will ultimately lead us closer to the tyranny of a sovereign-less nation and the corruption that is endemic in global organizations like the U. N.