President Obama's social justice plan for Iran is proceeding according to the Ayatollah's desired schedule, and nothing seems poised to stop or even slow its progress. The lowering of sanctions on the world's foremost supporter of terrorism and repository of anti-Semitism, seems to be a fait accompli. Considering that the sanctions were the mechanism for strangling the effectiveness of the Iranian regime to produce terrorism, President Obama's naiveté in lifting them, i.e. thinking if we are nice to them they will be nice to us, is more dangerous than a president who would be over zealous in prosecuting a war against the rouge nation.
Some estimates have the lifting of sanctions on Iran to be a $50 billion dollar windfall to the brutal regime. These funds would be in the form of unfrozen assets of Iran that the sanctions prevented them from accessing. These funds would be available to the Ayatollah on the day that any deal is signed with the hapless Obama administration. Contrary to what State Department mouthpiece Marie Harf said in a recent press briefing (she actually claimed the Iranian regime would use the funds to moderate their terrorist tendencies), the billions of dollars would most assuredly help in vastly expanding Iran's terrorist franchise.
Stepping into the malaise, and worsening it, is Senator Bob Corker and his band of misfit Republicans. The Corker Bill, which recently passed the Senate, would essentially allow President Obama to veto the Senate's constitutional authority to ratify this treaty with a 2/3s majority. The legislation states that congress has the authority to support or reject any deal the president makes with Iran with an up and down vote. But since the bill replaces congress' constitutional authority to approve or reject any such deal with legislation that gives them that authority, the president can simply veto an unfavorable decision by congress.
It would be incumbent upon congress to then muster the 2/3 majority needed to override the president's veto. So in essence instead of President Obama needing 2/3 majority to approve his ill-fated deal, congress would need 2/3 majority to deny him such a deal. If we did not know that this piece of legislation was written by Bob Corker, one would think it was written by Barack Obama. It increases not only President Obama's authority in the executive, but sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
It is shocking how rapidly the congress has given up its constitutional authority over the last few decades. The Corker Bill seems to be accelerating the drive to create in the executive branch of government a scepter of power at least equal to that of King George III, whom those brave and principled men fought a revolution to eject as their leader and forever changed the world for the better. Have we now cycled back to find ourselves in a post-Liberty world? Have we lost the insight to elect leaders, who without fatigue or wavering, will fight to defend the natural rights of free people to their personal Liberty? I do not have the answer, but I do know that the Corker Bill moves us as a nation closer to a pre-revolutionary past.
Showing posts with label The Middle-East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Middle-East. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
At Least Chamberlain Had A Signed Agreement
When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped off his flight from Munich after he ceded the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in 1938, he claimed he had secured "Peace in our time." He did after all have an agreement to which Heir Hitler's signature was affixed. Yesterday our very own Appeaser In Chief, Barack Obama, claimed much the same as Chamberlain had over 80 years ago. However, President Obama's "agreement" with the terrorist state of Iran was not signed, was not even an agreement, but a "framework" for an agreement.
Claiming success, as the president did yesterday, for simply producing a framework for an agreement after over 15 months of negotiations is a bit analogous to a builder calling your new house complete after only nailing together a few 2x4s. The real tragedy of the Obama/Kerry framework is that is gives Iran the losing of sanctions without having to provide any concessions themselves.
President Obama, being even more obtuse than Neville Chamberlain, has put his trust, and the security of the region and the world, in the hands of a radical Islamist regime that has murdered thousands of Americans over the last 4 decades, has spread terrorism throughout the Middle East region and beyond, has engaged in chants of "Death to America" while negotiating with the American representatives, and has refused to allow for Israel's right to exist.
President Obama claimed that sanctions were not working, yet it was the effects of the sanctions on the Iranian economy that brought them to the bargaining table in the first place. President Obama said that sanctions could be (not will be) re-imposed if the Iranians break the agreement, that by the way does not exist. But by the time the Iranians break the agreement, it will be too late. President Obama stated that inspectors would insure that the Iranian regime was not violating the agreement, but when have inspectors ever been successful in this task, can anyone say, "Hans Blix in Iraq?"
With the economy at home unraveling even further as a result of the Obama economic policies, Barack Obama is so desperate to achieve something before he leaves office that he is wiling to make any deal with the Iranians. The Iranians have coyly used the President's desperation to move the goal posts far from where they began 15 months ago. The policy of the U.S. government before that time had always been to stop Iran from building a bomb, period. Now the Obama administration has changed that goal into making sure it would only take the Iranians a year to build a bomb, commonly referred to as the "break-out time."
Neville Chamberlain, putting his trust in a signed agreement with a despot was naïve. Barack Obama placing his trust in an unsigned framework of an agreement with a regime that has been waging war on the U.S. and her allies for almost forty years is suicidal. But Mr. Obama has something that Chamberlain did not, i.e. a slavish media that will not report that the emperor's agreement has no clothes, an ill-informed public that will believe it, and a network of spin masters that will blame the inevitable failure of his agreement on a future president or congress.
Claiming success, as the president did yesterday, for simply producing a framework for an agreement after over 15 months of negotiations is a bit analogous to a builder calling your new house complete after only nailing together a few 2x4s. The real tragedy of the Obama/Kerry framework is that is gives Iran the losing of sanctions without having to provide any concessions themselves.
President Obama, being even more obtuse than Neville Chamberlain, has put his trust, and the security of the region and the world, in the hands of a radical Islamist regime that has murdered thousands of Americans over the last 4 decades, has spread terrorism throughout the Middle East region and beyond, has engaged in chants of "Death to America" while negotiating with the American representatives, and has refused to allow for Israel's right to exist.
President Obama claimed that sanctions were not working, yet it was the effects of the sanctions on the Iranian economy that brought them to the bargaining table in the first place. President Obama said that sanctions could be (not will be) re-imposed if the Iranians break the agreement, that by the way does not exist. But by the time the Iranians break the agreement, it will be too late. President Obama stated that inspectors would insure that the Iranian regime was not violating the agreement, but when have inspectors ever been successful in this task, can anyone say, "Hans Blix in Iraq?"
With the economy at home unraveling even further as a result of the Obama economic policies, Barack Obama is so desperate to achieve something before he leaves office that he is wiling to make any deal with the Iranians. The Iranians have coyly used the President's desperation to move the goal posts far from where they began 15 months ago. The policy of the U.S. government before that time had always been to stop Iran from building a bomb, period. Now the Obama administration has changed that goal into making sure it would only take the Iranians a year to build a bomb, commonly referred to as the "break-out time."
Neville Chamberlain, putting his trust in a signed agreement with a despot was naïve. Barack Obama placing his trust in an unsigned framework of an agreement with a regime that has been waging war on the U.S. and her allies for almost forty years is suicidal. But Mr. Obama has something that Chamberlain did not, i.e. a slavish media that will not report that the emperor's agreement has no clothes, an ill-informed public that will believe it, and a network of spin masters that will blame the inevitable failure of his agreement on a future president or congress.
Friday, March 27, 2015
The Ravages Of War
The ravages of war have had their effect on this great country in the hundreds of thousands of families that have lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and other family members. The ravages of war have separated families for long periods of time, fathers and mothers from young children, husbands from wives and wives from husbands. The ravages of war have reached their bloody knuckled hands into the lives of those who do their country's bidding even after they have left the theater of operations. My own family was touched by the ravages of war when my cousin, who served two tours of duty in Iraq, died from the remnants of battle after he returned home.
The thousands of men and women who died to liberate Iraq, and provide the people there with that which all human beings deserve as a birthright, i.e. freedom and self governance, have had their herculean effort voided by the current Commander in Chief's inability to see any cause larger than himself. The troops under Barack Obama's command in Iraq and Afghanistan who have suffered more casualties than under the former Commander in Chief, have had to sit and watch as the current Commander in Chief has snatched defeat from the jaws of the American military's victory. The current occupant of the Oval Office has stood brazenly on top the graves of all those who died defending freedom and has spat his acrimony for his own country upon them.
Yemen is in turmoil and being bombed by Saudi Arabia, without consultation of the United States which would have been a fait accompli prior to the Obama era. Libya is a haven for radical Islamist terrorist, a far worse place for its citizens and more dangerous one for the region than it was under the dictator Kaddafi. Iran has captured four Middle East capitals and have continued to fund and promote terrorist activities throughout the world, and now with the seeming blessing and support of the United States government under President Obama. And America's only real ally and friend in the region, Israel, has been abandon in her hour of need by her once staunch ally, the United States of America.
The visible ravages of war, the death, the destruction, the displacement of the innocent, have in the past lead to more freedom and prosperity when allowed to carry through to their ultimate conclusion. But the ravages of our recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are beyond the normal horrors of necessary military intervention because the current Commander in Chief has seen it his duty to deny victory, to deny regional stability in the Middle East, to deny the superior American culture of personal Liberty, free markets, and a de-escalation of radical Islamist extremists.
The thousands of men and women who died to liberate Iraq, and provide the people there with that which all human beings deserve as a birthright, i.e. freedom and self governance, have had their herculean effort voided by the current Commander in Chief's inability to see any cause larger than himself. The troops under Barack Obama's command in Iraq and Afghanistan who have suffered more casualties than under the former Commander in Chief, have had to sit and watch as the current Commander in Chief has snatched defeat from the jaws of the American military's victory. The current occupant of the Oval Office has stood brazenly on top the graves of all those who died defending freedom and has spat his acrimony for his own country upon them.
Yemen is in turmoil and being bombed by Saudi Arabia, without consultation of the United States which would have been a fait accompli prior to the Obama era. Libya is a haven for radical Islamist terrorist, a far worse place for its citizens and more dangerous one for the region than it was under the dictator Kaddafi. Iran has captured four Middle East capitals and have continued to fund and promote terrorist activities throughout the world, and now with the seeming blessing and support of the United States government under President Obama. And America's only real ally and friend in the region, Israel, has been abandon in her hour of need by her once staunch ally, the United States of America.
The visible ravages of war, the death, the destruction, the displacement of the innocent, have in the past lead to more freedom and prosperity when allowed to carry through to their ultimate conclusion. But the ravages of our recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are beyond the normal horrors of necessary military intervention because the current Commander in Chief has seen it his duty to deny victory, to deny regional stability in the Middle East, to deny the superior American culture of personal Liberty, free markets, and a de-escalation of radical Islamist extremists.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Benjamin Netanyahu: The Real Deal
If one thing dominated Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of congress yesterday it was his unwavering love, not only for his own country of Israel, but for the United States of America. Even prior to Rudy Giuliani's recent comments about President Obama not loving America, there have been doubts among many in this country as to whether he does or not. I do not know the answer to that question, it is not for me to judge what is in any man's heart. One thing is clear though, Benjamin Netanyahu expressed more positive emotion for America in one speech than the current president has expressed in six years.
The prime minister did what I wish this nation's politicians could do, express the facts without personal animus. He left not one shred of negativity in the well of the House chamber for anyone except Iran. He praised President Obama, Harry Reid, Republicans, and Democrats. He did a better job of weaving together the political factions of this country into a tapestry of resolve against a common enemy than anyone has ever done.
The stark difference of the mature and reasoned words of a true leader like Benjamin Netanyahu, and the petulant childlike response to his words by Barack Obama, reminded me of the difference between gallery art and refrigerator art. President Obama could not even be gracious in the face of an ally's concerns just because he saw those concerns as a personal attack against the will and brilliance of Barack Obama.
The antipathy towards Prime Minister Netanyahu exhibited by President Obama over the last six years is palatable. The reason is a matter of ideology, the Leftist ideology of Barack Obama. It is an ideology that sees evil in the existence of man as he relates to his environment, but not the evil that lurks in the hearts of real enemies. It is an ideology which informs its votaries that it is incumbent upon them to hate those who confront evil men, not the evil men themselves. It is an ideology that proffers the naïve notion that the words of smart, educated people will somehow trump the evil intentions of radical zealots.
Mr. Netanyahu's speech was about the danger of a nuclear Iran, and how the deal currently being negotiated will ensure that status as reality in the next ten years. Benjamin Netanyahu's vision extends not only to the next ten years, but the next several generations. He knows that the responsibility of a world leader is not only to the current political winds, but to those generations to follow whose freedom, happiness, and prosperity depend on current challenges being met by men of rectitude and strength, not simply avoided and pushed down the road by paper men lacking depth.
The prime minister did what I wish this nation's politicians could do, express the facts without personal animus. He left not one shred of negativity in the well of the House chamber for anyone except Iran. He praised President Obama, Harry Reid, Republicans, and Democrats. He did a better job of weaving together the political factions of this country into a tapestry of resolve against a common enemy than anyone has ever done.
The stark difference of the mature and reasoned words of a true leader like Benjamin Netanyahu, and the petulant childlike response to his words by Barack Obama, reminded me of the difference between gallery art and refrigerator art. President Obama could not even be gracious in the face of an ally's concerns just because he saw those concerns as a personal attack against the will and brilliance of Barack Obama.
The antipathy towards Prime Minister Netanyahu exhibited by President Obama over the last six years is palatable. The reason is a matter of ideology, the Leftist ideology of Barack Obama. It is an ideology that sees evil in the existence of man as he relates to his environment, but not the evil that lurks in the hearts of real enemies. It is an ideology which informs its votaries that it is incumbent upon them to hate those who confront evil men, not the evil men themselves. It is an ideology that proffers the naïve notion that the words of smart, educated people will somehow trump the evil intentions of radical zealots.
Mr. Netanyahu's speech was about the danger of a nuclear Iran, and how the deal currently being negotiated will ensure that status as reality in the next ten years. Benjamin Netanyahu's vision extends not only to the next ten years, but the next several generations. He knows that the responsibility of a world leader is not only to the current political winds, but to those generations to follow whose freedom, happiness, and prosperity depend on current challenges being met by men of rectitude and strength, not simply avoided and pushed down the road by paper men lacking depth.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Netanyahu Comes As A Fire Bell In The Night
Today is the day that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaks before the United States congress in a desperate attempt to sway the American political system away from the catastrophic deal that the Obama administration seems intent on making with Iran. The prime minister has a herculean task before him, having to explain why a nuclear-tipped Iran is a threat not only to the Middle East, but the United States, without being too critical of President Obama.
One concept that is sure to reside in the context of Mr. Netanyahu's speech is clarity. Unambiguous, morally clear, and unapologetic clarity. The kind of clarity for which this nation has hungered, but has been left wanting for the last six plus years. The kind of clarity that tells evil it will be banished even if it requires every drop of breath that is domiciled in the lungs of liberty and justice. The kind of clarity that is not afraid of the alternative to the bad deal that Barack Obama and John Kerry seem intent on making with the radical Islamists that control Iran.
The Obama administration has treated its "negotiations" with Iran as the Left treats all their negotiations with evil aggressors, with conflict resolution techniques that are not appropriate for the school yard, let alone international politics. Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama, through recent comments, seem to be under the absurd assumption that a bad deal with Iran is better than no deal at all.
As President Obama, as well as the entire Left, is so want to do, creates a false choice between a bad deal and war, many on the Right have suggested that a more extreme solution than a bad deal and less extreme one than war does exist. Severe sanctions would be that alternative, especially with oil prices at a multi-year low, the sanctions against Iran would never have more teeth than now. But just as the community organizer in chief has shown to be his modus operandi, any opponents to his deal with Iran currently in the works are characterized as war-mongers.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has his work cut out for him in exposing President Obama's negotiations as a permission slip for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future. He will also need to gently illuminate the naïveté of the Obama administration in thinking that if they negotiate in good faith so will our enemies.
There is no better friend in the Middle East, or possibly in the world, that the United States has than Israel. And although that friendship will have laid the foundation of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech today, he comes as a fire bell in the night, as a harbinger of what could become of ignorance and naïveté. Bibi Netanyahu comes as Churchill, not Chamberlain, as Ronald Regan not Jimmy Carter, and as Pope John Paul II not Pope Francis. Let people of all good faith wish him well and pray for his success.
One concept that is sure to reside in the context of Mr. Netanyahu's speech is clarity. Unambiguous, morally clear, and unapologetic clarity. The kind of clarity for which this nation has hungered, but has been left wanting for the last six plus years. The kind of clarity that tells evil it will be banished even if it requires every drop of breath that is domiciled in the lungs of liberty and justice. The kind of clarity that is not afraid of the alternative to the bad deal that Barack Obama and John Kerry seem intent on making with the radical Islamists that control Iran.
The Obama administration has treated its "negotiations" with Iran as the Left treats all their negotiations with evil aggressors, with conflict resolution techniques that are not appropriate for the school yard, let alone international politics. Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama, through recent comments, seem to be under the absurd assumption that a bad deal with Iran is better than no deal at all.
As President Obama, as well as the entire Left, is so want to do, creates a false choice between a bad deal and war, many on the Right have suggested that a more extreme solution than a bad deal and less extreme one than war does exist. Severe sanctions would be that alternative, especially with oil prices at a multi-year low, the sanctions against Iran would never have more teeth than now. But just as the community organizer in chief has shown to be his modus operandi, any opponents to his deal with Iran currently in the works are characterized as war-mongers.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has his work cut out for him in exposing President Obama's negotiations as a permission slip for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future. He will also need to gently illuminate the naïveté of the Obama administration in thinking that if they negotiate in good faith so will our enemies.
There is no better friend in the Middle East, or possibly in the world, that the United States has than Israel. And although that friendship will have laid the foundation of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech today, he comes as a fire bell in the night, as a harbinger of what could become of ignorance and naïveté. Bibi Netanyahu comes as Churchill, not Chamberlain, as Ronald Regan not Jimmy Carter, and as Pope John Paul II not Pope Francis. Let people of all good faith wish him well and pray for his success.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
The Ukraine-Russia-Iran Connection
Many of Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition, both in Israel and the United States, have characterized his upcoming speech to congress and the American people as some sort of cheap election year parlor trick. The more likely truth is that the Prime Minister is giving his speech three weeks before the United States secret deal with Iran is signed. A deal, like the Democrat's health care law, that must be passed before anyone can know what is in it.
From all accounts gleaned from previews of Mr. Netanyahu's speech, the Obama administration's deal with Iran will ensure a nuclear Iran and spell disaster, not only for Israel, but for the entire region of the Middle East. One may ask why the Obama administration is want to empower the original state sponsor of radical Islam. Some have postulated that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and wants to destroy Israel, the United States, and all western values. The Answer is much more political than ideological.
First, one must understand that the Obama administration's limp-wristed response to Russia invading Ukraine is directly related to the administration's deal-making with Iran. The Obama gang understands that to the extent that Iran has a nuclear program currently, the Russians have been a major contributor. Furthermore, any deal with Iran must receive the blessing, explicitly or implicitly, of Russia.
The Iran nuclear deal is further complicated by the fact that Iran is Shiite, which comprises about 15% of the Muslim community, the Sunnis make up the rest. In the past, for the most part, the United States et al have aligned themselves with the Sunni majority. President Obama has turned this formula on its head by supporting the minority Shiite, which explains his soft response to Radical Islamists like ISIS.
One may ask further why the Obama administration has chosen to side with the more radical aspect of Islam by tending to support the Shiite. We may never know for sure, but I think that is where the Leftist ideology of revering a minority, any minority, and rejecting the majority kicks in. In the Leftist world, minorities are always right and just and majorities are always corrupt and evil, accepting when that majority is Democrats in congress.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks before the United States congress and the American people, he will most likely not mention the connection between the Obama administration's eagerness to complete their deal with Iran and the danger it has caused to Ukraine and NATO allies in the region. Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned with the survival of his country and the continuation of the freedom they enjoy. A freedom that use to be supported by the United States government, but is now only supported by its people. The Prime Minister is hoping, through his speech, he can sway the U.S. government back to its principles of promoting Liberty and vigorously opposing evil. He has a tall order to fill with the Obama administration in control.
From all accounts gleaned from previews of Mr. Netanyahu's speech, the Obama administration's deal with Iran will ensure a nuclear Iran and spell disaster, not only for Israel, but for the entire region of the Middle East. One may ask why the Obama administration is want to empower the original state sponsor of radical Islam. Some have postulated that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and wants to destroy Israel, the United States, and all western values. The Answer is much more political than ideological.
First, one must understand that the Obama administration's limp-wristed response to Russia invading Ukraine is directly related to the administration's deal-making with Iran. The Obama gang understands that to the extent that Iran has a nuclear program currently, the Russians have been a major contributor. Furthermore, any deal with Iran must receive the blessing, explicitly or implicitly, of Russia.
The Iran nuclear deal is further complicated by the fact that Iran is Shiite, which comprises about 15% of the Muslim community, the Sunnis make up the rest. In the past, for the most part, the United States et al have aligned themselves with the Sunni majority. President Obama has turned this formula on its head by supporting the minority Shiite, which explains his soft response to Radical Islamists like ISIS.
One may ask further why the Obama administration has chosen to side with the more radical aspect of Islam by tending to support the Shiite. We may never know for sure, but I think that is where the Leftist ideology of revering a minority, any minority, and rejecting the majority kicks in. In the Leftist world, minorities are always right and just and majorities are always corrupt and evil, accepting when that majority is Democrats in congress.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks before the United States congress and the American people, he will most likely not mention the connection between the Obama administration's eagerness to complete their deal with Iran and the danger it has caused to Ukraine and NATO allies in the region. Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned with the survival of his country and the continuation of the freedom they enjoy. A freedom that use to be supported by the United States government, but is now only supported by its people. The Prime Minister is hoping, through his speech, he can sway the U.S. government back to its principles of promoting Liberty and vigorously opposing evil. He has a tall order to fill with the Obama administration in control.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Obama Outsources American Security
Senator Ted Cruz made a salient point recently when he asked if President Obama was going to require background checks for the Syrian rebels he is hell bent on arming with U.S. weapons. He sure as heck did not require background checks on the members of Mexican drug cartels that he armed via the Fast and Furious program, which resulted in the deaths of several U.S. border agents and hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens. But when it comes to American citizens exercising their God-given right, protected by the Constitution of the United States, to posses a firearm, background checks and ultimate confiscation is the goal of not only Mr. Obama, but the entire machine of the Left.
Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama administration's arming of Syrian rebels that most likely are just another viral strain of radical Islam, while trying their hardest to disarm law-abiding citizens, is the fact that the president is engaging in outsourcing American security to a group of individuals that have about as much in common with American interests as a mouse has in common with the interests of a cat. And if the preceding run on sentence did not make it clear enough, Barack Obama is arming the enemies of the United States, and what is more disturbing, is he has the support of many in the Republican party.
If ISIS is enough of a threat to dedicate U.S. arms, should we not employ the full force of our military, still the best in the world, to eradicating this enemy as quickly and thoroughly as we can? President Obama did not have a strategy just a little over a week ago, now he has one that is bound to fail. That is not just me talking, but many military experts currently serving and retired. The Obama air campaign rejects the logic of history that postulates no enemy has been completely defeated with only an air war.
ISIS is not a static number of individuals that can be whittled away by an air war of attrition. They are constantly growing, and considering that they were only hundreds strong a couple of years ago and now have numbers well over 30,000, their growth rate is alarming. But even more alarming than their growth rate is their maturation of sophistication, both organizationally and tactically. This growth was greatly accelerated in the last few months, coincidentally corresponding to the release of the Bergdahl Five.
Some have suggested (myself included) that ISIS has benefitted from the expertise of one or more of these former detainees. It certainly would not be the first time that Guantanamo Bay detainees were found on the battle field after being released. However, Politifacts has roundly dismissed this assertion, and have given it their "pants on fire" rating. Still the question is left begging how ISIS advanced so quickly, not only in size, but in their sophistication, in only 5 months. They not only have become a well oiled military unit, but have managed to gain sufficient oil holdings to make contracts to supply oil to some European countries at a fraction of market prices, which will wage an economic war that could be devastating for the United States.
For now the president and congress seem devoted to a strategy that is bound to fail, and cause more suffering, not only for the people of Iraq and Syria, but for the U.S. as well. As Napoleon once said, "When you endeavor to take Vienna, take Vienna." In other words Mr. President, do not outsource the destruction of ISIS to ISIS, or any other group whose values are more aligned with ISIS than the United States. This is a job we need to do ourselves or leave undone and take our chances.
Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama administration's arming of Syrian rebels that most likely are just another viral strain of radical Islam, while trying their hardest to disarm law-abiding citizens, is the fact that the president is engaging in outsourcing American security to a group of individuals that have about as much in common with American interests as a mouse has in common with the interests of a cat. And if the preceding run on sentence did not make it clear enough, Barack Obama is arming the enemies of the United States, and what is more disturbing, is he has the support of many in the Republican party.
If ISIS is enough of a threat to dedicate U.S. arms, should we not employ the full force of our military, still the best in the world, to eradicating this enemy as quickly and thoroughly as we can? President Obama did not have a strategy just a little over a week ago, now he has one that is bound to fail. That is not just me talking, but many military experts currently serving and retired. The Obama air campaign rejects the logic of history that postulates no enemy has been completely defeated with only an air war.
ISIS is not a static number of individuals that can be whittled away by an air war of attrition. They are constantly growing, and considering that they were only hundreds strong a couple of years ago and now have numbers well over 30,000, their growth rate is alarming. But even more alarming than their growth rate is their maturation of sophistication, both organizationally and tactically. This growth was greatly accelerated in the last few months, coincidentally corresponding to the release of the Bergdahl Five.
Some have suggested (myself included) that ISIS has benefitted from the expertise of one or more of these former detainees. It certainly would not be the first time that Guantanamo Bay detainees were found on the battle field after being released. However, Politifacts has roundly dismissed this assertion, and have given it their "pants on fire" rating. Still the question is left begging how ISIS advanced so quickly, not only in size, but in their sophistication, in only 5 months. They not only have become a well oiled military unit, but have managed to gain sufficient oil holdings to make contracts to supply oil to some European countries at a fraction of market prices, which will wage an economic war that could be devastating for the United States.
For now the president and congress seem devoted to a strategy that is bound to fail, and cause more suffering, not only for the people of Iraq and Syria, but for the U.S. as well. As Napoleon once said, "When you endeavor to take Vienna, take Vienna." In other words Mr. President, do not outsource the destruction of ISIS to ISIS, or any other group whose values are more aligned with ISIS than the United States. This is a job we need to do ourselves or leave undone and take our chances.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
The Secret War Of ISIS
The phenomenal growth of ISIS, from a ragtag gang of not much more than street thugs, to an organized army with over 30,000 members that have gained control of over a third of Iraq proper, has been a spectacle to behold. The more spectacular aspect of the "radicalize or die" mentality that has overtaken much of the Middle East in the last 6 years is the ineptness and fecklessness of Barack Obama to properly deal with the threat when it was much more manageable, only a few short months ago.
ISIS now has a huge portfolio of oil holdings in the Middle East, which not only supplies it with the cash necessary to rain down terror on anyone they label as an infidel, but the power to fight an economic war against the United States. The oil arm of ISIS has contracted with many European countries to sell them oil at $15 a barrel, far below the $90+ a barrel it has recently traded for on the open market.
The collapsing of the oil market will have an economically devastating effect on the U.S. and its ability to defeat an enemy that grows not only in military might every day, but also in its influence throughout the financial markets. Mention of this unspoken war being waged by ISIS is nowhere to be found in the main stream media, but some in the investment community have begun to murmur about it.
Some may say, "Good, we need cheaper oil." But this large of a precipitous fall in oil prices could have a ripple effect throughout financial markets that could rival the collapse of 2008. The costs of exploration, drilling, and extraction have continued to rise, and will not fall with the artificial discounting of the barrel price. The U.S. oil industry could be severely curtailed because the costs of production will be so much greater than the price for which they can sell their product. Thousands of jobs would be loss and many smaller drillers would be forced out of business, causing a collapse of the stock market.
Of course the ability of ISIS to wage this economic war successfully against the United States is predicated upon their continued survival and growth. And that growth is dependent on the action, or inaction, of the United States government and its allies with regards to ISIS. If they are allowed to gain control of Iraq (the country with the fourth largest oil reserves in the world) through inaction or limited action by the Obama administration, we are in for a long and economically brutal campaign, matched only by their physical barbarism on and off the battlefield.
ISIS now has a huge portfolio of oil holdings in the Middle East, which not only supplies it with the cash necessary to rain down terror on anyone they label as an infidel, but the power to fight an economic war against the United States. The oil arm of ISIS has contracted with many European countries to sell them oil at $15 a barrel, far below the $90+ a barrel it has recently traded for on the open market.
The collapsing of the oil market will have an economically devastating effect on the U.S. and its ability to defeat an enemy that grows not only in military might every day, but also in its influence throughout the financial markets. Mention of this unspoken war being waged by ISIS is nowhere to be found in the main stream media, but some in the investment community have begun to murmur about it.
Some may say, "Good, we need cheaper oil." But this large of a precipitous fall in oil prices could have a ripple effect throughout financial markets that could rival the collapse of 2008. The costs of exploration, drilling, and extraction have continued to rise, and will not fall with the artificial discounting of the barrel price. The U.S. oil industry could be severely curtailed because the costs of production will be so much greater than the price for which they can sell their product. Thousands of jobs would be loss and many smaller drillers would be forced out of business, causing a collapse of the stock market.
Of course the ability of ISIS to wage this economic war successfully against the United States is predicated upon their continued survival and growth. And that growth is dependent on the action, or inaction, of the United States government and its allies with regards to ISIS. If they are allowed to gain control of Iraq (the country with the fourth largest oil reserves in the world) through inaction or limited action by the Obama administration, we are in for a long and economically brutal campaign, matched only by their physical barbarism on and off the battlefield.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Boots On The Ground Only Option
The depths of ignorance and an inability to understand human nature by the Left is as breathtaking as it is dangerous. The obtuseness of Leftist ideology rests on its ability to transpose their faulty conclusions about human behavior onto others, and then feign disgust and surprise when their policies fail to accomplish anything close to what they promote. In fact, many times the Lefts "solutions" to problems actually make the situation worse. Such is the reality with Iraq and the ever growing-in-power ISIS.
An interfaith council in Great Brittan has implored Prime Minister Cameron to convince the United Nations that they must accuse ISIS in the strongest terms possible of human rights violations. Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder has said there will be a vigorous investigation of the beheading of photo journalist James Foley, and that the guilty party(ies) will be brought to justice. ISIS is quaking in their sandals. They can handle air strikes and bombing runs, but my Allah, lawyers and a UN condemnation will scare the hell out of them.
Even President Obama has talked of the Foley beheading and the other atrocities committed by ISIS in terms of human rights violations, and an outcome where the perpetrators are "brought to justice." So let me stop and see if I have this straight: The United Nations saying that ISIS is in violation of their flaccid human rights treaties, and Eric Holder threatening criminal prosecution of terrorists, and President Obama waving the wet noodle of his definition of "justice," is all going to frighten terrorists around the world from wanting to wage jihad anymore?
It is scary to think that we have persons in charge of our country and its security who think that accusing someone of human rights violations is a viable substitute for a muscular foreign policy. Let us not forget that it was ISIS in Syria that only a year ago President Obama was calling "freedom fighters." Mr. Obama was handed by former President Bush an Iraq that was stable, peaceful, and maturing in its ability to self-govern. But due to President Obama's promise to his base, he pulled troops out before it was safe to do so, emboldened ISIS in Syria by ignoring them, and allowed them to equip themselves with over 100 U.S. tanks and literally tons of other weapons and ammunition.
It has been said by many that ISIS is capable of growing into a much more destructive force than that of Al Qaeda. In fact, ISIS formed because they felt Al Qaeda was not sufficient in their violent proselytization of radical Islam. President Obama missed the opportunity to take out ISIS when it was a force of a few hundred in Syria, and again in Iraq when it was a force of several thousand. Now the estimated troop strength of ISIS is somewhere North of 20,000, and growing. This terrorist genie can not simply be put back in the bottle with a few air strikes.
The choice is clear, 20-30 thousand boots on the ground now in Iraq to decimate ISIS, or 20-30 thousand Americans killed in the homeland by an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack. If you think that is far fetched, how many Americans, some even in our government, would have thought in early 2001 that a band of cave dwellers half a world a way in Afghanistan would kill 3,000 Americans with a handful of box cutters?
An interfaith council in Great Brittan has implored Prime Minister Cameron to convince the United Nations that they must accuse ISIS in the strongest terms possible of human rights violations. Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder has said there will be a vigorous investigation of the beheading of photo journalist James Foley, and that the guilty party(ies) will be brought to justice. ISIS is quaking in their sandals. They can handle air strikes and bombing runs, but my Allah, lawyers and a UN condemnation will scare the hell out of them.
Even President Obama has talked of the Foley beheading and the other atrocities committed by ISIS in terms of human rights violations, and an outcome where the perpetrators are "brought to justice." So let me stop and see if I have this straight: The United Nations saying that ISIS is in violation of their flaccid human rights treaties, and Eric Holder threatening criminal prosecution of terrorists, and President Obama waving the wet noodle of his definition of "justice," is all going to frighten terrorists around the world from wanting to wage jihad anymore?
It is scary to think that we have persons in charge of our country and its security who think that accusing someone of human rights violations is a viable substitute for a muscular foreign policy. Let us not forget that it was ISIS in Syria that only a year ago President Obama was calling "freedom fighters." Mr. Obama was handed by former President Bush an Iraq that was stable, peaceful, and maturing in its ability to self-govern. But due to President Obama's promise to his base, he pulled troops out before it was safe to do so, emboldened ISIS in Syria by ignoring them, and allowed them to equip themselves with over 100 U.S. tanks and literally tons of other weapons and ammunition.
It has been said by many that ISIS is capable of growing into a much more destructive force than that of Al Qaeda. In fact, ISIS formed because they felt Al Qaeda was not sufficient in their violent proselytization of radical Islam. President Obama missed the opportunity to take out ISIS when it was a force of a few hundred in Syria, and again in Iraq when it was a force of several thousand. Now the estimated troop strength of ISIS is somewhere North of 20,000, and growing. This terrorist genie can not simply be put back in the bottle with a few air strikes.
The choice is clear, 20-30 thousand boots on the ground now in Iraq to decimate ISIS, or 20-30 thousand Americans killed in the homeland by an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack. If you think that is far fetched, how many Americans, some even in our government, would have thought in early 2001 that a band of cave dwellers half a world a way in Afghanistan would kill 3,000 Americans with a handful of box cutters?
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Fall Of Fallagua Highlights Bush Failures
The recent recapturing of the city of Fallagua in the Anbar province of Iraq by Al Qaeda terrorists, is indeed a mournful day in the history of the United States and Iraq, as well as the entire Middle East. It has signaled the official resurgence of Al Qaeda and the decline of any hope for even a modicum of democratic rule in the region. And while it has been President Obama that actually snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, it was President Bush who weakened those jaws to the point that they were so easily opened.
Mr. Bush's first major mistake was allowing the religious zealot Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki to grasp the reins of power from the much more moderate and level-headed Ayad Allawi. Allawi was placed into power with a combination of U.S. backing and the good blessings of Iraqi leadership formerly in exile during the Saddam Hussein regime. Mr. Allawi did not have the funding to beat Mr. Maliki in the Iraqi election, which saw the latter garnering almost unlimited financial support from Iran. Mr. Bush, knowing this and having the opportunity to help the United States' ally, Mr. Allawi, decided to pass and allow Mr. Maliki to take control of the country whose ground was stained with so many brave Americans' blood.
The other mistake that President Bush made was to leave all decisions about future involvement of U.S. troops completely to the discretion of his successor, Barack Obama. Mr. Bush could have made certain troop requirements and agreements with the Iraqi government a matter of U.S. law, but chose instead to trust his successor's loyalty to the Iraqi/U.S. common interests of liberty and security. Mr. Bush's miscalculation of Barack Obama's sense of duty to the higher calling of humanity resident in the library of the human spirit, contributed to the rebirth of Islamic inspired terrorism, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East.
Believe me, there was no greater supporter of the Iraq war than myself, I still believe that it was the right thing to do. It removed a proven threat to the region, Saddam Hussein, who was a sponsor of terrorism and a menace to decency. But President Bush took no steps to insure that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were not moved to Syria, where they recently were the instrument used to reduce U.S. influence while increasing the stature of Russia and their proxy. He also gave no real support to Ayad Allawi, a friend to peaceful and democratic ideals. Had Mr. Bush made the necessary decisions to weaken the influence of Al Qaeda in a more permanent way, they would not today be aided so greatly by the fecklessness and fraudulent ideology of Barack Obama.
Mr. Bush's first major mistake was allowing the religious zealot Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki to grasp the reins of power from the much more moderate and level-headed Ayad Allawi. Allawi was placed into power with a combination of U.S. backing and the good blessings of Iraqi leadership formerly in exile during the Saddam Hussein regime. Mr. Allawi did not have the funding to beat Mr. Maliki in the Iraqi election, which saw the latter garnering almost unlimited financial support from Iran. Mr. Bush, knowing this and having the opportunity to help the United States' ally, Mr. Allawi, decided to pass and allow Mr. Maliki to take control of the country whose ground was stained with so many brave Americans' blood.
The other mistake that President Bush made was to leave all decisions about future involvement of U.S. troops completely to the discretion of his successor, Barack Obama. Mr. Bush could have made certain troop requirements and agreements with the Iraqi government a matter of U.S. law, but chose instead to trust his successor's loyalty to the Iraqi/U.S. common interests of liberty and security. Mr. Bush's miscalculation of Barack Obama's sense of duty to the higher calling of humanity resident in the library of the human spirit, contributed to the rebirth of Islamic inspired terrorism, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East.
Believe me, there was no greater supporter of the Iraq war than myself, I still believe that it was the right thing to do. It removed a proven threat to the region, Saddam Hussein, who was a sponsor of terrorism and a menace to decency. But President Bush took no steps to insure that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were not moved to Syria, where they recently were the instrument used to reduce U.S. influence while increasing the stature of Russia and their proxy. He also gave no real support to Ayad Allawi, a friend to peaceful and democratic ideals. Had Mr. Bush made the necessary decisions to weaken the influence of Al Qaeda in a more permanent way, they would not today be aided so greatly by the fecklessness and fraudulent ideology of Barack Obama.
Friday, September 6, 2013
The Chaos Theory
Barack Obama is not a complicated man to figure out. He is, in essence, the embodiment of the core element of community organizing. In that rather dubious profession, the object of the exercise is to use chaos, whether real or created by the organizer, to inculcate or increase hatred, fear and anger in the masses for the purpose of empowering the organizer. The target of the hatred is the organizers political opposition or the wealthy. Fear is generated among the "organized", the source of that fear being those who are the target of the hatred generated by the organizer. And finally, the organizer whips the crowd into a frenzy of anger to affect some political change that only benefits the organizer and his buddies in the political class. This process is what I call, "The Chaos Theory." The community organizer feeds on chaos like the dung beetle feeds on the excrement of others.
The chaos theory as it relates to Barack Obama has been full throttle in the Middle-East in the last five years. When Barack Obama took the oath of the office for the first time in January of 2009, the Middle East was by no means a Disney World. But Iraq was making great strides towards self government, Afghanistan was holding its own against a Taliban resurgence and Egypt was lead by a dictator who kept the peace in his own country and between his country and its neighbors. Al Qaeda had lost 60% or more of its troop strength and over a third of its top leadership had been decimated, and the terrorist organization was severely weakened. Libya, while under the control of another dictator, Khadafy, was not causing any problems to speak of, just some saber-rattling every now and then.
Since the beginning of the Obama Presidency, he has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq by pulling out our troops too early, threatening the fledging democracy's survival in the face of an Al Qaeda resurgence. Mr. Obama has also forced the United States military to leave Afghanistan with its tail between its legs as it beats a hasty retreat. The President of the United States facilitated the removal of an American ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, and his replacement by the terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, and now refuses to support the Egyptian military against the Brotherhood. Barack Obama fomented the hatred against Khadafy that resulted in his lifeless body being dragged through the streets of Tripoli. And the rebels who took his place have a radical Islamic ideology and ties to Al Qaeda. And now President Obama has created even more chaos in Syria by allowing a legitimate and pro-Western rebellion to be hi-jacked by radicalized Islamists who now control the movement and will replace Syrian Dictator, Bashar Al Assad, with a much more dangerous and oppressive government based on Sharia Law. The President's response is to help the Al Qaeda-lead rebels to remove Assad from power.
My contention is that the chaos facilitated in the Middle East the last five years by Barack Obama, is just "community organizing 101." It is a purposeful attempt to interrupt the free and cheap flow of oil, while at the same time restricting exploration and procurement here at home. This creates more opportunity to grow government even bigger for the purpose of developing so-called "green" energy. Once it is understood that the end goal of the radical Leftist President, as it is with all radical Leftists, is to grow the power of the federal government, then chaos in the Middle East becomes, in the words of Rohm Emanuel, just another "crisis" by which President Obama can "do things he wouldn't normally be able to do." Those "things" always lead to a less-free, less-secure and less-Constitutional America.
The chaos theory as it relates to Barack Obama has been full throttle in the Middle-East in the last five years. When Barack Obama took the oath of the office for the first time in January of 2009, the Middle East was by no means a Disney World. But Iraq was making great strides towards self government, Afghanistan was holding its own against a Taliban resurgence and Egypt was lead by a dictator who kept the peace in his own country and between his country and its neighbors. Al Qaeda had lost 60% or more of its troop strength and over a third of its top leadership had been decimated, and the terrorist organization was severely weakened. Libya, while under the control of another dictator, Khadafy, was not causing any problems to speak of, just some saber-rattling every now and then.
Since the beginning of the Obama Presidency, he has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq by pulling out our troops too early, threatening the fledging democracy's survival in the face of an Al Qaeda resurgence. Mr. Obama has also forced the United States military to leave Afghanistan with its tail between its legs as it beats a hasty retreat. The President of the United States facilitated the removal of an American ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, and his replacement by the terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, and now refuses to support the Egyptian military against the Brotherhood. Barack Obama fomented the hatred against Khadafy that resulted in his lifeless body being dragged through the streets of Tripoli. And the rebels who took his place have a radical Islamic ideology and ties to Al Qaeda. And now President Obama has created even more chaos in Syria by allowing a legitimate and pro-Western rebellion to be hi-jacked by radicalized Islamists who now control the movement and will replace Syrian Dictator, Bashar Al Assad, with a much more dangerous and oppressive government based on Sharia Law. The President's response is to help the Al Qaeda-lead rebels to remove Assad from power.
My contention is that the chaos facilitated in the Middle East the last five years by Barack Obama, is just "community organizing 101." It is a purposeful attempt to interrupt the free and cheap flow of oil, while at the same time restricting exploration and procurement here at home. This creates more opportunity to grow government even bigger for the purpose of developing so-called "green" energy. Once it is understood that the end goal of the radical Leftist President, as it is with all radical Leftists, is to grow the power of the federal government, then chaos in the Middle East becomes, in the words of Rohm Emanuel, just another "crisis" by which President Obama can "do things he wouldn't normally be able to do." Those "things" always lead to a less-free, less-secure and less-Constitutional America.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Dangers Of 'Leading From Behind'
If there is one truism that reveals itself with age, it is that one can choose not to participate in life's decisions, but make no mistake, those decisions will be made for the individual by some person or entity that may not have the best interest of the individual at heart. It is always better to participate fully in life and choose the path to be taken, rather than to let others choose your path. But this is exactly what has transpired with the Obama administration's strategy of "leading from behind."
The President thinks that by leading from behind, he will avoid the perception around the world that, as he has framed it in the past, "America has been arrogant." But we have seen the results of this strategy in the Middle-East, others have made decisions for the United States which not only do a disservice to our national interests, but to the cause of liberty and decency in those affected countries.
In Libya, President Obama lead from behind and replaced Muammar Al-Gaddafi with a radical Islamic government controlled by Al Queda-style groups, which the Obama administration armed with weapons to help them overthrow their government. Gaddafi was a tyrant, but had been cowed into submission by the actions of the Bush administration, and was neutralized. The Egyptian debacle was even worse because the President supported the overthrow of an American ally, Hosni Mubarak, and replaced him with our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood's own Mohamed Morsi, whose stated goal is to "Prepare for war with Israel." The three decades-long peace between these two countries was nurtured by Mr. Mubarak and is now in danger of disintegrating. And once again in Syria, President Obama wants to arm radical Islamists, ostensibly to overthrow the government there.
Time after time, in the last four and a half years, President Obama has allowed decisions to be made by other entities, especially as they apply to the Middle-East. When Barack Obama commenced his term as United States President, there was still hope in Afghanistan that the Taliban would be permanently vanquished, Egypt was lead by a government that was an ally and committed to stopping terrorists and keeping the peace with Israel, Iran had a robust populace opposition to their tyrannical government, Libya was in the hands of a neutered tyrant and the forces of good lead by the U.S. were beginning to prevail over the forces of evil in the Middle-East. As a result of the Obama doctrine of leading from behind, the Taliban is in a robust resurgence and has chased the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Egypt is in the hands of our enemies and is committed to radical Islam which threatens Israel, the Iranian government has squashed any hopes of a rebellion there, Libya has turned into a country where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans can be murdered and nothing is done and the entire Middle-East, as well as the world, is less safe from an ever growing radical Islamic threat.
I am not blaming Barack Obama for the existence of radical Islam, it has existed for hundreds of years. But radical Islam never had state sponsorship in the modern era until Jimmy Carter handed over Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978. That too was a case of a U.S. President turning on an ally in favor of an enemy. It is fitting then for Barack Obama to complete the work begun by Jimmy Carter 35 years ago, and hand over the rest of the Middle-East to terrorist forces. I think it was John Lennon who once stated, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans." If that axiom was applied to the Obama administration, one would need to modify it to, "Tyranny is what happens in the Middle-East while Barack Obama leads from behind."
The President thinks that by leading from behind, he will avoid the perception around the world that, as he has framed it in the past, "America has been arrogant." But we have seen the results of this strategy in the Middle-East, others have made decisions for the United States which not only do a disservice to our national interests, but to the cause of liberty and decency in those affected countries.
In Libya, President Obama lead from behind and replaced Muammar Al-Gaddafi with a radical Islamic government controlled by Al Queda-style groups, which the Obama administration armed with weapons to help them overthrow their government. Gaddafi was a tyrant, but had been cowed into submission by the actions of the Bush administration, and was neutralized. The Egyptian debacle was even worse because the President supported the overthrow of an American ally, Hosni Mubarak, and replaced him with our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood's own Mohamed Morsi, whose stated goal is to "Prepare for war with Israel." The three decades-long peace between these two countries was nurtured by Mr. Mubarak and is now in danger of disintegrating. And once again in Syria, President Obama wants to arm radical Islamists, ostensibly to overthrow the government there.
Time after time, in the last four and a half years, President Obama has allowed decisions to be made by other entities, especially as they apply to the Middle-East. When Barack Obama commenced his term as United States President, there was still hope in Afghanistan that the Taliban would be permanently vanquished, Egypt was lead by a government that was an ally and committed to stopping terrorists and keeping the peace with Israel, Iran had a robust populace opposition to their tyrannical government, Libya was in the hands of a neutered tyrant and the forces of good lead by the U.S. were beginning to prevail over the forces of evil in the Middle-East. As a result of the Obama doctrine of leading from behind, the Taliban is in a robust resurgence and has chased the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Egypt is in the hands of our enemies and is committed to radical Islam which threatens Israel, the Iranian government has squashed any hopes of a rebellion there, Libya has turned into a country where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans can be murdered and nothing is done and the entire Middle-East, as well as the world, is less safe from an ever growing radical Islamic threat.
I am not blaming Barack Obama for the existence of radical Islam, it has existed for hundreds of years. But radical Islam never had state sponsorship in the modern era until Jimmy Carter handed over Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978. That too was a case of a U.S. President turning on an ally in favor of an enemy. It is fitting then for Barack Obama to complete the work begun by Jimmy Carter 35 years ago, and hand over the rest of the Middle-East to terrorist forces. I think it was John Lennon who once stated, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans." If that axiom was applied to the Obama administration, one would need to modify it to, "Tyranny is what happens in the Middle-East while Barack Obama leads from behind."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)