Obama & Israel

Ever since the state of Israel came into being in 1948, the United States has been its strongest ally and protector. From Harry Truman through George W. Bush, we have helped our only real ally in the Middle East economically, diplomatically, and militarily. Even during the Watergate crisis, Richard Nixon valiantly stood up for Israel’s right to exist when it was attacked by all the surrounding Arab nations.

All that has changed. No, you won’t hear this administration publicly declare its disdain for the Jewish state; it can’t go that far publicly. Yet the tension has been present from the very first day President Obama took office. On Benjamin Netanyahu’s first visit to this country to see the new president, Obama pretty much blew him off. He certainly didn’t show the respect everyone expected. Even the liberal news outlets couldn’t help but notice.

Things have gone downhill ever since. Yes, they put on a good front, but there is a definite animosity emanating from this White House. It took a number of years into his presidency before Obama went to Israel himself, despite his other trips to the region to laud Islamic regimes.

When the Muslim Brotherhood, a true terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map, took over Egypt, our president supported that new government. When the Egyptian military brought down that radical government, he hasn’t uttered a word of support. Again, it’s not hard to see where his sympathies lie.

Iran seeks nuclear weapons, and one of its primary goals is the same as the Muslim Brotherhood’s—the total destruction of the Israeli state. Yet our president continues to “negotiate,” drops sanctions against Iran, and seems blissfully unaware of the imminent danger that terrorist state poses, not only in the Middle East, but to the world.

Now that Congress had invited Netanyahu to speak, the White House is very upset, saying it wasn’t consulted first. New reports, though, dispute that claim; the real problem appears to be that this administration doesn’t respond to notices of things like this invitation, then gets upset after the fact.

Fruitloop

One might be excused for thinking our president has declared war, but on the wrong target:

Attack Netanyahu

As I’ve said before, I agree with the assessment of many that Obama’s worldview is deeply entrenched in a Marxist/anti-colonial mindset that blames most of the evils in the world (“evil” as defined through his particular lenses) on the West. He is so devoted to that worldview that he refuses to see the truth, no matter how obvious it is to the majority of his fellow citizens: Don't Have a Clue

One has to believe there is a problem before anything can be done about it.

Obama’s Missteps in the Muslim World

Step back for a moment and survey the upheaval in the Muslim world in the last few years and contemplate the policies of the Obama administration toward the changes that have taken place. What you will see is a consistent pattern—not a successful policy, mind you—that reveals the worldview of our president.

Let’s start with Egypt. Hosni MubarakHosni Mubarak, who had ruled that country since the early 1980s, was forcibly removed from power. Now, he certainly wasn’t a wonderful leader, in the sense that we would have wanted someone like him as our president, but he at least was an ally of the United States and continued the policy of openness toward Israel begun by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, allowing diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which believes Israel must be destroyed, helped stir up the citizens to remove Mubarak; the demonstrations led to his abdication of authority. The new Brotherhood leader then looked the other way as Christians and their churches were attacked; some were martyred and churches were burned. The country was falling into chaos until the military stepped in and ousted the Brotherhood.

What was President Obama’s response throughout all of this? He supported Mubarak’s removal and the installation of the Brotherhood. He then was dismayed when the Brotherhood lost its power. Now Egypt doesn’t even consult with America when it decides to take action in the Middle East, something unheard of previously. Its leaders just don’t trust Obama.

What about Libya?Moammar Qaddafi The strongman there for decades, who originally took over in a military coup, was Moammar Qaddafi. He was a tyrant. Ronald Reagan included Libya under Qaddafi as one of most destabilizing and dangerous countries in the world. Of Qaddafi, Reagan once quipped, “He’s not only a barbarian, he’s flaky.” And Reagan was right.

Yet Qaddafi at least could be cowed into backing off of his most outrageous ventures. Reagan bombed Libya and Qaddafi then pretty much stopped bankrolling terrorists. When George Bush invaded Iraq, Qaddafi concluded the better part of discretion was to halt his research into weapons of mass destruction. He didn’t want a U.S. invasion of his country.

It certainly was understandable to support the overthrow of Qaddafi when disgruntled elements in Libya rose up against him. But questions should always be asked: what will follow a deposed leader, and will it be an improvement or will things be even worse? We found out quickly: the Benghazi atrocity, the rise of the Islamists, and now even the takeover of Tripoli. Last week, we witnessed video of Islamists partying at a former CIA residence, even diving into the pool. This is an acute embarrassment for the U.S.

Obama’s policy toward Libya was to support Qaddafi’s ouster by using bombing raids, then allowing the radicals to take control. Again, there was little thought as to the consequences.

Bashar al-AssadHe repeated that scenario in Syria, which is ruled by Bashar al-Assad. He’s a barbarian as well. One can imagine support for taking him out. Yet, again, who exactly is the opposition? The nucleus of that opposition has turned out to be what we now call ISIS. Assad remains in power, yet it is clear that Obama’s sympathies lie with the opposition, regardless of the presence of terrorists in their midst. Wherever ISIS has taken power—now in a portion of Iraq—Christians have suffered the most.

The ISIS base of operations is in Syria, but the president has, remarkably, no plan for dealing with this terrorist organization. How do we know? He said so in a press conference last week. That even had liberal supporters wondering what’s going on in his head.

Projecting Weakness

Personally, I don’t mind anyone wearing a tan suit, but what occurred here was nearly inconceivable: some in the media focused more on his choice of sartorial splendor than the substance—or lack thereof—of his statement:

It's Empty

Does he recall that ISIS has declared it wants to raise its flag over the White House? Does he have any concept of what leadership entails? Have his sympathies for supposed oppressed peoples led to an ideological blindness that could have dire consequences for all of us?

No Strategy Yet

If one were to ask if Obama even believes there are real terrorists out to destroy America, I’m afraid this is the answer we might get:

Finally

And while he does believe evil exists, he has strange ideas about the sources of evil:

Does Evil Exist

I’ve said this many times, but it bears repeating now: we are in deep trouble with this man occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He can’t be removed until 2017, but we can take a major step in reversing his reign of error this November. We have a responsibility to do so.

Obama & Syria: Further Reasons for Opposition

A Senate hearing yesterday on the Syrian situation and the administration’s desire to get involved militarily constrains me to comment once again on this topic. My last post laid out some of my rationale for opposing involvement: neither side deserves our help; we will either be aiding a dictatorial regime allied with Iran or an uprising with a distinctly Al Qaeda flavoring. I have a few more thoughts to add today.

First, it’s interesting how this is not a purely partisan issue. Many conservatives who supported military moves in Afghanistan and Iraq are not now supportive of this initiative, whereas diehard liberal activists who would scream against any military endeavor anywhere are strangely silent (except for a few Code Pink fanatics who are at least consistent in their wild-eyed fanaticism). One cartoon captures the liberal side pretty well:

Antiwar Activist

As for the conservative reluctance to sign on to military strikes, there is some poor analysis of that reluctance showing up in surprising places. For instance, I was watching Bill O’Reilly last night, and he focused more on the conservative side and tried to explain why they were generally not supportive of Obama’s desire to bomb Syrian targets. He concluded it was because conservatives either hate or don’t trust the president. While there certainly is hatred of what this president stands for overall and distrust of him personally and of his ability to carry out the mission, it is a leap too far to say that’s the cornerstone of opposition to his proposed policy.

I see a qualitative difference between our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and the current situation in Syria. Afghanistan was harboring the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out 9/11. We were obligated to respond to an attack on our soil that killed nearly 3,000 people. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s and a coalition of many nations drove him out. The U.S. was left with the responsibility of overseeing Saddam’s regime to ensure he didn’t kill Iraqi opposition groups and to monitor his chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities. After 9/11, when it became clear he was allowing Al Qaeda elements to operate from Iraq, and when we learned he was encouraging suicide bombers by paying families of those who carried out those atrocities, President Bush felt he had to act.

Isn’t it a little ironic that those who decried Bush’s rationale—Saddam had chemical weapons—are now so exercised over Syrian use of those weapons? And isn’t it even more ironic that those who scoffed at the idea that Saddam quickly moved those weapons to Syria are now in the forefront of moral outrage over their usage there?

I’m also less than overwhelmed with the military plans being offered. If you are going to use the military, it needs to efficiently achieve a goal of turning the tide against the Syrian regime. Apparently, that’s not what’s being proposed. John Kerry, at the Senate hearing, downplayed regime change as the ultimate aim; all we’re planning to do is try to discourage the further use of chemical weapons by Assad. If Assad is really all that bad—and he is—the only good rationale for getting involved is to go all out and drive him from power. That doesn’t seem to be the vision here:

Strong Message

This would be a highly ineffectual mission. It’s not worth the effort. Besides, if we’re truly concerned with stabilizing the region, we need to go after the primary destabilizer—Iran. They’re the ones on the verge of creating nuclear weapons. They’re the ones who have verbally called for the elimination of Israel. Yet what have we done on that front? Just talk and threaten. Frankly, no one takes us seriously anymore. Why should they with this man in the White House? Let’s be honest. His sympathies lie with the radical elements; that’s how he was educated, and it’s how he has governed. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, yet he is cool toward the ouster of that Brotherhood. He is for the uprising in Syria because of its radical nature, not in spite of it.

Here’s what a compassionate nation does in this situation: we use every effort to help the refugees who are daily escaping this conflict. We demonstrate once again that the United States, more than any other nation in history, comes to the aid of those who are suffering. The only problem is that we’re not the same United States anymore—not with Barack Obama at the helm.

So, to some extent, Bill O’Reilly is correct; I don’t trust the man calling the shots. But it’s not just the man himself: it’s his ideology, the policies that flow from it, and the damage he is doing to what once was the greatest nation in the world.

Egypt & Obama

It’s never easy to get Americans interested in what’s going on in other countries. Much of what is happening in the Middle East, though, is critical, and we should be aware of developments in that crucial area. Israel, of course, is the only solid American ally in the region, and it is continually threatened with extinction. If the Muslim extremists get their way, a new holocaust will take place.

Also high on the list for extinction in that part of the world is Christianity. What we’re seeing played out in Egypt right now is downright scary. Some of the news networks aren’t providing the whole story; Christian churches are being attacked and destroyed, and individual Christians are being murdered for their beliefs. This is persecution, plain and simple.

The primary culprit in these atrocities is the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to establish Sharia law over not only Egypt, but the entire world. Turmoil in Egypt during the misnamed Arab Spring led to an election that put a Brotherhood leader is charge of the country. Mohamed Morsi proceeded to put the Brotherhood’s plan into action, tightening the noose on Christians and moderate Muslims who were just too afraid to oppose him and his terrorist organization. Egypt was cooperating with Iran, which has declared it will wipe Israel off the map.

Finally, the military put a stop to the drift toward Sharia totalitarianism, ousting Morsi and clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood. This has led to civil war as “days of rage” are proclaimed and casualties mount. Again, the main culprit is easy to spot:

Muslim Brotherhood

Yet this has put the United States government in an awkward situation. You see, the Obama administration had not only recognized the Morsi government as the legitimate government of Egypt, but seemed to endorse its actions. Now that the military is taking control, the people are coming out of hiding and applauding the removal of the Brotherhood. Signs displayed in the streets are not only anti-Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, but also anti-Obama. The citizens rightly perceive that Obama chose his side in this struggle. The wrong side. This leaves him in a tough spot:

Sand Trap

If it appears he is lost in the world of international relations, it might be because he is. The American president, ostensibly in charge of the most powerful nation on earth, is powerless to do anything meaningful in that region. But he’s the one who put himself in this untenable position; he has no one else to blame.

Really Is Obama

His radical ideology trapped him. Most of the world has come to view him as little more than clownish. Unfortunately, the whole nation suffers from his reputation. This is a far cry from the adulation heaped upon him five short years ago. It was a foolish adulation then; those who cling to the earlier image have decided to remain fools now.

Needed: An American Spring

Anyone remember something called the Arab Spring? That was as inaccurate a name as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. There was no voluntary union of Russia and the nations it subjugated, and they certainly weren’t republics—representation and the rule of law were both negated. In China, the people aren’t really running anything, but it sounds nice to call it the People’s Republic. And again, it’s not really a republic. Neither was the Arab Spring some kind of awakening of liberty. All it gave rise to was militant radicalism.

Let’s look briefly at some of the developments.

In Iran, early in Obama’s first term, the people were out in the streets protesting a rigged election. The falseness of the vote was obvious, and here was a real opportunity for the United States to stand against tyranny. Yet President Obama was silent, giving his assent to the phony election. Now a new election has taken place; the media would have you believe the new leader is less militant, but that’s far from the truth:

Moderating

How about Libya? Yes, Qaddafi needed to go, but what has replaced him? A shaky government is trying to rein in adherents of jihad. That didn’t go so well in Benghazi. This revolution Obama belatedly supported, but what did it achieve? Prediction: a takeover by the extremists.

Syria? Thousands have been killed in the uprisings there. Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad is a monster, it’s true. Yet key elements of the uprising are connected to Al Qaeda and are slaughtering Christians in that country while they attempt to topple the regime. If they win, that’s not really a triumph of liberty. Obama has again decided to take sides, again belatedly, and with those who are opposed to Assad. Is that really wise? Doing so will mean arming those who want to destroy us.

And of course there is Egypt. Everyone’s paying attention to what’s going on there. When Mubarak was overthrown, Obama was definitely in favor of that removal, despite the probability that the Muslim Brotherhood might dominate the new government. That’s exactly what happened, and even though that organization is devoted to the destruction of Israel and genocide against all Jews, the United States has supported it, sending even more military hardware and funds—all of which could be used against Israel eventually. Morsi, the new leader, sanctioned attacks against the Coptic Christians and tried to move the nation fully under the umbrella of radicalism. It’s as if he had a model he could follow:

American Style Democracy

Now that Morsi has been deposed by the military, our president has spoken out against the removal. He actually seems to favor the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, exposing once again his own radicalism:

The Difference

No, the Arab Spring was an illusion. It would be nice, though, to experience an American Spring. We need it badly.

The Dark Clouds over the Middle East

It’s difficult to get the American people and the mainstream media to concentrate on very significant foreign affairs that put the spotlight on our own wayward policies. Last year, the media were singing the praises of the misnamed Arab Spring. This was supposed to be an outbreak of “democracy.” Never mind, of course, that democracy really means 51% can impose anything they want on everyone else. The United States was never intended to be a democracy but a republic, which safeguards rights for everyone, even those who didn’t vote for the current leaders. That’s not the case in northern Africa and the Middle East where the so-called Arab Spring has become an autumn moving rapidly into a chilly winter.

Take Libya, for example. The ouster of Qaddafi was a reason to rejoice, but only those who understand the region were voicing concern over what would replace him. Consequently, we have the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to that country [if it can be dignified with the name “country”]. Questions remain unanswered about what transpired in real time. Why did Obama do nothing to save the people during that seven-hour battle? Why did he and his entire administration decide to blame a video about Mohammed when they knew almost immediately it was a terrorist action? Why did he send out UN ambassador Susan Rice to spread the word on five Sunday talk shows that there was no terrorism involved, only a “spontaneous demonstration” against this obscure video? Now she is being talked up as a potential secretary of state. Many Republican senators, who have to vote to confirm any new secretary of state, are rightfully upset over her misleading statements/lies, which, of course, were sanctioned by the White House.

Both the administration and its media allies are saying there are no more questions, and that it’s time to move on. That would be a travesty.

The big news in the past week has emanated from Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is solidifying its control over that nation. Another Arab Spring gone awry. Muhammed Morsi, the newly elected president, has decided to set aside the entire judiciary of the government and run it by himself, invoking dictatorial powers and making a mockery of the democracy movement. Or should I say he used that movement to establish his tyranny?

Perhaps he’s just seeking to connect with Egypt’s ancient history and heritage:

His actions have led to massive protests of the nature that started all of this last year. However, these are competing protests: some are protesting Morsi, while the Muslim Brotherhood is on the streets protesting the protesters. Is there really any question how this is going to end?

Those waiting for some kind of word from President Obama criticizing Morsi’s actions will probably be waiting forever. He has remained silent while the radicals consolidate their power. One has the sense he is rather pleased with the direction things are going.

Meanwhile, Syria continues in civil war. This is another situation where the bloodthirsty tyrant needs to be upended, yet it’s probable his successors would be even worse, of the same stripe as the new leaders in Egypt. And giving aid and comfort to all of these emerging Islamic tyrannies is Iran, still on course to develop nuclear weapons and hoping to destroy Israel once and for all.

I always want to be cautious when relating current events to Biblical prophecy. Too often Christians have jumped the gun and declared something to be a fulfillment of endtimes prophecy. I can’t say that for sure. However, I can say that the picture emerging in the Middle East is only comforting if it means the Second Coming is at hand. Without some kind of divine intervention at this critical juncture, I see only dark clouds. Will the United States play a positive role in curtailing these evil developments? Sadly, not under the current administration. Will destruction hold off long enough for a future administration to reverse direction? Truly, only God knows if there is enough time left to do so.

Egypt, Libya, & the Obama Response

I’m not going to try to report on all the details of the attacks in Egypt and Libya; plenty of news sources have in-depth coverage of what happened. I will summarize, however, before offering some thoughts on the events.

In Cairo, Egypt, a mob scaled the wall of the American embassy, tore down the American flag, and replaced it with an Al Qaeda flag. As of this writing, mobs continue to threaten to break into the embassy. The Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt has not condemned the actions of the mob; instead, he has only made a statement condemning an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S., thereby justifying the mob’s presence.

In Libya, things are even worse. The ambassador, Chris Stevens, and at least five other Americans, have been brutally murdered. Stevens’s body was even dragged through the streets. Sources say the consulate where he was residing had no American Marine protection. They were relying solely on Libyan security forces. Another report says those very forces were the source of information that led the attackers to the ambassador. Ostensibly, the Libyan government is not behind the attack; we’re told they are helping to track down those responsible. I would like to believe that. Color me skeptical.

These were not spontaneous outbursts of emotion. They were well-coordinated to occur on the anniversary of 9/11, and judging by some of the chanting in Egypt, were meant as revenge against the killing of Osama bin Laden. The hatred that erupted on 9/11/2001 has not dissipated in the intervening eleven years. If anything, the hatred has multiplied. Anyone who acts as if the War on Terror is over is seriously deluded.

Much controversy was spawned over the initial public statement made by officials at the Cairo embassy. This is the message that went out to the world from the Obama administration’s embassy personnel:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. . . . Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Did you notice anything missing in this message? How about condemnation of the actions of the mob? Instead, our government is more concerned about hurting the feelings of the mob. This is political correctness gone wild. Apparently, there was a major tussle within the administration to change the statement, but it took about sixteen hours to do so. Why? Well, when you have a president who favors what he considers the “oppressed” of the world, and then staffs embassies with like-minded individuals, it will take a while for those in charge to figure out what image they really want to project to the nation. I guess they finally realized this was not going to go over very well, and the initial statement eventually was repudiated.

You might recall that Barack Obama, in his book The Audacity of Hope, famously [or perhaps infamously] stated, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Mr. President, what about when the Muslims are the cause of an ugly political wind?

Mitt Romney rightly criticized the Cairo statement as an unwarranted apology. What was his reward? Immediate accusations of politicizing the event. When he held a press conference, the reporters converged on what they called his “gaffe.” They repeatedly asked him if he now regretted making the statement. To his credit, he held his ground. And why shouldn’t he? There is now audio that reveals the reporters colluded ahead of time to ensure that he would be challenged to back down. The collusion was blatant. Hmm, I wonder if they’ve chosen a side in this election season?

As for the president, he made a Rose Garden comment on the situation, then assured he wouldn’t be put in the same position as Romney by declining to answer any questions—a common ploy for him. After all, he’s a busy guy. He had to catch his ride on Air Force One for a campaign swing to Las Vegas.

Does that sicken anyone else as much as it does me?

We’re in deep trouble. Change must come this November or we may never recover from this presidency.