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.

Each day seems to bring new revelations with respect to the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell affair. I’m going to assume you know the basic facts; my goal is to reflect on what it all means for the country. This is not a simple sexual scandal; it goes far beyond that.

Petraeus, until his abrupt resignation last Friday [even notice how all these big news items are disclosed on Fridays when fewer people are paying attention?], was the director of the CIA. He was preparing to testify before Congress about the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya. That has now been postponed. All indications are that Congress will subpoena him soon.

Prior to this lurid episode, Petraeus was a genuine hero in many people’s eyes, particularly as the successful strategist for the surge in Iraq. He was known to be a straight-laced, moral man. Now all of that has changed, and he is in disgrace. I know that is as it should be; there are consequences for our sins. Yet I can’t help but wish those consequences could have been applied more consistently in our history. Some politicians seem to be able to dodge the condemnation they deserve. Any idea who might cross my mind on that score?

The one saving grace of the Petraeus bombshell is that the Benghazi coverup might get more attention from the media now. Until this occurred, only Fox News was really on the story. Could this be the wakeup call? If so, why would the Obama-loving media finally want to delve into the distortions and lies that have been peddled by the administration? Why would it suddenly become so interesting? Bottom line: sex sells.

On Benghazi, we’ve been treated to contradictory timelines, an attempt to blame it all on a video, and highly suspect scenarios. David Petraeus is square in the middle of what happened there. Perhaps he can clear up the foggy picture the administration has tried to promote. Why was security so lax? Why were calls for help ignored? Was this “consulate” really just a gun-running operation for rebels in Syria? Were we holding Libyan militia as prisoners there? So many questions, so few answers. All we get is stonewalling.

On a personal level, I want the best for Petraeus and his wife. I sincerely hope their marriage can be healed. We also need healing on the national level, but I fear new revelations will expose the thin tissue of lies and obstruction Obama and his people have constructed. That’s fine, though. Healing can only come after sins have been revealed. I have little hope for repentance from the administration itself, but perhaps the electorate may experience pangs of remorse over their cavalier reelection of a failed, ideologically driven president. That would be at least the first step toward a restoration so badly needed.

Tomorrow is D-Day. The decision will be made, after a marathon campaign season. I will be speaking at a local Republican Club on Wednesday evening, giving my analysis of the election results. I hope it will be a joyous analysis.

If you have been watching any of the final campaign events, you should have no trouble spotting the difference between the candidates at this juncture. Obama sounds pugnacious, angry, even a little resentful. He resorted to the word “revenge” when calling upon his followers to vote. Revenge? For what? Romney is not in power. He hasn’t done anything for which one should seek revenge. That comment showcased a petty incumbent who seems offended that anyone would even dare to knock him off his perch.

Romney, on the other hand, has been quite winsome in his speaking, exuding optimism for the future and a quiet confidence that he will be able to get the job done. His crowds, unlike Obama’s, have been huge and enthusiastic. He’s now even foraying into formerly forbidden territory, making stops in Pennsylvania. Polls show he has pulled even in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa. He’s slightly ahead in Wisconsin and making it a tight race in Minnesota, of all places. It may be somewhat clichéd to talk of momentum, but it is clearly visible on the Romney side.

Obama has so much to answer for—from a terrible economy to a government takeover of healthcare that threatens religious liberty, from a futile stimulus that spread its money to his cronies in the unions and green industries to a foreign policy that is unraveling. Libya is not going away, no matter how he tries to ignore it. Even with all the help he’s received from an obedient media, the word is getting out that his sympathies for Muslim extremists led to inadequate security and death. The word is getting out that he failed to protect our diplomats. The mainstream media no longer holds a monopoly on the news:

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the slain ex-Navy seals who gave his life to save others, has spoken out frankly about how the president’s inaction is responsible for his son’s death. Does anyone remember when Cindy Sheehan tried to make life miserable for George Bush when her son was killed in action? Recall how she became a media celebrity? Not so Charles Woods.

Evangelicals, despite Romney’s Mormonism, have rallied to his side because of Obama’s war on Biblical morality, from abortion on demand to same-sex marriage to trying to force Christian organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs with an Obamacare mandate. Obama has tried hard to accuse Republicans of a war on women. Nothing could be more hypocritical:

This may be the most important presidential election in American history because we’ve never before had a president so eager to transform America into a socialist utopia. If he succeeds in holding on to his office, the next four years will be nightmarish for those of us who want righteousness to prevail. The nightmare needs to be averted. I believe it can be. I pray it can be.

The more we find out about the September 11 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the worse it looks for President Obama. Some are referring to it as Benghazigate, as if this is another Watergate moment. Keep in mind, though, that no one was killed in Watergate—the burglars never even succeeded in stealing any files from the Democrat headquarters. One thing is constant, however, as we compare the two: the coverup is alarming.

Reports indicate the president was watching the attack unfold in real time. We’re also told that those on the ground in Benghazi begged for help at least three times, and were denied each time. Where does the buck stop? Who is the one who has the authority to give the go-ahead for the requested aid? Why didn’t he follow through and help those whose lives were in jeopardy?

Now we’re told the counterterrorism group never was convened during the crisis. What was the president relying on for the security of our diplomatic personnel?

Four Americans were murdered. You would think that would be a major story, wouldn’t you? But the media and the president’s apologists [but I repeat myself] are downplaying it.

Are some of our media outlets asleep at the switch?

Or is more nefarious than that?

Only one news organization, Fox, has given this event the serious treatment it deserves, but without any help from other news sources and with the reelection endangered if anyone is allowed to investigate thoroughly, it has been tough going to get all the information. President Obama says there is a rigorous government investigation ongoing right now—which will, of course, not be concluded until after the election. This is not the fog of war; this is a different fog:

There are a multitude of reasons why Barack Obama should be denied a second term For those who are interested, I had a week-long series I entitled “The Case Against Barack Obama” that ran in this blog from September 17-21—you can check it out by clicking on those dates on the calendar to the right. Any one of those many reasons are enough to disqualify him from returning to the Oval Office, yet this latest episode in Libya is sufficient all by itself. May this reign of error come to an end next week.

Most people, I’m sure, had never heard of Benghazi, Libya, until last month. But on September 11, 2012—the date of which was not coincidental—it became the latest scene of Islamic terrorism against the United States. Nearly seven weeks later, we are still discovering the details of what occurred, and with every new detail, the Obama administration’s response to it looks increasingly worse.

What do we now know? I’ll try to summarize.

• The consulate came under attack shortly after 9:30 p.m.
• There was no demonstration beforehand that got out of control; rather, this was a well-planned act of terrorism
• No internet trailer for a video was the spark; it was designed to occur on the anniversary of 9/11/01 to show the ongoing hatred the Islamic radicals have for America
• There were Al Qaeda elements involved with it; they probably were the masterminds
• The White House, and President Obama personally, were monitoring what occurred via drone pictures, so they had real-time information
• Not only did they have the drone to help see what was happening, but there were reports coming in from the ground at the scene of the attack
• Three times personnel requested aid, knowing they were in a precarious situation
• Three times that aid was denied even though it could have been sent in a timely manner since this attack continued for seven hours
• As a result of the lack of aid, four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed
• Two of those who later died first defied the direct order to “stand down,” and staged a heroic rescue of consulate personnel, taking them from the consulate to the annex a mile away, saving the lives of those personnel

Incredibly, the American government watched while these people risked their lives and did absolutely nothing to help them. We were then treated to at least two weeks of misinformation about the entire episode, with White House spokesperson Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama himself continuing to claim that this was in response to that video trailer. They knew for a fact the video was not the real cause for this attack. In the real world, we call that lying.

Even as late as September 25th, during his speech at the UN, Obama referred to the video six times while studiously avoiding calling it an act of terror. As the truth has leaked out, the administration has slowly, and painfully, backtracked on that scenario, but it has been a reluctant backtrack.

The big question has been “Why was the administration so adamant that this was not a pre-planned attack?” The best answer has to do with the campaign for reelection. The Obama team, knowing it has a losing hand on the economy, desperately needed a “win” in the foreign policy field. Their convention trumpeted the killing Osama bin Laden and the “fact” that Al Qaeda had been defeated. To admit Benghazi was a successful attack orchestrated by Al Qaeda would undermine their assertions and give them nothing positive to proclaim on the campaign trail. It would also destroy The One’s credibility even more.

Now they find themselves in an awkward situation, and they are going to have to depend more than ever on their biggest supporter to overcome this “bump in the road”: the media.

Obama can always count on the mainstream media to hide the truth from the public. The only—and I mean only—news organization that is digging up the truth on Benghazi has been Fox. All the other news outlets have given this episode only scant mention. Well, let me modify that. They were giving it good attention as long as the video was the centerpiece. Now that it appears this is a coverup of gargantuan proportions, they have shown little interest. On those few occasions when Obama allows any reporter to ask him questions, no one in the mainstream media feels any duty to press him on the Libya fiasco. He’s getting, as usual, a free pass.

In the midst of this “fog of reporting,” only the very brave few have ventured to lay the blame where it belongs. It’s always the president’s call as to when to send in the military to help. The night of this attack, President Obama was fully aware of what was transpiring, but he was the one who ultimately decided not to provide the aid that was required. He must shoulder the blame for those deaths because they could have been avoided. Yet he will never take real responsibility for his actions. Why do I know that? Because he never has for the last four years—for anything. It’s a pattern in his life. In his upside-down perspective, others are always to blame for whatever goes wrong; he is guiltless.

Obama’s very polished at manifesting faux outrage whenever anyone questions his actions [remember his well-practiced response on Libya in the second debate?], but the truth will eventually win out in this instance. Despite the media near-blackout, the word is spreading, and it can’t help but have an effect on the final vote one week from tomorrow.

The third, and final, presidential debate is tonight, and the topic is foreign policy. Most Americans, apparently, find the topic of lesser interest than domestic policy, yet is has a direct impact not only on pocketbook issues but our very survival as a nation. I guess what I’m saying is that we ought to be intensely interested in what transpires overseas.

America has always been affected by the ideologies and actions of foreign nations. In our first decade, with George Washington as president, our political scene was poisonously divided over the matter of the French Revolution. Founding Fathers who fought side by side in our war for independence accused each other of either wanting to reestablish British control over us or of seeking to set up guillotines on the street corners. It was only Washington’s steady hand and the general esteem in which he was held that got us through the crisis. It does matter who is in charge.

Closer to our day, in 1979, when Iranian radicals invaded the American embassy and took hostages, we didn’t have a strong leader. The Carter presidency shriveled under the stress and the crisis dragged out until 1981. The hostages were released on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. Perhaps the Iranians had second thoughts about tangling with someone who exuded greater confidence.

One of Reagan’s signal achievements was the part he played in the demise of the Soviet Union. The pressure he put on that country via aid to Afghans who sought to remove Soviet troops from their homeland, and the announcement of his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to counter Soviet missiles aimed at the U.S. pushed the Soviets to the brink of economic extinction. When he then sat down with Gorbachev, he did so from a position of strength. The Cold War, which loomed over us for four long decades, ended not with a bang but with a whimper. Today, there are monuments to Ronald Reagan throughout the old Soviet-dominated Eastern European countries.

Yes, foreign policy matters, and it also matters who is in charge of it.

The Obama campaign had hoped to capitalize on the death of Osama bin Laden and their predetermined theme that Al Qaeda was diminished and on the run. The Libya debacle capsized that strategy. If they were to admit it was terrorism, and terrorism associated with Al Qaeda, it would seriously damage their credibility in the handling of a war on terror they never liked from the beginning. Remember how they changed the wording to “overseas contingency operations”? They’ve been adept at wordsmithing all along the way. When the gunman at the Ft. Hood massacre made it evident he carried out his act because of his radical Islamic ideology, the Obama administration swept that under the rug by calling it “workplace violence,” as if Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with it. I’m surprised they haven’t yet employed that terminology to the Libyan situation.

I wonder if that’s what we will hear tonight? At the very least, Obama is going to have to explain why he and his people took so long to call the attack on the consulate and the murder of our ambassador simply a demonstration against a movie trailer hardly anyone has seen. If he tries to deny that was the case, he has history against him:

The key to this debate will be whether Romney is up to the challenge of clearly exposing this hypocrisy. There are other issues as well—our relationship with Israel, the misnamed Arab Spring, violence in the Middle East in general, the failure of the “reset” button with Russia—that also should come up.

Foreign policy is vitally important, and it’s just as important who is leading America on the world stage. We are suffering through another Jimmy Carter Moment. Will another Ronald Reagan Moment follow?

We seem to be in a theater of the absurd. First, it was Romney’s dog on the top of his car. A couple of weeks ago the cry was “Save Big Bird.” Now Romney is condescending to women because he talked about seeking out women to fill some of his cabinet posts when he was governor of Massachusetts and as he collected resumès, he said he had a binder full of women. How awful! How insensitive! Actually, how surreal that anyone would make a big deal of this. He obviously meant a binder full of women’s resumès from which to choose the best to serve in his administration. The whole point of his comment at the debate was to show how eager he was to give key, responsible positions to women who have demonstrated their competence. Somehow, the Left seeks to turn this into a scandal of monstrous proportions. 

Guy Benson, a commentator at Townhall, believes this “may represent the pettiest and most trivial chapter of this entire campaign.” He thinks it shows the kind of desperation that emanates from a campaign that is beginning to panic. He continues,

As a person who enjoys at least a modicum of brain activity, I’m not exactly sure how to react to this. It’s so trifling, so frivolous that it shouldn’t merit any discussion whatsoever. But here we are. The leader of the free world and his campaign have decided to elevate it as an issue.

I know why. Some new polls are showing Romney closing the gap for the women’s vote.  In some states, he has overtaken Obama for the allegiance of women voters. Democrats thought they had that wrapped up, what with their “war on women” theme. Now they are running scared. Apparently all they can think to do is to be ridiculous and hope it somehow resonates. Well, it is resonating all right, but not in the way they hoped:

So many things seem to be going wrong for them all at once. Rumors are now swirling that they are thinking seriously of shifting funds away from states like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, seeing them as trending Romney and unlikely to reverse direction in the last two weeks of the campaign. And the Libya situation is the albatross that seems to keep growing. As I mentioned yesterday, when asked at the debate about the security problems at the consulate, he didn’t answer, but instead went into a diatribe of accusation: how could anyone think he and his people would ever politicize the murder of diplomatic personnel? He was absolutely indignant over the suggestion. Yet to many, there is a sneaking suspicion—which is becoming less sneaking and more than a mere suspicion—that politics rules even in a tragedy like that:

I must return also to the vice presidential debate. I’ve already chronicled some of Joe Biden’s most hilarious moments that evening, but there was one I apparently missed. I remember hearing it in the background while I was reading commentary on the computer, but it didn’t hit me at the time that he said Syria was five times larger than Libya. Hmmm.

This comedy of errors represents the executive branch of our government. But it doesn’t have to much longer:

Considering the current polling trends, that wish may come true.