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 & 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.

The Case Against Barack Obama: Foreign Policy

This is my fourth posting this week laying out the reasons why President Obama does not deserve reelection. I began with an evaluation of his worldview, moved to his character traits, and then showed how those applied to his domestic policies. If you missed those, I urge you to go back and read them. Today’s goal is to illuminate his foreign policy and—surprise—it once again reflects his worldview and character.

Surely you recall the 2008 campaign when hope and change included the tantalizing promise that the election of Obama would make all things right with the world. He would rectify all the ill humor and bad vibes emanating from the rest of the world because of George Bush’s policies. With the incidents surrounding September 11, 2012, this is more of a joke than ever:

During the 2008 campaign, Obama staged a massive rally/speech in Germany. The adoring throngs gathered to see the political messiah who would bring peace and brotherhood to humanity. I’m not exaggerating; that was the expectation of many. The fantasy even found its way into the heady atmosphere of the Nobel committee that preemptively awarded the new president the Nobel Peace Prize simply for the “promise” he brought. He had accomplished nothing, but they were in full-swoon mode. Characteristically for him, he accepted the award, even though it was richly undeserved.

Upon taking office, he sent Secretary of State Clinton to Russia with a prop—a silly “reset” button, signifying the changing of the guard in D.C. The button didn’t work.

When Iranian dissidents rose up against the regime that is rapidly gaining access to nuclear weapons and is boasting it will wipe Israel off the map, what was the Obama administration’s response? Virtual silence. The dissidents were suppressed. When the misnamed Arab Spring burst from the underbelly of radical jihadism, we found the President of the United States as its prime cheerleader. Unsurprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood now seems to be in command of that revolution. Yet we hear no genuine warnings from this administration about the dangers of Muslim radicalism.

Then came our new September 11. Embassies attacked, an ambassador murdered, crowds chanting “Death to America.” The Obama response was to blame it all on a YouTube video of a trailer for a film depicting Mohammed in a bad light. Despite the ever-mounting evidence that this was no spontaneous uprising, and that it was a carefully orchestrated terror attack, administration spokespersons—all the way from press secretary Jay Carney to Susan Rice, our UN ambassador—deny that it had anything to do with American policy. The State Department even refuses to take any more questions on the issue. Americans are nervous, perhaps recalling our history with radical Islam, even prior to 9/11/2001:

But keep in mind, his defenders say, that he successfully carried out the killing of Osama bin Laden, and our drone attacks in Pakistan continue to take down Al Qaeda leaders. True, but I would hope any president would have followed up on the intelligence that located bin Laden, and would have taken the same action. He owes a great debt to President Bush for the policies that ultimately led to tracking down key terrorists. It also needs to be noted that Obama draws a line between Al Qaeda and what he considers legitimate “liberation” groups in the Muslim world. They are no better than Al Qaeda, yet he seems blind to that fact.

And then there’s the whole question of American support for Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama has cold-shouldered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Never has an American president treated an Israeli leader with such disrespect. The latest example is Netanyahu’s request for a meeting with Obama to discuss the latest acts of terrorism and the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. The response? Our president’s schedule is too full; there’s no time for a face-to-face meeting. And just what is filling his schedule? Fundraisers with celebrities. Appearances on the Letterman show and other “soft” media outlets that will never ask him the tough questions. The prime minister of Israel? What does he have to offer?

Another salient fact that has emerged this past week is that President Obama has attended fewer than half of his daily intelligence briefings. That shows a decided lack of intelligence. Further, just when the American military needs to be at peak proficiency, he and his team are cutting back on military preparedness. If there is one duty the federal government most emphatically has, it is to protect its citizens from enemies who are developing the capability to destroy them. I believe he is failing in carrying out that vital responsibility.

The Obama foreign policy is a direct outgrowth of his anti-colonial, anti-Western-civilization worldview. He has far more in common with the radicals who seek to attack us than he does with America’s heritage. That should give any voter pause. Tomorrow, I’ll summarize the week’s posts and offer a challenge to the American electorate as we face perhaps the most pivotal election in our history.

Is This a Libyan Spring or a Fall?

It’s been a while since I’ve said anything about the events in Libya, but a lot has transpired in the past week or so. It’s probably not a subject that interests a majority of our citizens; Libya seems so far away and disconnected from life here. Yet we may be seeing a change similar to what is taking place in Egypt, which can have serious ramifications.

There are still those who tout the so-called “Arab Spring” as a testimony of the desire for freedom. Look at Egypt. What we witness instead is a rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and a turn against Israel. I wasn’t the only one who warned against this back when the protests began. Take off the fantasy glasses and glimpse the reality of that situation. The same applies to Libya.

Who is really going to be in charge there? It’s one thing to get rid of a maniacal dictator; it’s something else entirely to set up a working government. What practice do these rebels have in constructing governments?

It reminds me of President William McKinley’s reasoning when, in 1898, he had to decide whether to take responsibility for the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. His prime consideration was that the people had never governed themselves before, but had been under the thumb of an autocratic Spanish regime for centuries. How then could they be expected to manage on their own? They first had to learn how to govern. A guerrilla war broke out against American control, but eventually died down due to the benign oversight provided by American governors, particularly William Howard Taft. If the guerrillas had taken over, there would have been a repeat of Spanish rule in the sense that a few at the top would have been making all the decisions. It undoubtedly would have devolved into a tyranny. Under American auspices, the Philippines became the first Asian nation to elect its own congress, and finally achieved independence.

Libya is in the same straits. The people have never governed themselves. The most likely outcome will be either an Islamist sect crushing all opposition, or the ascendance of some other tyranny. There will be a bloodbath as they fight for supremacy.

Don’t expect stability anytime soon.

Meanwhile, what has become of Qaddafi [or however you spell it]?

In one way, this is comedy; yet I fear it will be mixed with tragedy.