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.

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.

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.

The intent of yesterday’s post was to ensure we understand that there have always been bad times in American history, and that we’ve been at the point of despair before. Our future as a nation is still open; the decisions we make now will determine our path.

Today I do want to emphasize the severity of our current problems, as a kind of counterpoint to yesterday’s hopeful thoughts. It’s important that we don’t put our heads in the sand, figuratively speaking. What are we facing right now, and how do these problems compare to previous ones? I’m going to provide what I consider to be the key list of issues with which we have to deal:

• As a nation, we have never been this deep in debt. Credit agencies are threatening to lower America’s rating for dependability in paying our creditors. In just two and one-half years of the Obama administration, we’ve added $5 trillion in debt, rushing rapidly toward a grand total of $15 trillion. That means more than one-third of that debt has accumulated on Obama’s watch. Yet he doesn’t even seem to take it seriously. There’s no attempt on his part to cut back on the spending. Instead, he hopes to pass another stimulus and raise taxes.

• We are going to burst through our debt ceiling in August unless we cut spending. But what solution do the Democrats offer? Keep raising the ceiling. It doesn’t work for governments any more than it does for individuals and families.

The logic used by the administration is fascinating:

• The ideology behind Obama’s policies is more socialistic than anything proposed by FDR or LBJ. He has taken over one-sixth of the economy by ramming through a very unpopular and unconstitutional healthcare bill.
• We are stuck in a recession that has similarities to the Great Depression. The housing market has now been declared worse than what we experienced in the 1930s. Obama’s socialist policies have undercut the free market, ruined small business, and kept unemployment high.
• On the education front, he has taken steps to end school voucher programs, such as the one that was working well in Washington, DC, forcing poor children into awful government schools where they will learn virtually nothing. He is in the pocket of the educational establishment, which is more attuned to maintaining its stranglehold on education than achieving results. The NEA, in particular, has a political agenda perfectly in line with Obama’s ideology. Any attempt by conservatives to change this broken system is met with hysteria and hyperbole.

• Culturally, we have degenerated to a place unparalleled in our history. Over fifty million unborn children have been murdered since 1973′s Roe v. Wade decision. Homosexuality, which was always considered a perversion of God’s gift of sex, is now being touted as a laudable lifestyle, no longer a choice but simply a genetic difference. Last week, New York’s legislature, pushed by Democrat Governor Cuomo and acquiesced in by enough Republicans, made homosexual marriage legal. The Rubicon has been crossed. Marriage itself is being trivialized and degraded. We have broken with Christian belief and tradition to our detriment.

• The homosexual advance has become so dominant that it is difficult to watch television without finding a sympathetic homosexual character on a program. It’s an all-out assault on basic Biblical morality.
• Speaking of morality, our political leaders have fallen short at a record pace lately. I don’t need to review all of the scandals; you know them. Anthony Weiner has become a classic symbol of all that is wrong with our moral compass.

• When we turn to foreign policy, we see the United States practically laughed at in most of the world, the takedown of bin Laden being the exception to the rule. Few in other nations, friend or foe, take Obama seriously. He has become Israel’s worst nightmare. He’s now expanding that bad dream by sitting down and talking with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, operating on the illusion that they have renounced violence. What a fantasy world! Both are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the overthrow of Western civilization. This is a travesty of the highest order.

Have I forgotten anything really important? Possibly. I’m sure some of you could add to the list. Taken all together, this set of problems may signal the worst crisis we have ever faced as a nation. We could be on the verge of falling apart completely, morally and politically.

An essential part of the solution is to rid ourselves of the current political leadership, but that’s only a part of the solution. There is a more foundational need. That’s my subject for tomorrow.

Last night, President Obama gave his apologetic for why we are acting against Libya. I’ve said all along I don’t like Qaddafi. Hardly anyone does. When Condi Rice spoke at Southeastern a couple weeks ago, she related what is was like to spend three hours with the man. Her conclusion? He is a madman.

So there’s really no debate on that point. As many have indicated, the real issue is what will follow after him, if he in fact does go. Reports are surfacing that many of those rebels came from the battlefields of Iraq, where they fought against American troops. Now we’re helping them?

Have we crossed the border into the Twilight Zone after all?

As bad as Qaddafi is, will a new government run by jihadists be an improvement—the same people who want to destroy the Great Satan, a.k.a., the United States?

The same question was raised during the Egyptian revolution earlier. That question is even more valid today. A report in the New York Times [of all places], reveals that the Muslim Brotherhood is coming to the forefront of that revolution, and that the moderate elements who thought they were in control are being pushed to the background. For more on that, go to this site.

Bottom line: things are coming to a head in that region and we are not in control, despite any assurances offered by the administration.

We aren’t the only losers in this scenario. One nation in the area, Israel, is more threatened than ever by these developments. There’s a Biblical admonition that is appropriate for our times: pray for the peace of Israel.

I suppose I need to say something more about Egypt. Since I last wrote about the situation there, much has changed—not the least the abrupt departure of Hosni Mubarak, just hours after he said he wasn’t going to step down until September. Well, September arrived earlier than expected.

Then there was James Clapper, the Obama administration’s Director of National Intelligence, commenting in a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessarily an organization to fear. Here are Clapper’s precise words:

The term “Muslim Brotherhood” … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.

What are we to make of such an assessment?

This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. This is the organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to the setting up of an Islamic caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.

This is a terrorist organization.

For now, the army is in charge of Egypt, and it has been trained by and has ties to the U.S. military. The hope is that it will be able to maintain control and methodically lead the nation into representative government. Of course, the larger problem is that the people of Egypt are not practiced in the art of self-government. Indeed, it can be questioned whether any majority-Muslim nation can handle a legitimately representative form of government, given the Muslim mentality. Some say it has worked in Turkey, but there are signs it is breaking down there. We have tried to install workable government in Iraq; the result is still uncertain.

What of Egypt? Why should it be any different? I fear it won’t be, and if the attempt fails, the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting to pick up the pieces. In fact, it already has received the proverbial “place at the table.”

The next few weeks and months will be critical, not only for Egypt, not only for Israel and the entire Middle East, but critical for the United States as well.

A new theme being promoted by some in the media and, implicitly, by the Obama administration itself, is the similarity between the current occupant of the people’s White House and Ronald Reagan. Time magazine was up front with the linkage this week on its cover:

Well, I would like to do a comparison myself. Let’s start with the economy.

Both Reagan and Obama inherited a mess. Reagan’s solution was to reduce the tax burden on citizens and cut back on regulations. Obama rushed through a stimulus package. Reagan’s approach allowed individuals and companies to use more of their own money and not worry as much about government interference. Obama’s approach was government-to-the-rescue: bailouts that began in the final months of the Bush administration became standard; certain companies were taken over by the government.

Two years into Reagan’s first term, things began to turn around. It took a while simply because his budget, with the first of the tax cuts, didn’t even go into effect until October 1981, nine months after he took office. We are two years into Obama’s tenure and even though the stock market has rallied some, our long-term prospects are not bright—unemployment shows little sign of abating and our $14 trillion debt is threatening our financial viability as a nation.

No matter how much Obama might want to appear Reaganesque on the economic front, there is a more valid comparison:

Then there’s healthcare. Reagan, long before he became an active candidate for any office, recorded a speech against socialized medicine, pointing out its anti-free market, anti-American [historically] nature. He also recognized that any scheme that would put government in charge of healthcare would be far beyond any authority granted in the Constitution.

Obama, by contrast, never even attempted to base his desire for a national healthcare plan on constitutional authority. He is good at declaring that he loves the Constitution, but not so good at following it. When federal judges ruled against the bill, saying it was blatantly unconstitutional, the Obama administration actually had the nerve to say that those judges were perpetrators of “judicial activism.” That’s almost hilarious. Judges who try to rein in unconstitutional measures by appealing to the document itself are judicial activists? That gives logic a whole new definition.

Then there’s the issue of national security and dealing with external threats. Reagan’s war against totalitarian communism began more than three decades before he took the oath of office. He saw the dangers early in his career and spoke out forcefully. When he had the opportunity as president, he crafted a policy that deliberately led to the undermining of the Soviet Union. In the memorable words of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, “Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired.”

Today’s major threat is from radical Islam. While Obama has continued to send troops to Afghanistan, there has been no all-out war against terror on his watch. That would be particularly difficult for him as he has an affinity for Islam himself. Note that I did not say he is a Muslim, but he certainly has sympathies for the religion that has spawned the radical terrorists. He apparently has no qualms about the Muslim Brotherhood having a “place at the table” in whatever new Egyptian government emerges from the present crisis. Yet that organization is the parent of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Does he even recognize the problem here?

So while Obama may want to present himself as a latter-day Reagan, any sound analysis of their different philosophies and policies will show there is more of a contrast than a comparison.

Those are really huge boots to fill. President Obama doesn’t even come close to filling them.