The “Death to America” Deal

The Iran deal is now in Congress, open for debate. The Obama administration gave precedence to the United Nations, taking the deal there first for its approval—which it got, of course. They say it’s because other nations were involved as well, but how does that trump (excuse my use of that word) the Constitution’s specific requirement that all such deals should be subject to a 2/3 Senate approval?

This deal is just so good, we’re told, that we simply cannot pass it up.

Deal

Remind me never to have John Kerry negotiate anything on my behalf:

Good Deal

Iran Nuke Deal

What about all those demands and/or requirements we were told Iran would have to abide by? Now we find out there were a couple of “secret” deals on the side that weren’t supposed to be made public, like allowing Iran to provide the specimens to be tested to determine if they are keeping their word on nuclear development. Isn’t that somewhat like letting Hitler demonstrate how nicely he was treating the Jews?

Piece in Our Time

What’s even more revealing is that since this deal was reached, the rhetoric of the Iran regime hasn’t changed one bit, which a befuddled Kerry finds somewhat disturbing.

Compromise

Before & After

But don’t worry. If the Congress rejects this deal, our president will be right there to uphold it.

Veto Any Bill

He’s never met an Islamic terrorist he can identify:

It's a Duck

Iran is a terrorist regime. We have just concluded an agreement with that regime that will allow it to develop nuclear weapons. Congress has a responsibility to shoot it down, first with a vote to negate it, then with an override of a presidential veto. Will there be enough backbone to accomplish this? The jury is still out.

America’s Image Abroad

Benghazi hasn’t been the only foreign policy fiasco for the Obama administration. Presumed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was a non-entity as secretary of state. Neither she nor other State Department officials, when asked what she accomplished, could come up with anything concrete.

Her successor, John Kerry, is, if possible, even more inept. He and President Obama have displayed an uncommon disdain for Israel and sympathy for those who would like to commit another holocaust against the Jewish people. Last week, Kerry was caught saying that Israel might become an apartheid state. Yet the only nation in the Middle East that includes both Jews and Arabs in government is Israel. It was an offensive statement, divorced from reality. Israeli officials were deeply troubled by the attitude. They have lost confidence in America as an ally, and for good reason:

One Reason

Overall, the Obama approach to world affairs has been to wash our hands of any real leadership. He offers words, and little else. It’s not only Israel that has lost confidence in the nation that has, since WWII, taken on responsibility for combating the evil ideologies of communism and Islamic terrorism. What is America’s role today?

Atlas Shrugged

From returning a bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain, to the silly “reset” button sent to Russia, to the toothless reaction to the imminent takeover of Ukraine, to . . . well, fill in the blank . . . our policies are now being orchestrated by rank amateurs who are still trying to figure out how this all works:

Foreign Policy

So who is going to lead? On what nation or organization can the future of freedom depend? Well, there’s always the United Nations:

Shock Waves

Sure, that should work.

I’m not saying the United States has never stumbled in foreign policy prior to this administration, but there is one glaring difference today: the world no longer looks to us as the best hope for extending liberty and the rule of law. Obama is not too keen on either liberty or the rule of law, at home or abroad.

Our Presidential Embarrassment

Make no mistake; I’m glad President Obama pulled back from the brink on Syria. First, he didn’t have the authority to act without Congress, yet he was preparing to do so anyway. Second, support for the Syrian rebels would be a colossal blunder, since they are now dominated by enemies of the United States. I said it before and will say it again: neither side in that conflict deserves our backing.

Yet the entire episode has been a disaster for the reputation of the US. It has fully revealed the ineptitude of this president in international affairs, thereby rivaling his ineptitude on domestic issues. His dangerous ideology and his incompetence are the perfect storm in both arenas. And who comes out looking like the peacemaker? Vladimir Putin, the ex-KGB official who is, basically, a thug.

The naïve amongst us may rejoice that the UN is now being handed the baton on chemical weapons oversight. Well, first of all, that’s not a certainty; “talks” must come before action, and we all know how those kinds of talks usually go. Even if the UN is given that task, is there really anything in its history of oversight that gives confidence this makes all things right?

Reporting for Duty

The fiasco has only begun.

Naturally, our president spins this as a victory that showcases his tough stance against evil. We’re told the Russians wouldn’t have offered the solution and the Syrians wouldn’t be considering it if not for Obama’s superb strategy. But does he even understand the game being played?

Bingo

Even commentators on the liberal side who have provided all sorts of rationales to explain other Obama policies are flummoxed by what has transpired in this case. Some Democrats have used the word “embarrassing” to describe what has happened to American prestige. Respect for their leader is at an all-time low. This is coming across as more on-the-job training. Or perhaps there’s an even better comparison:

Student Driver

Remember that silly comment by Kerry, comforting the world that any action we might take would be “unbelievably small”? Here’s another application of that wording that seems appropriate:

Isn't That Right

I was also less than impressed by Obama’s appeal to help the children of Syria. This is the man who stood before Planned Parenthood and asked God to bless their efforts while they routinely aid in the slaughter of more than 333,000 children each year. He’s not to be taken seriously.

On Flags, Arrogance, & Threats

In one of my posts last week detailing the case against Obama’s reelection, I wrote about his character. The most blatant trait I believe he possesses is an ego far outside the norm. I’m certainly not the first person to comment on the perceived arrogance of the man. In some cases, his followers have taken devotion to him to an extraordinary level. A couple of months ago, some of his campaign headquarters were flying this flag:

That raised the ire of many who saw it as a desecration of the American flag. There was enough blowback that this emblem soon disappeared. Then just this last week, the following showed up on Obama’s website for admirers to purchase:

Someone apparently didn’t learn the lesson. It also has quietly been removed. But it was there long enough for at least one cartoonist to draw attention to it:

I recall nearly four years ago after Obama won the election, whenever he would speak publicly, he would stand behind a podium the likes of which had never been seen before in American politics:

That also was unprecedented. He seems to enjoy the status of the office, if not the actual responsibilities. His spokespersons say he didn’t refuse a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but the word from Israel is just the opposite. It’s a shame to have to say I accept the word of a country other than my own in the controversy, but this administration has been anything but forthright on a number of issues. Obfuscation has become more of an art than ever. We are told Obama has avoided his daily intelligence briefings consistently, even in the aftermath of the Libyan attacks and the murder of our ambassador. Clint Eastwood’s empty chair is seeing a lot of play lately:

Just yesterday, the president was in New York City as world leaders were gathering for talks at the UN. He sent Secretary of State Clinton to meet with world leaders, but he had more pressing matters on his mind:

Yes, trolling for votes among his legion of fans was far more important. The one substantive interview he did submit to was on 60 Minutes where he, without the aid of his teleprompter, stirred up controversy once again by calling the rising tide of unrest and protests in the Muslim world simply bumps in the road, and referring to Netanyahu’s urgings to take the Iranian nuclear threat seriously as “noise” that he intends to “block out.”

Does he believe at all that there is a legitimate radical Muslim threat against the United States?

For the sake of our security, he had better start believing it. For the sake of the future of our nation, we need to put someone in the Oval Office who is a true friend of Israel and recognizes the threat. There is one out there.

May it come to pass.