Lack of Intelligence Report

The latest intelligence report on terror threats to the country no longer includes either Iran or its minions in Hezbollah on the list of threats. If that seems rather unintelligent to you, don’t think you’re the one failing the intelligence test.

What would ever lead our government to come up with this assessment? Could it be because our president wants a “deal” with Iran so badly that he will do anything to show them how nice we are to them? That by removing them from the terror list, they will have a change of heart? Once again, we have the Obama worldview—skewed as it it—on full display.


Once again, he reveals his penchant for not knowing who the real enemy is:


And have you noticed who is doing the fighting against ISIS in Iraq, the nation we pulled out of the fire and tried to set on a stable course? Iraq is quickly becoming a subsidiary of Iran. What’s even worse is our government apparently applauds this development. We will keep applauding, apparently, until the country that seeks to destroy Israel and send nuclear missiles our way achieves its goal.

Simultaneously, our president and his administration give funding to an organization actively working to oust Netanyahu as the Israeli prime minister. One of Obama’s chief campaign strategists was sent over to Israel for that very purpose. This is the president who balked at inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress because, ostensibly, it would be “wrong” to influence the upcoming Israeli elections.

This is the basest hypocrisy.

We are in this position because American voters collectively put their heads in the sand twice. We have reaped what we have sown. We are ultimately to blame.

This new “lack of intelligence” report is merely the latest evidence of Obama Fantasyland:

It's a Wash

Less than two years to go.

Dreamy-Eyed Progressives vs. America’s Security

I’m concerned that not enough Americans are paying close attention to the latest developments in the Middle East, particularly the deal reached with Iran by the US and a few other nations. Iran was hurting under our sanctions; now we’ve pulled back on those sanctions without getting a solid promise that the country that seeks to obliterate Israel will actually stop working on its nuclear capability. I’ve read a number of commentaries on the “deal,” and there are so many holes in it, it is virtually useless.


Here is where a skewed worldview comes into play, one that will put us at greater risk. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry seem to believe the Iranian leaders will become reasonable. They are sadly mistaken because they have a distorted concept of the nature of sinful man. Our “leaders” have spent most of their lives bemoaning American actions in the world and criticizing their own country more than other nations. It’s as if they think the United States is the primary hindrance to world peace. Iran doesn’t mind this warped perspective; it works to their distinct advantage:

All Smiles

It also helps them move closer to the goal of wiping Israel off the face of the map. Ever since the creation of Israel in 1948, the United States has been its staunchest ally, but our current leadership is more sympathetic toward the Arab world than the embattled Israelis, who are surrounded by a host of enemies. They have come to realize they can no longer count on the nation that once was their best supporter and helper in times of trouble. They are trying to adjust to the new reality:

Israel's Seat

This is not just a problem for Israel. The Obama administration, due to its off-base ideology, is unwilling and/or unable to see the long-term danger now facing America from the Iranian terrorist state. We’re also now hearing reports of talks with the terrorist organization Hezbollah, as if they also can be reasonable. Dreamy-eyed progressives are undermining our security.

The Occupiers’ Supporters

“Occupying” seems to have become a fulltime occupation for some. Hey, it beats working, right? At least that’s the impression some of the occupiers give. Have you seen the list of organizations and individuals that are supporters of this movement? They include a variety of communist organizations, as well as the official Communist Party. And don’t forget the Nazi Party; they’re on board, too. Throw in the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakhan,B and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and you have quite an assembly. Foreign “dignitaries”  and groups who have provided verbal support include Hugo Chavez, Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Hezbollah, the nation of North Korea, and the Communist Party of China.

Greetings, comrades and jihadists!

Everyone’s anti-capitalist to some extent. Corporations are evil, you see. Inherently so. Don’t make any distinctions between those who provide valuable products and services, and who give massive sums to charity and those who are operated by selfish thugs. Just declare them all to be—in the words of a bygone era—Robber Barons.

Such righteousness on the part of the occupiers. Are you aware that some of the leaders have now applied for a trademark for the name “Occupy Wall Street”? How very capitalist of them.

One cartoonist created a fable of sorts to illustrate the mindset of the occupiers:

Oh, you mean there’s a political aspect to this? Is that why President Obama has made supportive statements with respect to this “movement”? Are these really the people with whom he wants to be associated?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to win him many votes.

Egypt’s Future … and Ours

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 Contrast, Not a Comparison

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.

No Place at the Table

In a speech last night, Hosni Mubarak said he would not run again for president of Egypt in the next election, slated for September. That’s hardly going to satisfy the protesters. In the words of almost every commentator I’ve read, it’s “too little, too late.” The protesters will settle for nothing but a total capitulation and a new government run by those who didn’t work with Mubarak.

But who will those people be?

As I noted two days ago, a radical organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, wants to take advantage of this crisis to propel itself to the top. If that happens, it will not be an improvement. The Brotherhood is the umbrella group for all the terrorist movements in the Middle East, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in the Palestinian territories. The Brotherhood has called for all-out war against Israel and seeks to kill every last Jew, if possible.

Is this really who we want in charge of Egypt?

Mubarak is no prize, but change for change’s sake is not true reform. A couple of political cartoonists have captured the point perfectly:

Careful—we might get snakebit.

In the midst of this chaos and possible takeover by Muslim extremists, what should America’s stance be? I realize we don’t have control over the situation; no president can dictate what will happen. Yet shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power? One would hope so, but President Obama seems to be “making nice” with the terrorists. As reported on the Hot Air blog:

Welcome to the new reality of cold, hard choices in Egypt, and the consequences of democracy in regions where radicalism thrives.  In order to stay ahead of the crisis in Egypt, the Obama administration yesterday signaled that it supports the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics as long as they renounce violence and commit to democracy.

Oh, well then, that shouldn’t be too hard. Surely we can expect them to do us that tiny little favor, right? For some reason, the Obama adminstration believes that allowing them a place at the table in the Egyptian government will make them into peaceful, loving, small-d democrats.

As a historian, I remember another instance when a nation thought that would happen. It was Germany in 1933. The majority party concluded that by allowing Hitler into the inner circles of power that they could keep a better watch on him and possibly tame his wilder notions. That certainly worked out wonderfully, didn’t it?

The Muslim Brotherhood is a bloodthirsty, racist, Islamist-indoctrinated abomination. It deserves no place at any table. Will the U.S. administration wake up to that reality or not? If not—if we play a role in establishing them as “respectable”—we will suffer the consequences.