Obama's Foreign Policy: A Feckless Exercise

As we reflect on the terrorist attacks against our Embassy and Consulate in Cairo and Benghazi, respectively, it is entirely reasonable to wonder what events allowed this to happen? As with any foreign policy issue, the contributing factors are varied and complex. No one thing leads to such violent attacks - certainly not an anti-Islamic video that no one has actually seen. It's a concoction of things, facilitated by an American Administration that leads from behind and treats foreign policy as an unimportant nuisance to the greater importance of spreading socialism domestically.

After 8 years of George W. Bush, we were told that the world hated us. Suffering under the delusion that the world just adored us before the evil, stupid, war-monger Bush took power in 2000. We were told our security was dependent on electing someone who people 'liked'. Obama spent time giving speeches in the U.K., Germany, and elsewhere even before being elected to tell the world, 'we are sorry we thought we were better than you'. He told the world, "I will be a uniter," and they all swooned. One of his first big trips as President United States saw Obama giving a nearly hour-long speech in Cairo, basically apologizing for American policy of the past and promising 'closer relations' to the Muslim world (video/transcript). Keep in mind, this was also the first president in many years who did not visit Israel in his first year, even as he was right next door.

Forget the fact that most Americans didn't feel the need to be apologized for. Forget the fact that this merely proved we'd elected a president who did not believe American Exceptionalism. Forget the fact that we toppled a dictator in Iraq that was guilty of millions of deaths. Forget the fact that the Taliban, who we tried to take down in Afghanistan was responsible for systematic death of people who didn't believe in their brand of Islam. Simply stated, Obama made the world believe he knew the United States was at fault for the hatred aimed at us. Nevermind that the hatred stems from a religion intent on fighting Westernization (progress), or terrorism rose from poverty reaped upon these people by their own governments, or that Islamic extremism is perpetuated by governments who use the religion to keep their people in line and their anger aimed at the U.S. and Israel rather than the true culprits. No, it was all about American Foreign Policy.

But where does that leave us now? Say what you want about George W. Bush, but no one murdered our Ambassadors under him. Do you think that's coincidence? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that Bush wouldn't think twice about laying down an iron fist on the people who seek to murder Americans abroad (especially foreign service members)? Just look at Obama's reaction:

1. Mitt Romney, presidential Candidate, was able to say what needed to be said about the issue before Obama even bothered. He didn't need to consult with anyone to stand up for American Values. While Obama was trying to figure out how to apologize for a video no one had any knowledge of, while not sounding like he was apologizing, Romney was saying what needed to be said. "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." 

Of course, the media rushed to criticize Romney for making this statement so fast, claiming he got the timeline wrong. What about Romney's statement is wrong? The Administration is responsible for it's Embassies. Further, Obama eventually came out in agreement with what Romney said, throwing the Embassy statement under the bus. But again, he was leading from behind. Romney said it first and best. 

2. Even if the timeline on the Embassy 'apology' was wrong, why in the hell is the United States Embassy apologizing for a video made by a private citizen living in California. It still can't be found, with the exception of a 13 minute trailer on youtube, by the way. This is a primary problem with the Obama Administration. Never apologize for Freedom of Speech. Ever. The end. No need for explanation or further discussion. No need to say you think the video is bad. No need to say anything but, 'you are wrong, and you will pay.'

3. It's clear the attacks had nothing to do with this movie anyway. It was a concerted effort to commit terror on the United States on the anniversary of 9/11. And Our President couldn't even be bothered to cancel a fundraising opportunity in Las Vegas. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Even the liberals can't justify that one.

So, here we are attacking Romney for showing leadership on the issue while Obama lags behind, and he gets attacked. Obama, the President, goes to a campaign function during a crisis, and no one bats an eye. I couldn't make this stuff up, folks.

But back to the original point which is, why are we in this position? Barack Obama's Administration has no respect or understanding of Foreign Policy. When Hilary Clinton conceded Obama's victory in the Primaries in 2008, it's obvious she was offered a place in his Cabinet. So, which position does he give her? This is the woman who trailblazed the Healthcare issue, the woman who had clear experience in domestic policy making but none in foreign policy. He made her SECRETARY OF STATE! If that's not an example of how little he cares about foreign policy, I'm not sure what is. He thought SOS was a 'throw away' position!

And why shouldn't he, really? He thinks if he talks out of both sides of his mouth, has wishy washy policy, and apologizes for us, we will be loved again. Of course, a blind moron could have told him that wasn't going to work if you simply look at the REAL factors that lead to terrorism. So now, we have 4 dead service members including an Ambassador (first since the Carter Administration in 1979),  and we have Embassies/Consulates on fire in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and Libya. Did you notice a trend there. Yep, the countries from the 'Arab Spring'.

I used to believe democracy solved all problems. I was wrong. Bush was wrong. These people have absolutely no understanding of freedom. They use their votes to oppress people who disagree with them. They vote in people worse than the dictators that they toppled. And Obama stands by and congratulates them for it. Why wouldn't these countries believe us to be weak? The one country where the uprising might have lead to a rational leader (Iran) and Obama was too scared to stand up for the revolutionaries. But when mob rule will favor religious nuts (like in the Arab Spring) all of a sudden, he believes in democracy.

Can anyone explain Obama's foreign policy? What is the 'Obama Doctrine'? Duck and cover until it's over and hope it's not too bad? He's hoping to win this election on the fact that he killed Osama Bin Laden. That's all well and good. Having him dead is awesome. But that's the tip of the iceberg to this problem of Islamic terrorism. Al-Qaeda flags were being flown at these riots. Reports indicated high-up officials in Al-Qaeda were in the crowds. If anyone thought killing OBL would change anything, they were horribly naive.

Even in the aftermath of this nonsense, Obama couldn't decide if Egypt was an ally or not. Yesterday morning they were 'not our ally'. By 2:30 they were our ally again. He's like a fish out of water on these issues. He has no idea what he's doing and the only advice he seems to have is, "make no sudden movements". This is catastrophic for our interests. How can our President lead when he'd rather apologize for a movie than stand up for American values? How can he protect our citizens abroad when he believes that these violent extremists are few and far between (they aren't) and can be controlled by a few apologies (they can't).

One more thought I'll leave you with. An attack on an Embassy or Consulate is an attack on American soil. They are as much a part of the country as any American city. We now have multiple American Embassies under attack and we have a President who is campaigning. When he actually does talk about the attacks, his response couldn't be weaker if he was trying. We attack Romney for his harsh response, but don't we wish our own President had even half that conviction? 

Obama: "If you own a business, you didn't build that..."

In his address in Roanoke, VA (one of my favorite towns, btw), Barack Obama boldly said: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen." Video Ummm...okay. 


Well, it's true that no man is an island. I don't think anyone thinks he or she is. However, his point, which is that Government provided things like roads, schools, etc lead to the success of the business owner has a few flaws. It is true that businesses need some of the things the government provides to succeed. But it is also true that no roads, schools, government research exist without successful people paying taxes. The government is penniless without tax revenues from those people who've taken the resources around them and made a successful business of them. 


He went on to say: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires." Again, true. But can you name a wealthy person of business owner who is desirous of getting rid of firefighters?  This is a straw-man argument by a man with little to offer as his own success. 


If the federal government were merely paying for the essential services like post, security, defense, roads, and infrastructure, we wouldn't even be talking about raising taxes. The success of American business would be plenty to take care of the government revenues. It is because the government wishes to take money from the rich to put into it's own partisan interests that makes the need for more taxes exist in the first place. I can tell you, no business needed the EPA to regulate a form of fuel that does not even exist to succeed. No wealthy person got wealthy because the federal government decided to enact absurd regulations on American Education. 


No one is arguing that we should not pay taxes. Taxes are necessary. Even the Founding Fathers knew this. But calling for more taxes from the group of people who are paying for everything to begin with and then calling them "greedy" or "unpatriotic" is laughable. What is a "fair share"? Should the top tax bracket be paying 90% of their income? Would that be a "fair share"? Should the percentage of people not paying income tax rise to 60 or 70%? Would that be a "fair share"? This class warfare is based on no truth whatsoever. 


Furthermore, why would anyone want to pay more into a system that is completely corrupt? Would anyone wish to give money to someone that takes 3/4 of that money and flushes it down the toilet? Of course not. So, why should anyone want to give more money to the government? Why does "giving back" have to mean "giving to the government"?  We all know how inefficient the government is. For every $1 they spend on something at least 60 cents of it goes to red tape and bureaucracy.  Couldn't money be better spent "paying it forward" to charities or private non-profits that actually help people? 


This sort of socialist rhetoric is false and insulting. Telling someone who worked hard and created a successful business that they owe their success to the government is, frankly, bullshit. They pay their taxes, which are far higher than anyone else's, and have the right to take in the profit that they made by taking the resources around them and making something useful out of them. Stop with the class warfare, Obama, and start coming up with REAL solutions to our problems. You'll get nothing accomplished unless you scale back the out of control spending and the mentality that the government is the savior, here to fix all of our problems. 

Obamacare Mandate Survives as a 'Tax'

Total shock. That was my first reaction to hearing that the atrocious Health Insurance Mandate had been found constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. The shock wasn't because a bill I didn't like was found constitutional. No. The shock was in the fact that a Federal overreach was given the okay by the highest court of the United States. What precedent will this set?

Many liberals (at least those willing to be honest about all of this) will tell you that Congress has the unrestricted right to create taxes. Okay. Let's go with that for a moment. 1) According the Obama and the Democrats, the mandate was not a tax.  You might remember this bit from our Commander in Chief, when it was feared the mandate was really a rouse for an extreme middle class tax hike: Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax. 2) If this is a tax, it would be the greatest tax increase, ever. This forced consumption or face a fine style of controlling the populous would place Obama as the owner of the largest tax in U.S. History.

Forgetting that for a moment, let's go back to the Constitutionality of taxation. It is true the Constitution is far too vague on the powers of Congress in taxing. However, couldn't we agree that it would be unconstitutional to tax someone for being black? Or for being overweight? Or for being Jewish? If we can agree that these taxes would be unconstitutional, then we can agree that Congress doesn't inherently have the right to tax anything and everything. Much like the 'Right to Privacy' touted in Row V. Wade, some Constitutional rights are implied or understood. These rights can override the powers of the Federal government. In the case of Obamacare, one has to ask, is it right to tax someone for not buying a product? For instance, could the Federal government tax a person for not belonging to a gym? Not buying life jackets if they own a boat? I don't think so, apparently the current Court disagrees.

You see, if we hand over complete power to the Congress to tax whatever they please, they will use it. They have already proven they cannot be trusted to keep themselves in check or out of our pockets. No issue is too personal for the Big Government loving faction of our Congress to regulate. Should Michelle Obama have her way, we'd all eat Broccoli and exercise an hour a day under threat of death. Well, maybe that's not fair. But if she could tax us into it, I have a feeling she would.

The next argument they will undoubtedly give you on the left is that "everyone uses Healthcare". That might be true. Although, I believe there are some people who don't. For religious, cultural, or personal reasons there ARE people who do not use our healthcare system. Further, just because one uses healthcare does not mean the necessarily need Health Insurance. If one had enough money or needed little use of the healthcare system, one could pay out of pocket. That being the case, not everyone uses or needs Health Insurance. Furthermore, a young, healthy person has the right not to buy if he or she wishes. Should something happen, it would be up to him or her to pay the costs. That's life. You take the gamble, you pay the consequences. This is not for the government to decide.

Undoubtedly the next line of argument will be about the burden to the taxpayer for the uninsured. This is a problem, one that could be dealt with outside of Draconian mandates. First of all, the burden does not usually come from the middle class for whom this mandate is intended. Poor and low income people are the bulk of the tax burden and they would need government healthcare regardless of Obamacare. Getting poor people covered is not made simpler by Obamacare. In fact, in some ways it is more complicated. The rift between the federal and state governments has never been wider.

Things that COULD have helped cut costs of healthcare and Insurance (like interstate competition, tort reform, see more of the Republican plan) were summarily dismissed in an attempt to take full credit for a "100 year accomplishment" in passing a Healthcare Overhaul. Congrats, Dems. You get all the credit for this one - this extremely unpopular, unintelligible, and unworkable bill that costs most than it saves. The taxes are just a tip of the iceberg. Tax breakdown.

But back to the original point. If this is a tax, why is Obama avoiding calling it that? As he high fives his Democratic friends on their "victory" he ardently REFUSES to refer to the mandate as a tax. It's only constitutional if it IS a tax, but he won't admit that it is one. Hmmm. He's avoiding it because he knows it's political suicide. While I'm upset at the precedent the SCOTUS opinion sets, the fact of the matter is, Obamacare is wildly unpopular, and by leaving it alone, the Supreme Court has boosted Republicans ability to bring people to the polls. I don't think the vast majority of Americans like "punishment" taxes. It is abrasive against our desires for liberty and freedom.

Do we need to fix problems in Healthcare? Absolutely. The most important issue needing dealt with, in my opinion, is lowering costs for people with pre-existing conditions. But Obamacare is NOT the answer. The people who support it have not even read it. Are there parts of it worth keeping? Absolutely. I think many of the preventative measures in the bill are worth keeping. But that does not mean all 2000+ pages are worth keeping around because a few dozen pages are good.

Of course, none of this has to do with the Supreme Court. The Court's job is not to decide is a law is "good" or not, but rather if it is constitutional. To me, punishment taxes are not Constitutional. Even as the Congress has the right to make Tax Law, punishment taxes speak to a higher issue of civil liberties. I have the right to live my life the way I choose, and the government does not have the right to modify my behavior with penalty taxes. If that right were in Congress' hands, they could impose taxes for any manner of "offenses".

But if this is a tax, found constitutional by the SCOTUS, then the solution is simple. Repeal it. Get rid of this disgusting overreach by Congress and work to make something useful, intelligent, and worthwhile on the issue of Healthcare. And to start, how about we don't let it exceed 100 pages, yeah?