Category Archives: Foreign Policy


The following is part three of a series on what the current president got wrong in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, according to

  • We all remember when President Obama called ISIS a J.V. team. Well, today, the terrorist group poses more of a threat to the world than ever before. The Heritage Foundation group has pointed out in the past two years that ISIS has established a presence in 19 countries with foreign fighters flocking to the wannabe caliphate in droves. In Syria and Iraq, ISIS controls territory the size of Maryland and rules over a population equivalent to Virginia’s. Although ISIS was recently kicked out of the Iraqi town of Ramadi, it still occupies Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city of almost 2 million. Obama’s remarks in the SOTU re-affirmed what we already knew; that there is still no strategy to defeat ISIS and he is anxious to pass this buck on to his successor.
  • When it came to national security issues, President Obama’s State of the Union address veered from delusional to dishonest. He presented the American people with a series of false choices, straw arguments, and inaccurate assessments regarding his track record. Regarding ISIS, Obama tried to downplay the existential threat they posed. Obama went on to provide a list of initiatives that the U.S. was spearheading in the war against the group, which included efforts to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots. Stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. These were unusual examples to cite, because on every count, these efforts have failed. ISIS is stocked with foreign fighters, its ideology has spread across the glove, it has launched attacks in mainland Europe, and it remains financially strong. Obama also dismissed the idea that theology could be at the heart of ISIS’s appeal dubbing them simply “killers and fanatics.” Yet a refusal to acknowledge the religious component to ISIS’s activities is counter-productive.
  • Almost seven years later, the so-called Russian reset policy is now a Russian regret. Russia still occupies 20 percent of Georgia’s territory. Moscow’s imperialism has resulted in the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea and a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Russia is testing NATO in the Baltics, rebuilding its military bases in the Arctic, and has intervened in the Syrian Civil War with no regard to the consequences. Since taking office, President Obama and many of those around him have assumed that Vladimir Putin is someone you can do business with, that Europe is no longer important, and that military power no longer buys the same influence on the world stage as it once did. These assumptions have led to bad policy decisions by this White House that has emboldened Russian aggression and tested the transatlantic alliance to its limits.
  • The current president has remained in denial about the disastrous nature of his Middle East polity throughout the small parts of his state of the union speech that dealt with foreign policy. He said that priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. That was certainly not the case in his last state of the union speech, which was the first that did not mention al-Qaeda since George W. Bush’s 2002 speech. He glossed over the uneven results of his half-hearted, slow-motion incremental response to the rise of ISIS and fumbling responses to the deepening crisis in Syria where his administration has been consistently behind the curve. His optimism on defeating these two terrorist networks would be reassuring if he wasn’t the same misinformed person who told Americans hat the war in Iraq had ended, that ISIS was a J.V. team, and that ISIS was contained the day before it launched the Paris terrorist attacks that killed 130 people.
  • President Obama, once again, used his State of the Union speech to urge Congress to work with him to close the terrorist detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO). But it is worth reminding everyone that GITMO is open for one reason and one reason only; because Obama failed to close the facility when the stage was set for him to do so. In 2009-2010, Obama’s party held a 59-41 majority in the Senate, and a 257-178 advantage in the House of Representatives. If the president needed any legislation to close Guantanamo, a debatable point, or simply the political backing of the majorities in both houses of Congress, the stars were aligned for him to do so. But instead of working with Congress to close GITMO in 2009-2010, the administration engaged in a series of controversial moves that caused a bipartisan uproar, resulting in the Democrat-controlled congress passing legislation that each year since 2009 has made it more difficult to close GITMO.
  • The facts clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Obama’s radical new Cuba policy. Diplomatic recognition and increased commercial opportunities to the Castro regime have emboldened the military dictatorship. This has directly resulted in historic levels of repression against the anti-Castro opposition. Despite a year of unilateral concessions, Havana continues undermining the U.S. and our interests. Dissidents have suffered historic levels of repression, even during Pope Francis’s visit to the island. Recently, it was discovered that the regime has been in possession for over a year of an inert U.S. Hellfire Missile, which was shipped from Spain to the island. The administration has not been able to answer how it got there, or if other hostile countries have obtained sensitive defense technology from it. It must also be remembered that it was only two summers ago when the Cuban government violated U.N. Security Council sanctions by clandestinely shipping weapons to North Korea.
  • Back to ISIS, where Obama first called the Islamic State a J.V. team. Then he said they were contained just before an ISIS inspired terrorist attack. Now Obama has characterized ISIS as masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks during the State of the Union address. The president’s most recent characterization of ISIS again tries to downplay the terrorist group’s capabilities, suggesting it is something far less formidable than it actually is.

It looks like I’m going to need at least one more article to cover everything that was covered in the State of the Union address. Again, thanks go to the Daily Signal for their detailed information.



According to, senior Obama administration officials are expressing concern that congressional attempts to tighten laws preventing terrorists from entering the United States could violate the Iran nuclear agreement and prompt Tehran to walk away from the agreement.

Congress is considering measures that would tighten the Visa Waiver Program to make it harder for potential terrorists to legally enter the United States by increasing restrictions on individuals who have travelled to countries with prominent terrorist organizations from bypassing security checks upon entering the United States.

Iranian officials have, in recent days, repeatedly issued threatening statements to the Obama administration, saying that such moves would violate the nuclear agreement, and the Obama administration last week conveyed the Iranian anger to American lawmakers.

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that these congressional efforts could have a very negative impact on the deal.

Sources working with Congress on the Iran deal criticized the Obama administration for attempting to stymie increased action on terrorism due to its desire to preserve the nuclear deal.

According to the Obama administration’s latest interpretation, the nuclear deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law, but does not allow Congress to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States, Omri Ceren, the managing director of press and strategy at The Israel Project, a S.C based organization that works with journalists on Middle East issues, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Seyed Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister also warned that Iran is prepared to take action against the United States for implementing visa restrictions.

Now, isn’t this just great? The country of Iran is jerking the chain of the United States of America and the current administration is letting them do it. It looks like Obama and his henchmen are thwarting attempts of Congress to keep the American people safe because Iran doesn’t like what we’re doing.

The number one job of the president of the United States is to protect this nation and its people, and it doesn’t look like he’s doing that. This president appears to be deliberately putting the wishes of Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, in front of his primary duty to protect the American people. This is straight forward intentional dereliction of duty. He should be impeached.

By Obama’s actions and the actions of his administration, the United States of American and its citizens have been put in danger.

You can’t impeach someone in office because you don’t like their policies or their philosophy of governing, but if that official deliberately puts the United States and its citizens in harm’s way, that’s grounds for impeachment.

I hereby call for the impeachment of the President of the United States, one, Barak Obama.



According to, the current president of the United States didn’t realize how nervous Americans are about terrorism? He thinks he didn’t realize this because he doesn’t watch enough cable TV.

This president has said and done some unbelievably dumb and evil things during his reign of terror, but this “pretty much takes the cake.” In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.

If a Republican president had done some of the things that this president has done, the republican president would no longer be in office. He or she would have either been impeached or not re-elected for a second term.

When someone runs for president, he or she should know something about the history of the United States. By means of being a state senator and then a United States senator, he should have been fully knowledgeable about the many terrorist attacks carried out against the United States and other democracies on the planet. And he should have known by virtue of the briefings he supposedly gets every day and the information that his advisors should be giving him. To not know is inexcusable.

The current president apparently acknowledged privately that he “flubbed the dub” in his initial response to the Paris attacks. As a result, he is hoping to add more theater to his counterterrorism response, whatever that means. The actual strategy isn’t changing much. But with White4 House aides saying they feel like Americans are more worried about the immediate threat of terrorism in the wake of Paris and San Bernadino than any point since 9/11, there will be more events like Obama’s visits to the Pentagon and the National Counterterrorism Center.

Bottom line, we’re not change our strategy in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Instead, the president is going to attempt to publicly show the American people that he cares about terrorism, even though he won’t say the words, “Islamic Terrorism.” This is symbolism over substance, my friends.

This is more condescending to the American people than the president and other members of his administration telling us that by joining other countries to combat climate change, ISIS will see our sincerity and quit doing bad things.

This president has insulted and derided the American people so many times, and I consider the above his biggest insult.

This president doesn’t care about the United States of America. His purpose in life and as POTUS is to destroy the United States of America. He doesn’t care about the American people except to the extent that his followers will assist him in taking down the USA. That includes that main stream media. Sure, he took an oath twice to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America. Furthermore, the number one job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people. Oaths he has taken plus the job responsibilities that come with the office of the president mean nothing to him. He’s a liar and he’s evil.

A couple of days ago, a FB friend of mine who is an Obama zombie (yes, I have friends who are Obama supporters), posted one of those little “photo things” that read as follows: “Share if you’re truly grateful for the Obamas, who have led our country with class, grace, dignity, and perseverance in the face of unprecedented obstruction.”

The Obamas are anything but classy, graceful, and dignified. Every president to date has had to fight to get his programs implemented. This is the way the United States government was set up to operate. His healthcare plan was passed using every legislative trick in the book, including using threats and intimidation against those legislators of his own party who were hesitant to support such an evil piece of legislation that would not only ruin the best health care system on the planet, but would affect this nation negatively in areas other than health care itself.

After losing his majority in Congress and eventually the Senate, his power was not subdued. He simply indicated that he had a phone and a pen and he intended to go around Congress to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish, the legislative branch and the American people be damned.

When Barak Obama was running for president for the first time, I was having dinner with a friend and expressed that there was not a single issue in which I agreed with him. The only positive thing about him was that he might be fun to party with. Now, I don’t even have a desire to party with him. I don’t want to be anywhere near him. I don’t want him in my state ever again.



On Monday, December 7, 2015, Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. When I heard this, I thought, “oh no,” this is going to take up valuable news time that could best be spent on items that are more important than what Donald Trump says, even though there is a chance that he might be the next President of the United States.

Of course, the Democrats were lining up to call out Mr. Trump with their usual fiery rhetoric. The White House claimed that he should be expunged from the list of presidential candidates because his word disqualified him from becoming president. The White House went on to further indicate that any Republican presidential candidate that does not denounce Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. Thus, the Republicans were lining up to denigrate the Republican frontrunner.

When I examined exactly what Mr. Trump said, I saw that he actually proposed a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on. “Until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” It doesn’t appear that Mr. Trump is calling for a permanent shutdown of Muslims entering the country, but a shutdown until our country’s representatives can so something, whatever that is.

Democrats/liberals regularly take things out of context like cutting off words. The fact that they didn’t take into consideration the words, “Until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” However, it looks as though many Republicans are doing the same thing. Instead of asking Mr. Trump what he meant by those words, they lined up as I described above to further bash Mr. Trump and call for him to step down as a presidential candidate.

Bill O’Reilly, yesterday evening (December 8, 2015), didn’t mention it on The O’Reilly Factor. I know Bill claims to be a fair and balanced independent and not a Republican. But I would have thought he would have mentioned those last few words uttered by Mr. Trump. There were some guests on the O’Reilly Factor that argued for limiting Muslim immigrants coming in from certain radical Muslim nations until the United States can properly vet them.

Yesterday, it was also brought to the forefront, primarily on social media, that former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to the United States during the hostage crisis in 1980. The only way that they would be let in was for emergency medical treatment. Also, in November 1979, the Attorney General gave all Iranian students on month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found to be in violation of their visas.

Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, but I doubt that back in 1979/1980 a Republican administration proposing similar procedures would have caused such an outcry with Democrats, except maybe the very, very radical leftists.

Fast-forward to 2015 and what have we got. Democrats, including the White House, stating that because of what he said, Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. And the Republicans are just about as bad, fighting to get to the beginning of the line where they can also denounce Donald Trump.

Sadly, over time, the United States has become a bastion of political correctness. It’s gotten into everyone, including me, I’m sure. Whenever a public figure utters something that not only the left, but also some on the right, feel is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., everyone is out there to condemn that person and the media spends days talking about it, some of the time neglecting what’s really important. Also, if you’re a public figure and don’t condemn it, you, yourself, will be condemned.

Congress, along with the current administration, should be looking at ways to properly vet certain groups of Muslims when they seek to enter the United States. And until procedures can be developed and implemented, perhaps some restrictions on immigration of Muslims should be put in place. This is what should be discussed in the wake of Donald Trump’s comments, but it won’t. It won’t be discussed and no procedures will be put in place to properly vet Muslims who come to this country as immigrants. Why? Because we’re too busy attempting to destroy someone who said something that was certainly crass and controversial.

It looks as though the left is, over time, accomplishing their goal of destroying those that don’t tow the liberal line. To keep this from happening, all Republicans/Conservatives must cease being scared of their own shadows. They must quit worrying about how the mainstream media and the left will label them. If we want to take back our country, we’re going to have to fight for it and be willing to accept the punches and blows that the liberals, including, the media, are sure to inflict.



Liberals have been defining racism to suit their needs of the moment for years now. If they don’t like something a conservative does and they can’t coin a phrase for why they don’t like what the conservative did, they simply call it racism. The main stream media, of course, never calls them on it.

On November 30, the website published an article entitled, “You are More Than 7 Times as Likely to be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than by Muslim Terrorists”. I don’t know how author, Ian Millhiser, determined the 7 times, but what difference does it make. Liberals don’t need to tell the truth or explain themselves. Of course, the recent shooting in a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs by an old eccentric white man was illustrated.

Millhiser indicates that terrorism perpetrated by Muslims receives a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and reports, the reality is that right-wing extremists pose a much greater threat to people in the United States than terrorists connected to ISIS or similar organizations. Millhiser goes on to site an explanation in the New York Times by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer to the effect that Islam-Inspired terror attacks accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13-1/2 years. Meanwhile, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11 causing a total of 254 fatalities.

The conclusions of Kurzman and Schanzer, according to the article, were unveiled in the New York Times in June, 2015. Notice how they cut their count off just after 9/11.

To his credit, Millhiser provided a link to the opinion piece by Kurzman and Schanzer. According to the opinion piece, Kurzman and Schanzer conducted a survey of 382 law enforcement agencies and 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorists’ threats in their jurisdiction. 39% listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorists, and only 3 % identified the treat from Muslim extremists as severe, as compared with 7% for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

I’m a bit confused here, but I’m a conservative. Kurzman and Schanzer initially indicate that 74% of the 382 law enforcement agencies surveyed said anti-government extremism. Then in the last sentence, they indicated that it’s 7%. I’m going to assume that the “7%” is a typo and go with the 74%.

In addition to the alleged typo, Kurzman and Schanzer are separating out Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists and what they call Muslim extremists. I think these two groups should be lumped together for a total of 42%. Also, anti-government extremism is grouped with other forms of extremism. Other forms of extremism is not defined. Had Kurzman and Schanzer included the fatalities of 9/11, the numbers would be way different. And wait! I just found something else, 74, 39, and 3 don’t add up to 100; they add up to 116.

So, you have these right-wing extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the United States. These groups are here, they’re ours, and we have to deal with them. But this is no reason to discount Islamic terrorism; especially after the Paris attacks. Furthermore, ISIS has indicated that they are coming after us and will attack on American soil.

Millhiser’s article also features a black and white photo, taken at night, of Klansmen marching single file through the streets of Swainsboro, Georgia in 1948. This photo is definitely creepy, but it has no bearing to the second decade of the twenty-first century. The Ku Klux Klan is a criminal organization and a march like the one depicted in the photo would not be allowed in this day and age.

The Klan photo and the statistics cited appear to be designed to lead a low information voter to the conclusion that the threat of attack by Muslim terrorists, whether acting alone or on behalf of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or any other organized Muslim group, may not be the serious threat that the conservatives and Fox News says that it is. Thus, we should be more afraid of white men.

An attorney, who just happened to be black, once told me that blacks generally don’t go into public places and start shooting. Whites are more likely to do that. She also said that blacks are more likely to kill commit “one on one” crimes. And over the years, I’ve noticed that to be true. It’s also been my observation, however, that liberals do more collective demonstrating/rioting. While they appear to be overcome by hatred, they destroy property and disrupt peoples’ lives. Examples include the Occupy Wall Street movement and the more recent demonstrations over the Michael Brown and Freddy Gray shootings. They also don’t hesitate to destroy anyone who doesn’t tow their political line. This was obvious when a clerk in Cleveland, Ohio and an Obama supporter, exposed the many skeletons that “Joe the Plumber” had in his closet. Another prime example of liberals attempting to destroy those who don’t agree with them includes the excessive fine that was levied on a Christian business for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. For additional thought, consider all the individuals that have been forced to resign from their jobs, ending their livelihood, because they failed to tow the liberal line.

Liberals love to deceive and I love to tear articles like Millhiser’s apart. Thankfully, finding liberal articles where they are trying to convince low information voters with lies and skewed information is not hard to do.