Having listened to a campaign in which Governor Romney explained how he would fix the U.S. economy and carry a big stick around the world, and President Obama continually blame George W. Bush for all our economic problems and try to depict Romney as the evil-millionaire Mr. Potter from Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, voters can take their pick on Tuesday. But when doing so they must realize that no matter who wins, the next president’s biggest problem will be fighting wars overseas with a war weary populace and an undermanned and ill-equipped military. And no matter who is elected, the new president will only have himself and his interventionist party to blame.
While both Democrats and Republicans deserve to be cursed by all Americans for their identical, war-causing, interventionist foreign policies, the duties of citizenship require informed citizens to vote. And though I loathe the fact that Romney has surrounded himself with Neoconservative war-mongers, I will vote Republican. Why? Because I have never been able to understand — let alone accept — why the establishment of the Democratic Party and its media acolytes so dislike Americans, seem so unconcerned about their welfare, and are always so eager to coerce them. On reaching doddering-hood at age 60, I can look back and recall numerous anti-America and anti-Americans positions that are long-standing Democratic positions, such as:
Readers of this blog will recall several previous battles I have been engaged in with Israel-Firsters intent on getting me fired from various jobs and banned from the media. In these efforts, the Israel-Firsters have had some success.
The mujahideen’s tactical victory over the United States in Benghazi is significant, but its importance pales in comparison to the strategic victory Obama and his predecessors have handed to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
This Tuesday’s Romney-Obama foreign-policy debate will again show Americans that both political parties mean to maintain the lie that has kept the United States losing the war al-Qaeda and its allies declared on us in 1996. There will seem to be debate during the debate, but at day’s end there will be no difference between Romney and Obama: America is “exceptional,” and exceptionally entitled to intervene in other peoples’ affairs; what we do in the world is well-intentioned and benign; and Islamist militants are attacking us because they hate freedom, liberty, and Budweiser. In other words, both men will implicitly tell Americans that their government will not recognize the seriousness of our war with the Islamists, let alone that we are losing that war — hands down.
As Americans fixate on the presidential campaign, they also should note the status of President Obama and Governor Romney. Yes, both are presidential candidates, but both are also men who — with their predecessors and the Congress — have willingly surrendered American sovereignty and independence to Israel and its U.S.-citizen advocates (Jewish and Evangelical), their organizations, and much of the media.
Soon after the Denver shootings, President Obama said it was time to put stricter gun-control measures in place. With the failure of Attorney General Holder’s “Fast and Furious” ploy to void the 2nd Amendment, it seems Obama thought he might capitalize on the Denver shootings to further damage the Constitution. The negative public reaction to his words, however, sent Obama backtracking, and senior Democrats like Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi quickly made public remarks to bury the issue — for now.
While the presidential election campaign is focused on the economy and Barack Obama’s transparent desire for class war in the United States, Americans ought to take a quick look at the outside world to examine the approaching wave of interventionist-wrought disaster, a wave for which both parties are equally culpable.
It would have been interesting to see Mrs. Clinton swagger across her office to take the phone and apologize to the Pakistanis for last year’s mistaken U.S. attack on their soldiers. For a woman usually so full of war-speak and arrogance it must have been hard for her to put on sack cloth and ashes. Even more, though, it would have been fascinating to watch the Pakistanis at the other end of the line as their tried not to howl with laughter as the Secretary of State of a once-great power cried uncle and said “we’re sorry” to a team of Third World poker players who knew they held the winning hand all along.
The death of nearly 100 people — reportedly mostly women and children — over the weekend is a salutary reminder of an eternal truth which Western leaders seem unfamiliar: PEOPLE GET KILLED IN WARS. In the present Syrian case, both sides in the ongoing Syrian civil war appear to share responsibility for the deaths. And while the trigger pullers on each side bear responsibility, the line of responsibility also leads directly back to Britain’s David Cameron, the UN’s leaders, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Barack Obama, and especially Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. These interventionists have led an effective effort to prevent the legitimate Syrian regime from restoring order to the country, and have encouraged Syrian dissidents to provide the cannon fodder for what has become a face-off between Asaad’s army and Islamist militants aided by al-Qaeda and armed and funded by the Jordanians, Turks, Saudis, and other of the Gulf’s tyrants. Western intervention, in short, prolonged Syrian disorder and gave time for the ripening of today’s civil war there.