Should Congress Be Lectured By Foreign Leaders Like Netanyahu?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to speak before Congress this week about the situation in Iran. The Obama administration has loudly opposed the speech, believing it undermines their position in Iran. On some level the Obama administration has an argument. Foreign policy is the domain of the executive branch under the Constitution. It is not a matter that really involves Congress, particularly the House which does not vote on treaties or foreign appointments. Those on the right are more than willing to watch the Obama administration fall apart over this issue. The larger question, which will go unanswered, is whether we on the right really want foreign leaders coming to our Congress to lecture us about what our foreign policy should be. If not, why does Netanyahu get a pass?

Part of the reason Netanyahu gets a pass is because Obama is so clearly wrong about Iran. The President is practically to the point where he’s ready to announce a historic agreement with the Iranians. No doubt Iran will ignore the agreement and continue their nuclear program. Secretary of State John Kerry claims that the administration has earned the benefit of the doubt over Iran. After six years of Obama failures abroad, this President hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt anywhere much less Iran. His deal with Iran is nothing more than another red line just begging to be crossed.

The riff between Obama and Netanyahu is so great that at least according to one paper the President threatened to shoot down Israeli planes if they tried to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. If this is accurate Obama isn’t an ally of Israel at all. On some level it’s too bad this did not happen. Most Americans support Israel, in fact it’s only the radical left that opposes the Israelis. Obama would have faced a massive political backlash here in the US. He certainly wouldn’t have found support for a war against Israel. It’s telling though that Obama is willing to go this far to protect his legacy. Keep in mind, Obama has been promising a deal with Iran since his 2008 campaign. He’s getting close to a deal and the only thing that stands in his way are those pesky Jews.

Anti-Semitic is on the rise here in the United States, almost exclusively among progressives. Obama has been influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and other leftists who favor revolution in Islamic countries. In typical progressive manner, his contact with those who disagree with him is limited. He pushes Republicans and Israel away, limiting contact as much as possible. As such, he’s insulated from their views and relies on the caricature of them created by the progressives he’s surrounded by. Academics and northeastern liberals do this all the time, they have no idea what their political opponents actually believe they only believe the slanderous caricature of them created by those of like opinion. Obama has done this with Israel to the point that he’s favoring their enemies and treating a long time ally as though it is the enemy of the United States. He’s doing this, in part, because he’s intellectually lazy just like the other anti-Semitic progressives.

Ultimately Netanyahu’s speech isn’t going to change much. Republican supporters will cheer wildly and vow to continue sanctions against Iran. Democrat supporters will cheer less enthusiastically for fear of reprisals from Obama supporting progressives. Opponents won’t even show up and if they do they’ll sit in stoney silence or if we’re particularly lucky they’ll put on some ridiculous display of opposition that we can laugh about later. At this point sanctions against Iran are still in place, in theory the President cannot  unilaterally remove them. Republicans probably don’t have the 2/3 majority needed to override a veto to impose additional sanctions. Even if they did, this President has never been one to live by the rule of law. This speech is just a big dog and pony show. While Netanyahu takes the right position on Iran I keep coming back to the same nagging question. Should a foreign leader lecture our Congress? This is the only issue that makes me uncomfortable about the Netanyahu speech, otherwise it’s Obama threatening war with Israel that is cause for concern.

Obama’s Support Of Islamic Socialism Seen In Israel

According to President Obama, Muslims built the “very fabric of our nation.” This is interesting because the very fabric of our nation was built during the colonial period. During this time there wasn’t a single Muslim in America. In fact, there’s no record of a mosque in the United States until 1915 when a group of Albanians built one in Maine. Obama’s rewriting of history is on one hand ridiculous and on the other hand completely understandable. This President favors Islamic socialism in the middle east and he favors socialism at home. He’s in bed with Islam because it suits him politically. If that means exaggerating Muslim contributions, the ends justify the means.

If we look throughout the middle east, Obama has consistently supported radical Islam. He’s done so because all of these groups have a commitment to socialism. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya. He’s supported al Qaeda in both Libya and Syria. These days Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are trying to pressure Israel into a ceasefire in their war against Hamas. Again, Hamas is a group which supports Islamic socialism. They’re supported by radical leftist groups here in America such as Code Pink. Obama’s commitment is to socialism, he’ll support terrorists so long as they’re socialists.

It really shouldn’t matter to us whether Israel attacks Hamas or not. In the very least, we shouldn’t be surprised when a nation fights back after a terrorist group launches rockets into major cities. Anyone who is horrified at the deaths of Muslim women and children should blame Hamas rather than Israel. Human shields are banned by the Geneva Convention and while Hamas has not signed the the treaty the civilized world has. Rather than blaming Israel for hitting military targets, we should be blaming Hamas for surrounding those targets with women, children and infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.

Obama and Kerry know what’s going on in Israel right now. So does the left-wing media. Their political goals are more important than the truth. Their goal is to further socialism throughout the world, in this case the middle east. If that means throwing Israel under the bus in order to achieve a socialist Muslim world, the left is winning to do it. There has been a strident rise in antisemitism on the left over the past decade. As recently as when yours truly was in college in the 90’s the left insisted antisemitism was a product of right-wing extremists. These days it’s in fashion on the left.

Obama will continue pushing for socialism in the Muslim world during his last two years in office. He’ll continue to exaggerate the accomplishments of Muslims here in America in order to convince us radical Islamic groups really aren’t so bad. In reality he’s supporting terrorist groups, some of which have their sights set on the United States. The pressure he’s putting on Israel reflects his support for Islamic socialism. He should simply stay out of the conflict, it’s little more than an Israeli internal problem. He won’t do it because he supports Hamas and its allies. Because of Obama’s lame duck status and the likelihood of someone less radical getting elected in 2016, the Israelis are less likely to heed his advice. That won’t stop Obama’s exaggerations or his support of radical Islam. If only he would be honest about his policy goals.

Muslim Brotherhood Attacks Coptic Christians

In roughly 24 hours last week the Muslim Brotherhood destroyed or damaged over 50 Christian churches. The Muslims have attacked Christian clergy and laymen, burned the homes of Christians and destroyed Christian schools. The recently captured Papist nuns and paraded them through Cairo as though they were prisoners of war. The American press is largely ignoring this story. It’s hardly surprising since the media supported the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt. This group is now attacking Christians as though the faithful are somehow responsible for the Brotherhood’s demise. To report this would require the media to admit they and the Obama administration were wrong.

Due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s attacks on Egypt’s Coptic Christians, the United States should refuse to provide the country with foreign aid. So long as Christians are being attacked, our country shouldn’t provide a single penny to Egypt. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over again, we should abandon Egypt altogether unless they guarantee the freedom and safety of Christians. At the moment the military refuses to protect Christians, as such our nation should suspend out of hand all foreign aid to Egypt.

It’s interesting that the Christians in Egypt are under attack and getting blamed for all that befalls the Muslim Brotherhood. The same arguments were made against Jews when Germany was under the spell of the National Socialist German Workers Party. (that’s a right-wing party name in the left’s dreams but we’ll save that discussion for another time) The ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and National Socialism are strong. Hitler and the Germans supported Islamic socialist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood during World War Two hoping they would rise up against Britain and cause Germany’s enemies problems. Hitler funded the Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups during this time and provided them with some of their political ideology.

We shouldn’t be surprised that Christians are under attack in Egypt based on the racist, radical vision of Islamic socialism pushed by the Brotherhood. Nevertheless it’s still shocking to see the faithful in Christ attacked. The United States ought not be funding nations that cannot or will not protect Christians. Besides lobbying Congress to suspend funding for Egypt, we believers must spend time praying for Christians in Egypt. if possible, we must fund missionaries and Christian relief groups operating in Egypt. Obviously Egypt isn’t the only place in the world where Christians are being persecuted, we must remember all of those suffering for Christ’s sake wherever they may be.

President Obama’s foreign policy has been nothing less than a disaster for the United States. He allied us with radical Islamic socialists and pretended they were 1776 American revolutionary types. When they got toppled, he pretended there wasn’t a coup and decided to wait to see who was going to win before picking sides. Now Christians are under attack and the administration doesn’t seem to care in the least. They certainly aren’t interested in condemning the attacks on dozens of Christian churches. What sort of foreign policy is this?

Something Isn’t Right About Obama’s Middle East Policy

On Sunday the US shut 19 embassies across the Muslim world. They remain shut until at least Saturday. Something doesn’t feel right about all of this. While the Feds claim that there’s significant “chatter” amongst al Qaeda operatives, it doesn’t make sense why we would tell them when we’re shutting our embassy doors and for how long. If these guys really are planning an attack don’t you think they’ll wait until we announce our embassy is open again? Maybe the Feds are setting up al Qaeda, hoping they’ll increase chatter in order to move their attack date or otherwise discuss US actions. Nevertheless, something doesn’t seem right in closing embassies or in what’s going on generally in the middle east today.

Last year Obama told us al Qaeda was on the run. He bragged about killing bin Laden, he bragged about destroying al Qaeda’s network. Even before last years election al Qaeda operatives attacked our consulate in Benghazi killing four Americans including our Ambassador. As more information comes out about that attack it’s becoming more clear we were working with al Qaeda. In fact, we’re working with people affiliated with al Qaeda in Syria. It’s clear al Qaeda was never on the run, the Obama administration was working with them on issues of mutual interest. It begs the question why.

Al Qaeda isn’t going to defeat Assad in Syria. It’s becoming quite clear that the rebels aren’t going to win that civil war. This despite US support, though we should note that despite announcing action in Syria with great fanfare Obama has offered tepid support for Syrian rebels. Funny how we never hear about how our troops are doing in Syria or how our strategy is working. So with Syria a bust, is it suddenly acceptable for Obama and company to turn on al Qaeda? Do we not have mutual enemies anymore that require us to work with the Devil? Benghazi wasn’t enough to step away from al Qaeda, will defeat in Syria be the end of the relationship?

What threat is so great that we have to look weak on the entire world stage? After declaring al Qaeda on the run, now we’re on the run just a year later. If this is some sort of set up or some sort of show for American voter consumption we look awfully weak on the world stage. Let’s face it though, Obama and the United States have looked weak on the world stage for awhile. Obama’s 2009 Muslim apology tour aside, he supported the radical Muslim Brotherhood over a long time American ally in Egypt. Then when things got tough he ditched the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama removed troops from Iraq with great political fanfare but he left Iraq to Iran in the process. Iraq is a mess, just like Afghanistan which is now largely under Taliban control. Meanwhile in Russia Putin is just toying with Obama.

In short Obama’s foreign policy has been a complete disaster. He slowly shifted from Bush’s problematic foreign policy but in practice his shift isn’t any better than what Bush gave us. Bush at least projected American strength around the world, Obama is projecting weakness. Bush was clear who the enemy was. Obama works with radical groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood only to turn on them when things don’t go as planned. Bush never turned on our allies, Obama cuts and runs on the regular. Something greater is going on in the middle east, what it is really isn’t clear at this point. Whether Obama knows it exists or whether he’s trying to orchestrate something remains to be seen.

Benghazi Was Full Of CIA Spooks

Benghazi has been a mess for the Obama administration from the moment our Ambassador was under siege. During the campaign more was made of Mitt Romney’s response than the President’s. A failing of the press no doubt but since then the facts have come out slowly but surely. The attack on the consulate wasn’t due to a bogus You Tube video, it was an attack by al Qaeda. The President went to bed rather than coordinate a response. His failure to lead and the failure of his underlings to know what to do if he wasn’t around resulted in a stand down order to any military that could have aided our Ambassador.

Now we discover that there were dozens of CIA operatives in Benghazi. The CIA has been desperate to hide this fact, subjecting survivors to monthly polygraph tests to see if they’re talking. The President is hiding the names of these CIA agents, all survivors of the attack. In some cases, their names have been changed. It begs the question why the CIA is going to such lengths to protect itself. For the President he has less to lose at this point. He already won re-election, his strategy of focusing on Romney’s response while blaming a bogus video diverted attention long enough for Benghazi to be irrelevant in the election. He was of course aided by the media, including debate moderator Candy Crowley who openly sided with Obama during the second debate.

Or does the President have less to lose? Perhaps what’s really going on here could take down the CIA and the President all at once. Why were there so many CIA agents in Benghazi? The one question that hasn’t been asked by anyone in Congress is why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11-12 in the first place. What’s he doing in a place that’s known as dangerous and what is he doing there with dozens of CIA spooks?

Jake Tapper (who seems to be the only journalist doing real reporting on this matter) suggested in May that Benghazi was the site of a major CIA covert action. Odds are the CIA action had to do with gun running, likely to Syria. Just a few months ago Obama made a half hearted attempt to support the rebels in Syria. Those rebels just happen to be affiliated with al Qaeda, the same people who attacked the consulate in Benghazi and killed Ambassador Stevens. We’ve hardly heard anything from the President about our actions in Syria since he first announced that Assad had crossed the “red line” forcing the US to take action. Why do you suppose that is?

Here’s what’s likely going on. The CIA was involved in a gun running (or other weapons) program based in Benghazi. The consulate was likely a cover, ambassador Stevens was almost certainly involved. The guns were being sent to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, though in the hands of al Qaeda who knows where they were actually going. Ambassador Stevens is killed creating a mess for the President and the CIA. At some point it was decided to openly support the rebels, likely as a cover for what happened in Benghazi. With Congress and some journalists snooping around, it became important for the administration to create a narrative. With Obama openly supporting Syrian rebels, no matter how half hearted, now if comes out that Benghazi was all about gun running the negatives will be reduced because after all the guns were to be used against our “enemy” in Syria. That we weren’t enemies with Syria at the time won’t matter, at least not as much.

If this is so it begs the question why Obama was arming al Qaeda or people associated with al Qaeda. We already have to wonder why Obama so openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Why does this President support Muslim terrorists so often?  Especially the sort of people in al Qaeda who have attacked out country before. The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t much better. Even if you don’t believe Benghazi was about the CIA and gun running to al Qaeda in Syria, there’s no denying Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s all rather curious, why does this President support our long time enemies?

Military Coup In Egypt A Failure Of Obama’s Foreign Policy

An estimated two million people protested in Tahrir Square in Egypt over the last week. They had apparently grown tired of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The end result has been a military coup and a suspension of the Constitution. This issue has been going on for a week and our President has been largely silent about it. It’s odd in that Obama was clearly cheerleading the Arab Spring a few years ago when Egypt protested Hosni Mubarak. Now all of a sudden Obama is silent, issuing only one heavily edited statement. The question at this point is who organized the demonstrations over the last week. What is clear is Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster.

In 2011 the media pretended like the demonstrations that we saw in Egypt and elsewhere in the middle east were spontaneous. They were anything but. The protests were organized by Islamic socialists, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood. In many cases they were organized quite publicly on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The mainstream press so far hasn’t done any digging as to who is organizing these protests. Let’s face facts though, two million people don’t randomly at once decide to protest in Tahrir Square in Cairo. They also don’t come with dozens of clearly pre-made signs, including signs in English attacking Obama.

It’s been long rumored that Obama is in the back pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood. We know in 2011 that American leftist unions supported the Arab Spring and in fact openly called for an American Spring in Wisconsin when the public employee union issue was heating up there. We know leftist groups like Code Pink were in Egypt aiding protesters. Obama openly called for Mubarak to step down two years ago, today he says nothing. In the very least Obama is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is itself a socialist organization that isn’t quite as violent as al Qaeda but shares the same end game goals.

The Islamic socialists staged the last massive protest, could they also be behind this one? If there’s one thing the left does well it’s fight itself for ultimate power. The question ultimately is going to be whether the new regime is actually worse than the Muslim Brotherhood regime that lasted two years. The Muslim Brotherhood was and is dreadful. They brought Sharia law to Egypt, attacked Christians and sought a global Islamic Caliphate. President Morsi’s rhetoric against Israel was outrageous, though in the very least it seems to have been mostly rhetoric. The next regime could be much worse, they could actually start the war that Muslims believe will bring on the caliphate.

The alternative of course is that the Egyptian military refuses to give up control and the country returns to a military dictatorship. There isn’t any doubt that the Mubarak regime wasn’t very good. Mubarak and the military killed any number of opponents and stifled freedom. What they didn’t do was advocate war or start war with Israel or anyone else. In terms of stability in the region, Egypt provided stability. So much stability that the Mubarak regime was supported by both Republican and Democrat President’s until Obama threw him under the bus to favor the Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood. While a new military dictatorship isn’t exactly a great alternative, it has the best chance of providing Egypt and the region with stability.

One thing that is clear about the military coup and the massive protests in Tahrir Square is that Obama’s foreign policy is a failure. Obama supported the Arab Spring, he aided and abetted the downfall of Mubarak. He had nothing but nice things to say about President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Now both of them are verboten in Egypt and Obama looks like a fool for actively supporting a revolution and regime that lasted two years. Obama’s policy failure is clear, what is not clear is who organized the protests of the last week. Until we know who organized them, it will be difficult to know whether they’re a good thing or a very bad thing.