Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Foreign Policy category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., addressed an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, saying that the time for half-measures is over. This morning, Ambassador Haley “asked the body’s Security Council to impose the strongest possible sanctions against North Korea in response to the rogue nation’s most recent nuclear test”, adding that “the time for half measures … is over.” Later in her statement, Haley said “We cannot kick this can down the road any longer. There is no more road left.”

Ambassador Haley also said “North Korea is a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success,” later adding that “North Korea is begging for war.” Others on the Security Council will undoubtedly suggest that the U.S. return to the negotiating table. That’s foolish. As Ambassador Haley noted in her statement, we’ve been negotiating with them for 25 years. That hasn’t produced lasting peace. It’s given us nuclear proliferation to a rogue nation that’s threatening its neighbors and the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

Watching Ambassador Haley’s entire statement is enlightening:

Since then-President-Elect Trump picked her to be his ambassador to the U.N., it’s been clear that she’s an international rock star, stating U.S. positions clearly, powerfully and firmly. There’s no mistaking what her positions are. There’s no doubting that she isn’t into pussyfooting around.

I’d slightly modify Teddy Roosevelt’s saying to “Speak softly and carry a big stick” to fit Ambassador Haley’s style, which I’d describe as ‘Speak confidently and carry a big stick.’ I don’t like the thought of war. When a dictator starts aiming nuclear weapons at our closest allies and at us, though, it’s time to show everyone who the world’s only superpower is and that we won’t hesitate in defending ourselves. In a match of push-comes-to-shove, the U.S. arsenal is full of shove.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The headline speaks for itself. North Korean leader Kim Jung Un displayed something approaching rational behavior. The opening paragraph of Fox News’ article said “Kim Jong Un appeared to blink first, with North Korean media reporting Tuesday the dictator had delayed a decision about whether to fire missiles toward Guam – a pronouncement that came hours after a particularly stark warning from Defense Secretary James Mattis promised further escalation would mean ‘game on.'”

More than a month ago, Gen. Mattis was asked what kept him up at night. His response was essentially that he keeps others awake at night. Now we see why. Gen. Mattis brings to the equation something that wasn’t there during the Obama administration: a credible threat of the use of military force.

Last week, Gen. Mattis said “The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.” Apparently, Kim Jung Un took that not-so-veiled-threat seriously. That’s one of Un’s first rational thoughts in ages.

Last week, Marie Harf got into it with Lisa Booth, asking “If this rhetoric leads to North Korea attacking Guam, are you ok with that?”

Booth replied “No offense, Marie, but I am so sick and tired of the criticism of the “sound and fury” comment. We have Secretary Mattis, who was confirmed by 98-1 in the Senate, who is a brilliant military scholar, who is a student of history, who is known for being deeply thoughtful, who essentially said the same thing yesterday…”

This morning, we found out that Kim Jung Un backed down, thereby eliminating all of Ms. Harf’s what ifs. During the Obama administration, they didn’t attempt to back Kim Jung Un down with a credible threat of the use of military force. The Obama’s policy of strategic patience was deployed. The Chinese and the Un administration didn’t have an incentive to blink.

As for the question that the media wing of the Democratic Party didn’t ask, Susan Rice answered it recently, saying that the US could live with a nuclear North Korea. The truth is that the Obama administration was filled with Carteresque pacifists. This time, Americans should be happy that Gen. Mattis was asked to clean up the Obama administration’s mess.

This morning, Sen. Dick Durbin appeared on Morning Joe ahead of President Trump’s G20 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Being the political hack that he is, Sen. Durbin didn’t waste the opportunity to berate President Trump and rewrite history.

With regards to rewriting history, Sen. Durbin said “He is trying to restore a Soviet empire which is long gone in history. He’s intimidating a lot of his neighbors in a variety of different ways and it really is up to the United States to stand up to stand up to this tyrant.”

What a disgrace. First, the Soviet empire “is long gone in history” because President Reagan rejected the Democrats’ policies. President Reagan believed, as I believe now, that the United States is the only economic and military superpower in the world. The Soviets’ economy isn’t strong enough to support their military ambitions. Next, then as now, a US president is unleashing the US energy sector to drive down Soviet/Russian oil price while starving the Soviet/Russian economy of much needed revenues to keep their economy going.

Third, President Obama didn’t stand up to Putin:

President Obama was a wimp when it came to standing up to Putin. People remember President Obama telling Mitt Romney that the 80s were calling, that they wanted their foreign policy back. Further, people remember the hot mic conversation between President Obama and Putin where President Obama told Putin that he’d have a lot more flexibility after the election.

Those weren’t examples of the US standing up “to this tyrant.” They were examples of Democrats appeasing that tyrant. At this point, I’m wondering what Sen. Durbin is babbling about. Is Sen. Durbin just attempting to spin history? It appears so.

The Democratic Party, like CNN, just isn’t a serious organization anymore. For that matter, Sen. Durbin isn’t a serious person, either.

Lost in all of the criticism of John Kerry’s long-winded speech yesterday is ‘praise’ he received from Alan Dershowitz. In an interview on Fox News’ Kelly File, Prof. Dershowitz said “this speech should win an Academy Award for best fictional presentation.”

The interview started with Sandra Smith asking Prof. Dershowitz “Do you think there was collusion here”? Prof. Dershowitz immediately replied “I think it’s obvious. First of all, if the United States did not have a role in having this go through, it would show that we had abdicated responsibility. Of course, we had a role.” President Obama and Secretary Kerry played their parts as useful idiots perfectly in letting UNSCR 2334 pass.

To put Prof. Dershowitz’s quip in perfect context, Prof. Dershowitz said “It is so undemocratic for a lame duck president, when Congress is not in session, to take out his anger and pique at another country by tying the hands of the incoming president. It’s going to make peace much, much more difficult to achieve. And this speech today, the idea that Secretary Kerry would talk about Israel not wanting to make peace, not mentioning that it offered a 2-state solution in 1937, 1948, 1967, 2000, 2005, 2008. Every time, the Palestinians have rejected it. You wouldn’t know thanks to John Kerry’s rewriting of history. This speech should win an Academy Award for best fictional presentation.”
Watch the entire interview. It’s must-see TV if you support Israel and you want a detailed, fact-filled, presentation on the subject:

Prof. Dershowitz has been on fire on this subject since President Obama, Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Power stabbed Israel in the front.

Earlier this week, Prof. Dershowitz said “What he did was so nasty, he pulled a bait and switch. He told the American public this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet, he allowed he representative to the U.N. to abstain, which is really a vote for, a resolution that says the Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall, Jews can’t live in the Jewish Quarter [of Jerusalem] where they have lived for thousands of years. And he’s going to say, ‘Whoops! I didn’t mean that!’ Well read the resolution! You’re a lawyer, you went to Harvard Law School.”

Later in that interview, Prof. Dershowitz said “He will go down in history — President Obama — as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever.” Hillary Clinton started the negotiations with the Iranians, which makes her one of the worst Secretaries of State in US history. Secretary Kerry, though, IMO, is worse because Hillary did this to curry favor with the left. Kerry made this decision because he’s that stupid.

Let’s remember that then-Sen. Kerry criticized President Reagan for putting Pershing II missiles into western Europe, saying that this would start an arms race that the US couldn’t win. A short 5 years later, the Soviet Union collapsed. Let’s remember that, as a presidential candidate, then-Sen. Kerry downplayed Qaddafi turning over his WMDs, saying that was inevitable. It became inevitable because Libya was afraid of getting invaded after the US finished off Iraq.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The opening paragraph of Thomas Friedman’s latest column is proof positive that he’s a blithering idiot. It’s proof, too, that he’s overpaid.

The opening paragraph of Friedman’s column says “For those of you confused over the latest fight between President Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel, let me make it simple: Barack Obama and John Kerry admire and want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel. I have covered this issue my entire adult life and have never met two U.S. leaders more committed to Israel as a Jewish democracy.”

It’s difficult to comment on such breathtaking stupidity. In the next paragraph, Friedman continues, saying “But they are convinced — rightly — that Netanyahu is a leader who is forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it. He is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership of Israel’s right-wing coalition or forces him to confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”

Speaking of someone who “is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership”, this is who fits that description:

It’s impossible to make a thoughtful argument that President Obama and John Kerry are pro-Israel. First, they sell out the entire Arab Peninsula, north Africa and Israel by negotiating a sweetheart nuclear proliferation deal with Iran, then giving the biggest state sponsor of terrorism $150,000,000,000 to spend on Hezbollah, Hamas and other anti-Israel proxies in the Middle East. Then, to ‘prove’ their loyalty to Israel, they ship systems to bolster Israel from the missiles that Iran’s proxies will buy with the money they got from Mssrs. Obama and Kerry. Then there’s this:

That is what precipitated this fight over Obama’s decision not to block a U.N. resolution last week criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The settlers’ goal is very clear, as Kerry put it on Wednesday: to strategically place settlements “in locations that make two states impossible,” so that Israel will eventually annex all of the West Bank. Netanyahu knows this will bring huge problems, but his heart is with the settlers, and his passion is with holding power — at any cost.

I won’t rebut that BS. Instead, I’ll let Alan Dershowitz obliterate Friedman’s BS:

Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967 the UN did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

What Friedman doesn’t say is that this UNSCR, #2334, classifies these settlements as “territories being illegally occupied by Israel, and any building in these areas — including places for prayer at the Western Wall, access roads to Mt. Scopus, and synagogues in the historic Jewish Quarter — ‘constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.'”

I’ll finish by stating emphatically that Thomas Friedman isn’t a journalist. He’d fit right in at Media Matters or Think Progress or other far left fever swamp websites.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When honestly assessing the Obama administration’s abstention in Friday’s UN Security Council vote on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it’s impossible to say that the administration didn’t want to stab Israel in the back on its way out the door. It’s impossible to say that the Obama administration’s speech after the vote wasn’t extremely dishonest. Finally, Samantha Power’s vote represents the worst betrayal of Israel in US history.

As usual, Charles Krauthammer provided the most detailed explanation of what the US abstention meant. In his explanation, Dr. Krauthammer said “what happened today is that the United States joined the jackals of the UN — that was a phrase used by Pat Moynihan, the great Democratic senator and former ambassador, who spoke for the US standing up in the UN and to resist this kind of disgrace. To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem — the Jewish Quarter, which has been inhabited by Jews for 1,000 years, is illegal and breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the International Criminal Court or international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences. The Jewish Quarter has been populated by Jews for 1,000 years. In the war of 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel to wipe it out. They did not succeed but the Arab legions succeeded in conquering the Jewish Quarter. They dispelled all of the Jews. They destroyed all of the synagogues and homes and for 19 years, no Jew could go there. The Israelis got it back in the 6 Day War and now it’s declared as not being Jewish territory.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s statement shows the Democrats’ hostility for Israel:

President Obama’s refusal to veto today’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements sends a strong message that the United States still supports a two-state solution. Ending settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is an absolute necessity if we’re ever to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

I’ve watched with growing concern the increase in Israeli settlements over the years, where approximately 400,0000 individuals now live. I believe the expansion of settlements has but one goal: to undermine the viability of a two-state solution.

I’ve met with displaced Palestinian families who have been kicked off land they’ve lived on for many generations. The ill will that results from these settlements is a significant roadblock to peace, and I again call on Israel to end their expansion so that a two- state solution remains a possibility.

That’s incredibly naïve. Either that or it’s utterly dishonest. The biggest thing preventing a 2-state solution are the Palestinian terrorists that the Israelis have to negotiate with.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thankfully, President Obama’s anti-Israel administration is quickly coming to an end. Unfortunately, it got in one last cheapshot against Israel on its way out the door.

This afternoon, the “United States on Friday allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in alliance with President-elect Donald Trump. The Security Council approved the resolution with 14 votes, with the US abstaining. There was applause in the chamber following the vote, which represented perhaps the final bitter chapter in the years of antagonism between President Barack Obama’s administration and Netanyahu’s government.”

History will record the Obama administration as the most anti-Israel administration in US history. That isn’t just my opinion. According to CNN’s report, “a senior Israeli official … accused the United States of abandoning the Jewish state with its refusal to block the resolution with a veto.” In this video, Alan Dershowitz explains why PEOTUS Donald Trump had to intervene:

Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the UN, issued this dishonest statement on the resolution:

Like U.S. administrations before it, the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to fight for Israel’s right simply to be treated just like any other country – from advocating for Israel to finally be granted membership to a UN regional body, something no other UN Member State had been denied; to fighting to ensure that Israeli NGOs are not denied UN accreditation, simply because they are Israeli, to getting Yom Kippur finally recognized as a UN holiday; to pressing this Council to break its indefensible silence in response to terrorist attacks on Israelis. As the United States has said repeatedly, such unequal treatment not only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations itself.

Ambassador Power read this just after voting to sabotage Israel.

It’s honest to say that the Democratic Party hasn’t hesitated in abandoning Israel. A senior Israeli official told CNN said “President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the UN. President Obama could declare his willingness to veto this resolution in an instant but instead is pushing it. This is an abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN and undermines the prospects of working with the next administration of advancing peace.”

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are laughingstocks in terms of advancing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel rightfully dismissed Kerry as a pro-Arab stooge being manipulated by the Palestinian terrorist government. Rather than leaving office quietly, President Obama and Secretary Kerry decided to push a resolution that sticks a knife in Israel’s back on their way out the door. That’s what I’d expect from children, not diplomats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning, Kellyanne Conway tweeted a link to this article about how Hillary is trying to shift to a more positive-sounding stump speech. The article re-exposes HRC as a liar who’ll say anything to get elected.

For instance, HRC told a black church “that she believes they deserve better than politicians ‘who think they can just show up at election time, say a few nice words and then earn your support.'” Presumably, she wasn’t talking about Democrats, who consistently show up at black churches in October of election years, then disappear for the next 22-23 months.

Democrats show up at black churches preaching that we’re our brothers’ and our sisters’ keepers, which is true. The question I’d pepper HRC with, though, is ‘Hillary, what type of Christian lies about what the law is on sending classified and top secret information? Why do you insist that it’s the markings on the documents that make them confidential or top secret? You were told when you joined the Senate Armed Services Committee that the content determined whether the information was confidential or top secret. Do you really expect us to believe that you’re a Godly lady when you’ve repeatedly lied about the emails and how many mobile devices you had. Hillary, did Christ teach us to lie to the families of murdered American patriots?’

The truth is that HRC knows that she isn’t liked and never will be liked. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out that she’s saying these things to soften her image. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that she’s been around too long to change her image. For the better part of a generation, large numbers of people, from across the political spectrum, have thought of her as a cold-hearted bitch driven by her quest for power. This is the quintessential Hillary:

She even looks like a cold-hearted bitch.

When Hillary Clinton talks about US national security, people listen. It isn’t that they think she’ll tell the truth. HRC’s honest and trustworthy ratings are worse than an ant’s popularity rating at a mid-summer picnic. Some people will listen to hear what absurd lies she’ll tell. Others will listen so they’ll know what she said once Lanny Davis and other Clinton spinmeisters appear on TV to tell us that she didn’t say what everyone watched HRC say.

Those are probably the good old days. Now, the DFL and other Hillary enablers don’t wait until after she’s gotten caught lying. They’re proactive, telling us nonsense prior to her lying to us. This tweet is a perfect example of Democrats being proactive so they can change the subject once a moderator asks about HRC’s statements. The DFL tweeted “When @HillaryClinton talks about keeping our country safe, she means it.”

After visiting HRC’s website, I feel safe. That’s where I read this comforting thought:

The threat we face from terrorism is real, urgent, and knows no boundaries. Horrific attacks like the ones in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, and San Bernardino have made it all too clear: It is not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of radical jihadism—we have to defeat it.

That’s the hard-hitting policy that we need. I feel safer already. Well, I’d feel safer if it wasn’t for this:

On NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd asked Pence about Trump’s policies to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In recent weeks, Trump has said he would ban Muslims from countries with terrorist activity.

When Todd pressed Pence about what countries those would be, Pence changed the subject to Clinton’s Syria policy. “Well, Hillary Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees to this country by 550 percent,” Pence said. “Donald Trump and I believe that we should suspend the Syrian refugee program.”

It doesn’t make sense to take out ISIS hotspots in Syria, Iraq and Europe, then invite potential ISIS terrorists to the US through our refugee resettlement program. Despite what Pat Kessler reported, it’s still highly possible for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate the US through the refugee resettlement program.

Hillary’s plan to protect the US from ISIS terrorist attacks is essentially killing terrorists in Iraq and Syria while inviting new terrorists into the US. Killing terrorists there, then increasing the number of potential terrorists in the US seems slightly counterproductive. Then again, how can people feel safe watching video like this?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t difficult to find articles telling us that the presidential race is essentially finished and that Hillary will be our next president. Thus far, what’s evident is that Mr. Trump has righted himself to a certain extent. That’s mostly attributable to hiring Kellyanne Conway. She’s brought a focus to the campaign that’s been quite noticeable.

The other thing that’s led to this tightening is how pathetic Hillary has looked. I’m reminded of an old song that they played on Hee Haw. The song said “if it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.” While I can’t attribute HRC’s fall to bad luck, I’ll certainly attribute her fall to bad news cycle after bad news cycle. Charles Krauthammer put it perfectly, stating “Look, I don’t think this is really complicated. She’s been in the news. It’s all been bad since the Comey press conference. Every bit of news is always about emails, about the Clinton Foundation, the corruption. That’s the only news we are getting. Of course, it’s her numbers that are declining. Trump has been up and down but he’s been relatively stable and that’s why we are where we are today.”

It’s still far too early to predict anyone as the victor. It’s definitely too early to predict that for Trump, especially, though, because it isn’t clear that he’s passed the commander-in-chief test. If Mr. Trump passes that test relatively soon, then the race will take a different perspective. At that point, if it happens, Trump will become a fully plausible candidate.

Finally, it’s foolish to count on this stretch of terrible news cycles to propel Mr. Trump to victory — yet. It isn’t foolish to think that Hillary isn’t capable to performing terribly. Just remember Hillary’s disastrous book tour a couple years ago.

And now, those words from Charles:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,