Is There An Obama Doctrine?

Photo Credit: thefederalist.comSix days before completing his negotiations with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry told a somewhat confused assembly of Latin American diplomats that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Greeted with (as the transcript has it) “tentative applause,” Kerry left his script to assure the audience “that’s worth applauding–that’s not a bad thing”–and accidentally to provide, as we’ll see, the best summary yet of the President’s foreign policy.

The uncertainty of Mr. Kerry’s audience should be excused, since the Monroe Doctrine as represented in his speech is wildly different from the historical original–and in all the ways we’ve come to expect from the Obama Administration. Monroe’s speech was a bold pronouncement by a still-young republic that European nations seeking to expand their empires should look elsewhere than the Americas. It was anti-colonial and explicitly reciprocal:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.

The actual Monroe Doctrine protected American independence and, by extension, the self-determination of the newly-independent South American republics. It was, in other words, the opposite of the imperialistic policy Mr. Kerry (perhaps ignorantly) repudiated and implicitly apologized for. One can never expect accuracy to get in the way when this Administration has an opportunity to score cheap political points (“that’s worth applauding”) at the expense of its always benighted predecessors.

For 190 years, American presidents had been guided by the common sense of the Monroe Doctrine: that great powers seeking colonies or client states in the Americas pose a dangerous threat to our security. Over time, they added additional “Doctrines” to the American foreign policy tradition, some better than others, summarizing essential policies or particular commitments: from Truman’s pledge to support all free peoples resisting communist subversion or conquest, to Nixon’s narrower promise to defend allies and friends from the same, to Reagan’s support for third world populations attempting to overthrow communist regimes; from Carter’s announcement that no hegemon would be tolerated in the Persian Gulf region, to Clinton’s and Bush 43’s efforts to promote democratization and freedom (respectively) at the intersection of American interests and “values.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Allen West: Backdoor Gun Control is Here, No Lead Means No Bullets

Photo Credit: allenbwest.comI am one who steers very clear of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. I often believe progressives plant stories in order to distract and disrupt, enabling them to pursue their true goals and objectives. That’s why I stress the importance of staying focused on the modern liberal socialist policies of the Obama administration, not the sideshow antics.

However, as a former combat commander, I have been trained to look for trends. And I believe we’ve found a very disturbing one. it seems that back door gun control is in full effect in the United States. Why? Thanks to Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we can no longer smelt lead from ore in the United States.

The first contact the EPA made with The Doe Run Lead Smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri (population 2,800) was in 2008 but it was in 2010 that the EPA finally forced Doe Run to plan a shut down. This plant has been in operation since 1892 but will finally close its doors this month. It was the last lead smelting plant in the US.

The closedown is due to new extremely tight air quality restrictions placed on this specific plant. President Obama and his EPA raised the regulations by 10 fold and it would have cost the plant $100 million to comply.

In response to the Doe Run lead smelter shutdown, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the Doe Run Company “made a business decision” to shut down the smelter instead of installing pollution control technologies needed to reduce sulfur dioxide and lead emissions as required by the Clean Air Act.

Read more from this story HERE.

Steyn: Why Iranian Deal Even Worse Than Munich,1938

Photo Credit: Free Grunge Textures/flickr‘Iran, U.S. Set to Establish Joint Chamber of Commerce within Month,” reports Agence-France Presse. Government official Abolfazi Hejazi tells the English-language newspaper Iran Daily that the Islamic Republic will shortly commence direct flights to America. Passenger jets, not ICBMs, one assumes — although, as with everything else, the details have yet to be worked out. Still, the historic U.S.–Iranian rapprochement seems to be galloping along, and any moment now the cultural-exchange program will be announced and you’ll have to book early for the Tehran Ballet’s season at the Kennedy Center (“Death to America” in repertory with “Death to the Great Satan”).

In Geneva, the participants came to the talks with different goals: The Americans and Europeans wanted an agreement; the Iranians wanted nukes. Each party got what it came for. Before the deal, the mullahs’ existing facilities were said to be within four to seven weeks of nuclear “breakout”; under the new constraints, they’ll be eight to nine weeks from breakout. In return, they get formal international recognition of their enrichment program, and the gutting of sanctions — and everything they already have is, as they say over at Obamacare, grandfathered in.

Many pundits reached for the obvious appeasement analogies, but Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal argued that Geneva is actually worse than Munich. In 1938, facing a German seizure of the Sudetenland, the French and British prime ministers were negotiating with Berlin from a position of profound military weakness: It’s easy to despise Chamberlain with the benefit of hindsight, less easy to give an honest answer as to what one would have done differently playing a weak hand across the table from Hitler 75 years ago. This time round, a superpower and its allies accounting for over 50 percent of the planet’s military spending was facing a militarily insignificant country with a ruined economy and no more than two to three months’ worth of hard currency — and they gave it everything it wanted.

I would add two further points. First, the Munich Agreement’s language is brutal and unsparing, all “shall”s and “will”s: Paragraph 1) “The evacuation will begin on 1 October”; Paragraph 4) “The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order.” By contrast, the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, plus Germany) “Joint Plan of Action” barely reads like an international agreement at all. It’s all conditional, a forest of “would”s: “There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step . . . ” In the postmodern phase of Western resolve, it’s an agreement to reach an agreement — supposedly within six months. But one gets the strong impression that, when that six-month deadline comes and goes, the temporary agreement will trundle along semi-permanently to the satisfaction of all parties.

Secondly, there are subtler concessions. Explaining that their “singular object” was to “ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” John Kerry said that “Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intend to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa which forbids them to do this.” “The Supreme Leader” is not Barack Obama but Ayatollah Khamenei. Why is America’s secretary of state dignifying Khamenei as “the Supreme Leader”? In his own famous remarks upon his return from Munich, Neville Chamberlain referred only to “Herr Hitler.” “Der Führer” means, in effect, “the Supreme Leader,” but, unlike Kerry (and Obama), Chamberlain understood that it would be unseemly for the representative of a free people to confer respectability on such a designation. As for the Führer de nos jours, Ayatollah Khamenei called Israel a “rabid dog” and dismissed “the leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and cannot be called human.” If “the Supreme Leader”’s words are to be taken at face value when it comes to these supposed constraints preventing Iran from going nuclear, why not also when he calls Jews sub-human?

Read more from this story HERE.

Will Obamacare Bring Down Progressivism?

Photo Credit: Heritage Foundation The implosion of Obamacare indicts not just the law itself, but the whole edifice of progressivism—a philosophy rooted in the belief that government, supposedly administered by “the best and the brightest,” can run things better than individuals. That idea is now, again, being proven incorrect.

The hubris in the progressive assumption was on display at the end of President Obama’s now infamous press conference of November 14. Without the aid of a TelePrompTer, the President who dared to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy made this candid admission: “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.”

It was the Cinderella-at-midnight moment of the Obama presidency—the moment when the gold chariot turned into a pumpkin, the stallions into junkyard dogs, and the liveried carriagemen into mice. The follow-up question—one I hope will be answered in the affirmative—is whether the magic will wear off not just for the President but for progressivism.

Those on the left of the political spectrum started reviving the term progressivism in earnest about a decade ago, after they had thoroughly discredited the word “liberal.” (Liberal, incidentally, is a perfectly legitimate term rooted in the word liberty. In its original use—its present use on the other side of the Atlantic—it meant a dedication to free markets, exactly the opposite of what it now means here.)

Once it became associated with big government, high taxes, wasteful spending and crippling debt, “liberal” became a liability with voters. So the left adopted an old label—“progressives”—and set about to position themselves as political leaders who would throw off the antiquated ideas of the past and move the country forward. In the meantime, they did an excellent job of redefining conservatives as people who were stuck in the past, backward–looking, and too judgmental about new ideas and lifestyles.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obamacare Coming After Your Guns?

Photo Credit: WND Obamacare has provided rich fodder for jokes, even if they are a little grim, because of its failed website, cancellation notices and huge premium spikes.

One used-car dealer in Denver, Colo., even boasted, “At least our website works.”

So it’s no surprise websites such as ObamaGunCare.com would appear with the promise, “If you like your gun, you can keep it, period.”

And “If you like your gun, no one is going to ban it, period. Unless … ”

The parody is the brainstorm of the Second Amendment Foundation. “With a track record like Barack Obama has on health care, we don’t want the president getting involved in gun care or firearms safety,” the organization says.

Read more from this story HERE.

CNN Poll – ObamaCare Is Sinking Obama: “The Numbers Are Ugly”

Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GettyA new CNN poll confirms what America’s collective gut has been saying for weeks: Obamacare is sinking its namesake.

The numbers are ugly: Just one in four respondents say President Obama is a competent manager of the federal government. For all the hand-wringing about comparing the HealthCare.gov site rollout to Hurricane Katrina, the bottom line is that this president, like his predecessor, has now suffered a signature event that has convinced a majority of Americans that he is unfit for the job.

Piling on, the president also scored his lowest marks on honesty and trustworthiness, with 53 percent of those surveyed responding that they don’t feel Obama is being straight with them. To put it in some context, Bill Clinton was widely viewed as shifty but competent, and Jimmy Carter as honest but hapless. Obama at the moment seems to have combined the worst of both worlds.

The CNN results amplify Obama’s political problem: The Affordable Care Act imbroglio is having an outsized effect on his entire presidency, with voters reassessing his basic qualifications. “This is serious,” says Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist and former chief of staff to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. “This is much more serious than I hear some Democrats saying publicly. This is not a temporary drop.”

Adds John Geer, an expert on public opinion at Vanderbilt University, “In a sense, the public was collectively willing to be patient. That reservoir of support among independents and moderates has evaporated.”

Read more from this story HERE.

The Bad-Faith Presidency

Photo Credit: APAt the end of the day, the root of President Obama’s mendacity on Obamacare was simple: He didn’t dare tell people how the law would work. He couldn’t tell people how the law would work.

Forthrightness was the enemy. It served no useful purpose and could only bring peril, and potentially defeat. It had to be banished. Instead of candor, Obama made the sale on the basis of dubious blandishments and outright deceptions.

If this is the only way to pass your signature initiative—and a decades-long goal of your party—it ought to give you pause. But Obama was a natural at delivering sweeping and sincere-seeming assurances that weren’t true. This kind of thing is his métier.

If he were awoken at 3 a.m. and told he had to make the case for nationalizing the banks by denying he was nationalizing the banks, he would do an entirely creditable job of it, even without a TelePrompTer. The salesmanship for Obamacare represents in microcosm the larger Obama political project, which has always depended on throwing a reassuring skein of moderation on top of left-wing ideological aims.

All politicians are prone to shaving the truth, giving themselves the benefit of the doubt and trying to appear more reasonable than they are. Obama has made it an art form. Bad faith is one of his signal strengths as a politician, and makes him one of the greatest front men progressivism has ever had.

Read more from this story HERE.

Why the Post-Antibiotic World is the Real-Life Version of the Zombie Apocalypse

Photo Credit: Joe Raedle/GettyRight now, humanity is engaged in an epic battle against fast-adapting and merciless predators. No, zombies are not beating down doors to tear chunks of flesh out of the living. Rather, humanity is being hunted by deadly pathogenic bacteria that have gained resistance to antibiotics.

And thanks to the peculiar incentives that drive the pharmaceutical industry, it looks like the cavalry may be a long time in coming.

To understand the current state of the antibiotics market, we have to go back millennia. Humans have co-existed with bacteria throughout our history. They live in our bodies from birth to death. It’s estimated that up to three percent of a typical human’s body mass is made up of symbiotic bacteria, which assist us with bodily functions like digesting food.

Most bacteria in the human body are kept in check by the body’s immune system. But bacteria are constantly evolving to survive and reproduce. Either the immune system successfully adapts to new threats, or the body risks being overrun. Sometimes the immune system will fail to respond to a novel bacterial threat, allowing the bacteria to kill the host.

Before antibiotics were widely available, any accident, injury, or medical procedure that allowed pathogenic bacteria into the body was potentially deadly. One in nine skin infections was fatal. One in three cases of pneumonia led to death. Invasive surgeries including caesarean sections left the patient open to killer infections. Insect bites, burns, and blood transfusions frequently became a source of infection.

Read more from this story HERE.

America Is One Step Closer to a One-Party Tyranny

Photo Credit: ctj71081November 21, 2013, may be another date that will live in infamy. Instead of conventional bombs and aerial torpedoes exploding at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the “nuclear option” went off in the U.S. Senate at Washington, D.C.

By a 52-48 vote, the Senate voted to change the institution’s regulations related to the filibuster, thereby emasculating a political minority’s ability to thwart, or at least delay, majoritarian dictatorship. A Senate minority can no longer thwart the president’s nominations of judges to lesser federal courts or of executive department officials.

Although the filibuster can still be used in cases of nominations for the Supreme Court and of substantive legislation, the Senate’s historic power of “advise and consent” has been narrowed to just “consent” in many, perhaps most, cases. The Senate, once said to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, has been reduced to the president’s rubber stamp. Furthermore, if the Senate’s rules — originally written by Thomas Jefferson — can be changed at the majority leader’s whim, what is to prevent them being altered again, even to the point of eliminating the filibuster, which used to be called “the soul of the Senate”?

If Harry Reid’s assault on representative government, which was probably an attempt to distract public opinion from ObamaCare, remains in place, American politics will be forever changed…for the worse.

To comprehend the severity of the damage Reid and his minions have done, we need to explore the nature of representative government.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Chose Dishonor, ‘A Total and Unmitigated Defeat’

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Larry DowningPresident Obama had to choose between dishonor and war and he chose dishonor. Now we will have war. He has dishonored U.S. allies in the Middle East, including Israel and the Persian Gulf states, by abandoning their security concerns regarding a nuclear Iran by believing that appeasing Iran is the only way to avoid war.

These words are those of Churchill after the Munich Agreement was signed when Britain and France believed that handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler was the only way to save the world from another war. It is regarded as the shameful culmination of the Allies refusal to confront Nazi aggression and gave Hitler what he wanted in exchange for his verbal promise of “peace in our time” as Chamberlain called it.

After the Munich Agreement, Churchill gave a speech in the House of Commons on the future consequences to Europe and the world of the agreement which he called “total and unmitigated defeat”. Following the Geneva Agreement, these warnings ring as true now as they did then.

We cannot consider the abandonment of U.S. allies only in the light of what happened the last few weeks. This agreement in Geneva is the culmination of five years of uninterrupted retreat of U.S. power in the Middle East under Obama. For five years the president has been betraying Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE while accommodating enemies and tyrants like Syria’s Assad, Iran’s Khamenei, and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Five years of eager searching for any perceived moderate leader in Iran, ending with Obama’s naïve conviction that he has found one in the smiling new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani despite the fact that past evidence proves that Rouhani has been a liar and a cheat in previous negotiations with the West about suspending uranium enrichment.

Let us be clear. This agreement is a total U.S. defeat and Iranian victory. It is the first step toward a new U.S. policy of containment of Iran’s nuclear program. Despite desperate propaganda by Obama, in reality the U.S. and the West have given the Iranians the implied right to contnue enrichment when it agreed to let Iran continue enriching its uranium to 3.5%. The Iranians will be able to maintain their nuclear program and continue to enrich uranium while the Americans and their allies loosen their economic noose around Iran and allow it to have access to at least 10 billion dollars of assets which can be used to continue financing terrorist activities in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq as well as to sustain the mullah’s tyrannical regime. Moreover, once the sanctions are loosened and the Europeans and China resume making money from Iran, it is unrealistic to believe they will be reinstated.

Read more from this story HERE.