The turmoil in the Middle East is continuing, most notably in Egypt where the police and military are hard pressed to control the rioters.  The Obama Administration’s response has continued to be tepid.  Today, Hilary Clinton, who represents the Obama Administration, characterized the attacks as “misguided,”  stating that they “fly in the face of the better society many in these countries recently fought for…”  Furthermore, “we will… keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.  What kind of ridiculous double talk is that?   That’s almost like calling the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor “misguided.”

I am not advocating war or even invasion.  However, there are stronger steps that could be taken against the nations that cannot control their radical groups.

1.  Reduce or suspend foreign aid.  This would send a stronger message.

2.  Issue a warning to US citizens not to travel to these countries.  The best way to protect American civilains is to keep them out of Egypt, Yemen, and other countries where there is rioting in the first place, not to have to deal with murder, kidnapping and other incidents after they occur.  This will have an added benefit of hurting Egypt’s economy, which depends, in large part, on tourism.

3.  Recall non-essential embassy staffs and/or dependents for their safety.

Finally, everyone please stop making excuses for these terrorists. Yes, the film was reprehensible, but it was no excuse to kill an ambassador and other innocent people.  Diplomatic immunity is, has always been, and must remain sacrosanct.



One of Mr. Obama’s failings that has not received the reportage it deserves over the last four years has been his weak, indecisive foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.  Mr. Obama has been trying to be even handed, to be everyone’s friend.  As a result, the US has nobody’s friendship, trust nor respect.  For example, he has been taking our biggest ally and only consistent and true supporter in the Middle East, Israel, for granted.  To wit, he has flip flopped on whether Jersulem should be the capital; he has not taken a strong enough stance against Iran to curtail its development of nuclear weapons; and he has insulted Prime Minister Netanyahu by telling him that he is “too busy campaigning” to meet with him in New York when Mr. Netanyahu comes to the UN later this month.  On the other hand, he has been consistently conciliatory toward Egypt, the Palestinians and various Islamic militant groups.

For example, the attacks this week were outrageous, and merited a strong response. Perhaps, they would not have happened at all if our Middle East policy had been more forceful and proactive, particularly around 9/11.  Even so, Mr. Obama’s response was tepid, particularly with respect to Egypt.  ( “I don’t think we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” )  What does that mean?  Sending warships to the Med was a good move, but we need to ensure that all the murderers and their leaders are caught and brought to justice.  Also, Mr. Obama should instruct Mr. Morsy in the strongest terms that his failure to protect the US embassy was unacceptable, and a recurrence will result in sanctions, maybe a suspension of foreign aid.

This incident was Mr. Obama’s first “3:00 AM call.”  I believe that both his preparation and his response were inadequate.


Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  That’s the question we ask ourselves before every presidential election, and this year is no different.  To be sure, some people are better off, such as the people who have been able to enter the US illegally through our porous borders, criminals who receive light sentences or get released from jail early to commit more crimes and many recipients of social services and other benefits from the federal and state governments that those overburdened entities can no longer afford to provide.

In fact, we have been assured by President Obama, Vice President Biden, many prominent Democrats, and their celebrity supporters that we are all better off (even if we don’t realize it or think so).   It reminds me of that old Grouco Marx joke:  “Are you going to believe what I tell you or what you see with your own eyes?”  Of course, a cynic would say that personally Obama and Biden are truly better off than they were four years ago, because four years ago they were merely US Senators.  Today, they are the President and Vice President, respectively.

Between now and election day the Dems will likely trot out some examples of everyday, hardworking people who legitimately are better off.  It will not be hard to find some examples in a country of 300 million people.  But, don’t be fooled.  The overwhelming majority of people are not better off.  Not the 15% unemployed and underemployed; not the millions who, frustrated by their inability to find employment, have given up and left the workforce; not the college graduates with tens of thousands of student loans to repay and no immediate prospects of doing so; and certainly not the motorists who have to pay up to $5.00 per gallon for gas at the pump. Furthermore, after four more years of Mr. Obama we will be even worse off.

The Dems continually tout themselves as the party of compassion.  They want to help disadvantaged people.  That’s fine.  I support government assistance for people who legitimately need it.  So, I’m sure, does Mr. Romney.   The key is to weed out those who are gaming the system.  Our governments no longer have the money to continue on the current path.  Many state governments are insolvent.  The federal government is $16 trillion in debt.  This debt will have to be repaid someday, somehow, someway.

So, make a choice.  Who do you feel more sorry for?  Who is more important to you?  The gamers who are bleeding us dry, or your own children and grandchildren who will have to repay the massive debt someday.  If you make the right choice your children and grandchildren will thank you.


President Obama is running for re-election during arguably the worst recession since the Great Depression, a recession that his economic policies have prolonged and exacerbated.   Despite the fact that he has not articulated any clear and realistic plan to resolve it, he is running neck and neck with Mitt Romney in the polls.  You may ask yourself: How can this be so, particularly since history tells us that presidents running for re-election during bad economic times almost always lose.  Recent examples include Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  Absent a unifying crisis, such as a war, historically Americans have “voted for their pocketbook” and thrown out the incumbent.

I believe the answer is likeability.  The polls show that a majority of people view President Obama as a nice guy and genuinely like him more than Mr. Romney.  This has translated into a voting preference for enough of them to create a virtual dead heat in the polls.  Unfortunately, we are not selecting someone to hang out with for the weekend; we are selecting a President to lead us out of a very serious economic crisis.   Personally, I also like President Obama; however, I do not think he done well enough to earn a second term.

Ask yourself: God forbid, if you needed a very serious operation would you want a likeable surgeon of average competence or an unlikeable one who was very competent.  Personally, if my life were at stake, I would want the best surgeon regardless of his personality.  Well, the economic life of this country is at stake.  It doesn’t need a nice guy.  It needs the best man available regardless of personality.  Hopefully, enough voters will realize this in November, and history will repeat itself.


President Obama would have us believe his economic policies have America on the right track, and everything will be all right if we would only give him a second term.  Does he seriously expect voters to believe that?  Yes, he inherited a bad economy, but his policies have clearly exacerbated the situation.  Consider the facts:

1.  Unemployment remains stubbornly in excess of 8%, and that does not include all the persons who are underemployed and who have given up and left the workforce.  Include them, and the rate jumps to more like 15%.

2.  As reported today, job force participation has sunken to the lowest percentage in 60 years.

3.  The price of gas at the pump is extremely burdensome, over $5.00/gallon in some locations.

4.  The national debt is over $16 trillion and rising by the second.

By any objective measurement, our economy is in dire straits.  Our government has mortgaged our futures and those of our children and grandchildren.  In the process, the USA is in danger of losing its economic leadership position in the world.

Four more years?  We cannot afford four more months! In four more years president Obama’s socialist-leaning wealth redistribution policies will have likely turned us into Greece,  Four years ago President Obama took office amid great fanfare and great expectations.  It has not worked out.  It is time to cut our losses.  It is time for a change!




Quick now.  What is the capital of Israel?  Officially, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and it has been since the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.  Most people agree with that historical fact and would support it remaining so.  But, according to the original Democratic Party 2012 platform, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not so sure.  After 60+ years, that plank was removed from the Dems’ platform.  By whom and under whose authority?  Nobody knows or will admit it.  Confused?  You’re not the only one, but that’s the kind of failed and fractured leadership we have seen for the last four years.

Now, faced with the prospect of alienating the strong pro-Israeli vote, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in Florida and perhaps other battleground states the Dems have suddenly flip flopped their position at their convention.  Following a voice vote the Dems now tell us that Jerusalem “is and will remain the capital of Israel.”  This revisionism makes one wonder if George Orwell is running the show.  Also, it should be noted that this amendment was passed by a questionable vote that had to be called three times by the convention chairman before a questionable majority of “ayes” could be heard.  At the time, it appeared that less than half of the delegates were present, and the amendment’s passage was greeted by a chorus of boos.

Can we expect another flip flop on this position after the election if Obama wins?  Lets hope we don’t find out.


Watching the Democratic convention reminds me of the show “Chicago” and the song “Give Em the Ole Razzle Dazzle.”  Obama and the Dems know they cannot run on the most important issues, which are the economy, high unemployment and the deficit.  Therefore, they are trying to obscure those issues and distract the voters with glitz and by focusing on relatively minor issues, such as abortion.  According to polls, abortion is not even ranked in the top ten issues by voters, yet the Dems are trying to bootstrap it into a litmus test of “women’s rights.”  Ridiculous!  Women are not having trouble obtaining and affording birth control pills through their health care plans.  They should be more concerned about the economy, high unemployment and the deficit.  Hopefully, the voters will be too smart to fall for this superficial tactic.  

Yes, Michele Obama is very popular and gave a moving speech, but it did not alter the fact of President Obama’s failed economic policies over the last four years.  Yes, he inherited a bad situation.  But, he has exacerbated it.  Four more years of Big Government and stifling of free enterprise with the socialist-style government system he espouses will likely turn the US into Greece and put it on the road to bankruptcy.

We need a change!