You are cordially invited to hyperlink into my condemnation of BHOs interview regarding foreign policy

[viewed as An Essay in Impotence; suggestive to CHUCK TODD that OBAMA DOESNT HAVE A DOCTRINE;
felt to 'PUT THE SENATE AT RISK'; typically quoting Obama as blaming Bad Intelligence for ISIS
Underestimation; intransigently citing Obama as Vowing that the US Will Not Be 'Dragged' Into Another
War; incessantly claiming 'BALKANIZATION OF MEDIA' AS HAVING 'BLOCKED' HIS AGENDA; and
ominously observing Obama Wants a Weaker Israel]; then allow yourself to be cleansed and somewhat-
entertained by a series of photos of Rednecks. Indeed, both require suspension of disbelief [quoting
Hillarys barb against Petraeus] to let insights germinate, particularly those that may have been
unintended by those who generated the quotes/photos. {Also note that, for the first time, U.S. public
schools will enroll more minority students than non-Hispanic whites next month; that Dartmouth Will
Not Allow a Stalking Victim to Carry a Gun for Self-Defense; and that Josh First feels the Perry Co.
concealed-carry lawsuit lacks firepower.}

What had been envisioned as providing a few corroborative hyperlinks has blossomed
into an extensive review of domestic/foreign policies; for example, it is desirable to vet
cogently the policies promulgated by Log Cabin Republicans: Log Cabin Republicans
Statement on Sen. Susan Collins Support for Marriage Equality [anti-climactic, noting
recent federal court decisions based on last years SCOTUS decision]; Log Cabin
Republicans Endorse GOP Rep. Ellmers Ryan White Patient Equity & Choice Act [seems
to be a no-brainer, for its always desirable to track policy implementation]; and Log
Cabin Republicans Joined GOP Mayors in Support of ENDA [noting that disinterested
critique of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act does not include concern that
people would be viewed as guilty until proven innocent, which was my major concern
regarding the way Human Rights Commissions were envisioned in Abington & MontCo].
Thus, creating a PA-Chapter thereof is of-interest, pending input from Rep. Mike Vereb;
he has been immersed in Harrisburg politics, inasmuch as a LONG AGENDA AWAITS PA
LEGISLATORS AT SESSION'S END, noting these dueling articles [5 things Corbett should
do to win the gov race and 5 things Tom Wolf should do to win the governor's race].

While driving into my office this-a.m., I listened to the libs on CNN/MSNBC rationalize BHOs pacifism by
creating facts [Vietnamese were insufficiently motivated to win, despite the cut-off of American aid;
America has been aiding the Kurds for decades, despite the fact that nothing had been provided as per a
definitive statement this past Friday; bombing can help stop IS but, because bombing cant solve the
problem, its OK that BHO didnt do it, etc.]. {On the domestic side, per MSNBCs Melissa Harris-Perry,
because SCOTUS-justices have lifetime appointments, they are insensitive to the fact that tenured
school-teachers are still subject to due-process if an effort is promulgated to fire incompetent ones.}
Inane pablum is being fed to innocent viewers of these two cable-stations, consistent with the opinion
of Sharyl Attkisson that Journalism Has 'Gone Backwards' Since Days of Woodward and Bernstein. {This
was themed on the 40
th
Anniversary of RMNs resignation; Id been a Watergate-freak but, due to BHO,
such affections have been trained upon the current POTUS [who is FAR WORSE in EVERY FASHION.}

A summary of the Sunday Talk-Shows [c/o The Hill] provided the typical R/D-split
regarding how to fight the IS; Dems were reticent [Durbin warned of limited support for
Iraq air strikes and, thus, reticence to escalate; Reed adjudged airstrikes targeting
artillery and communications to be very effective; Cardin mirrored BHOs claim that the
US will not be the 'Iraqi air force' because thats not going to solve the problem] while
Republicans were critical [McCain adjudged targeted airstrikes 'clearly ineffective' and
humanitarian aid 'far from sufficient'; Graham claimed Obama has 'no vision' and that
he is 'ignoring his national security team'; Peter King called for a massive air attack
because 'We should take nothing off the table']. Bridging-the gap but favoring the
Republican call for a more aggressive stance were retired general Carter Ham
[airstrikes were having effects, but that it would be difficult to achieve goals without
ground forces] and former Iraq ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad [the response to ISIS must
be 'Internationalized' because 'This is the moment' for Obama to exercise leadership].
{Also, Lindsey Graham said the American Homeland is the Next ISIS Target and a
Former UK Army Chief averred the West Must Intervene in Iraq.}

These reacted to the fact that thousands of displaced Iraqis escaped an Iraq mountain death trap, after
having been besieged by jihadists while Western powers ramped up efforts to save those still stranded;
three days after Obama ordered warplanes back in the skies over Iraq to avert what he said could be an
impending genocide, France and Britain joined the humanitarian response. The targets were Yazidis,
who mostly live in a cluster of villages near the Iraq-Syria border; they fled on Aug. 3 after hearing that
Islamic State militants were approaching, but they couldn't take the roads because the militants had
seized checkpoints once manned by Kurdish forces. They were among the 50,000 Yazidis that UNICEF
estimated had fled into the mountain chain. They were [belatedly] prescient because Iraq said the
Islamic State killed 500 Yazidis, buried some victims alive [including women and children] and kidnapped
300 women as slaves.

Thousands from Iraq minority fled to Syria. With shocked, sunburnt faces, men, women
and children in dirt-caked clothes limped into a camp for displaced Iraqis, finding safety
after harsh days of hiding on a blazing mountaintop after fleeing from the extremist
Islamic State group. Children who died of thirst were left behind; some exhausted
mothers abandoned living babies, as thousands of Yazidis trekked across a rocky
mountain chain in temperatures over 100 degrees. At least 56 children died in the
mountains. Other Yazidis have settled in refugee camps in Syria; so desperate is their
situation, they have sought safety in a country aflame in a civil war. [The airdrops]
seemed to barely dent the suffering of the Yazidis in the Bajid Kandala camp, for it was
already crammed with 30,000 people, squashed into tents lined over rolling hills.
Nearby, bulldozers were breaking earth to put up new tents. {These data undermine the
Dems who spoke of some success of the airdrops, corroborating the views of the GOP.}

These do not react to the fact that the Islamic State Captured the Largest Dam in Iraq near Mosul, and
too-near Irbil, the Kurdish regional capital; the dam, which sits on the Tigris River, provides electricity to
the city of Mosul and controls the water supply for a large amount of territory. In a statement, the
Islamic State vowed to continue its offensive. "Our Islamic State forces are still fighting in all directions,
and we will not step down until the project of the [Islamic] caliphate is established, with the will of God."
{Also, note that ISIS Moved on Lebanon.}

Another set of pro-BHO rationalizations [including moral equivalency] is inherent in the
claim that "It's hard to know what is left of the humanitarian responsibilities of the
international community. The age of intervention is over, killed in large part by the Iraq
war. But justifiable skepticism about the use of military force seems also to have killed
off the impulse to show solidarity with the helpless victims of atrocities in faraway
places. There's barely any public awareness of the unfolding disaster in northwestern
Iraq. Nothing that either side has done in that terrible conflict [Israel-Gaza] comes close
to the routine brutality of ISIS. [This latter assertion provides The Clearest Sign of Media
Bias in the Gazan Conflict, for it omits Hamas' goal to obliterate Israel; even friendly
media omit this glaring fact routinely, even when reporting Israelis and Palestinian Arabs
just Agreed to [another] 72-Hour Cease-Fire.]

What must be emphasized also is the way Islamism is being quietly
waged in multiple venues, beyond Holocaust Denial [recalling extensive
proof thereof in Hitler's Secret Archive]; for example, Catalonia has
offered Muslims, if they support Independence, a Mega-Mosque [to be
financed by Qatar, yielding the Third-Largest Mosque in the World].

BB said The Battle Against Islamic Militants "Will Soon Come to a Theater Near You"; it is real,
and will spread to other countries if the terrorists are not stopped. "This is a danger I've been
pointing to, it's not a spin, it's not a whim, it is a clinical diagnosis of a pathological movement
that is sweeping our area and it has to be stopped now." BB said the militants are under Iran's
"nuclear umbrella," adding, "If Iran itself can intimidate the U.S. with intercontinental ballistic
missiles carrying nuclear warheads, then we bring history into different threshold altogether."

Here are hot headlines that reflect how urgent these matters have suddenly been recognized to be:

Iraq down; Maliki in armed standoff in Baghdad
Massive security deployment around Baghdad 'green zone' Coup Rumblings in Iraq as PM Announces
Constitutional Complaint Against New President Iraq's embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a
surprise speech late Sunday, resisted calls for his resignation and accused the country's new president of
violating the constitution, plunging the government into a political crisis at a time it is battling advances
by Islamic State militants.

CRUCIFIED BY THE CALIPHATE IN SYRIA
WOMEN STONED TO DEATH IN SYRIA FOR ADULTERY

ISIS: 'We Are the Soldiers of the Caliphate State and We Are Coming'
FNC's Bolling to Jihadists: 'You Want a Holy War? We'll Give You One'
US Airstrikes Rain Down in Iraq, Provide Cover for Kurdish Fighters Battling Islamic State
Fighters ditch other groups to join Islamic State
'Become Muslims by noon today... or we kill all of you'
Militants tweet gruesome images of dead American soldiers
As bombs fall over Iraq, old emotions rise
BLITZ ISIS: Effort Could Be 'Long-Term'

CHENEY: 'Can't Blame George Bush Anymore'
Pope says violence offends God and humanity

Egypt Court Dissolved Muslim Brotherhood's Political Wing
Burned MB books

These Anti-Israel Celebrities Are the WORST
These Pro-Israel Celebrities Are the BEST

Here are Pamela Gellers articles, which dramatize key forces-at-play:
o Hamas savage: Anyone who has a knife, a club, a weapon, or a car, yet does not use it to run
over a Jew or a settler, and does not use it to kill dozens of Zionists, does not belong to
Palestine.
o After moving them there from Baghdad, U.S. now moving some staff out of consulate in Erbil
o Islamic State savages at Dutch-government approved protest scream Death to Jews
o TV Report Shows Islamic Jihad Missile-Launching Pads in Gaza Tunnels
o Non-Muslims Buried Alive: 500 Yazidis killed, buried in mass grave by the Islamic State
o Become Muslims by noon today or we kill all of you
o Muslims Flash Flag of Jihad in Front of White House, Threaten America
o Posters in Rome: Do not buy from Jews!
o Australian Ex-Army Chief: Well fight Islam for 100 years
o Video of UN Camps Showing Children Calling for Jihad
o Obama says it was not his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq
o NY: Jewish man arrested for playing Israeli music outside Brooklyn mosque

The Israel-Gaza conflict has sparked ongoing protests, primarily overseas [HEZBOLLAH & IRAN FLAGS,
NETANYAHU EFFIGIES, AND CAMERON'S HEAD ON A STICK: LONDON'S LATEST ANTI-ISRAEL PROTEST],
but overt anti-Semitism appears to be rampant in America [Rabbi Fatally Shot While Walking to North
Miami Beach Synagogue]; the latter article recounts other local examples of this phenomenon. Thus, it
was timely for The WSJ to Republish an Op-Ed From 1968, for challenges faced by Jews and Israel then
are almost identical to those extant currently [The Jews Are a Peculiar People: Things Permitted to
Other Nations Are Forbidden to the Jews]; it was originally printed by the LA Times in 1968, by a non-
Jewish winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, Eric Hoffer, who wrote of the condition and
treatment of the Jewish people and their struggle to defend Israel after Israels victory in the 1967 War:

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the
Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no
refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a
million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how
many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel displaced
Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every
single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any
committed by the Nazis.

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is
victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real
Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be
defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June he would have wiped
Israel off the map and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No
commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is
written on.

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two
Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one
remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations
with America because of what we did in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was
slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his
troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives it will be solely because of Jewish
efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and
unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has
only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their
Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to American and
the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of
us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

While BB carefully takes it day-by-day [as he maintains long-term principles throughout], it is desirable
to recognize the underlying Defense of Zionism that animates him. He challenges his leftie-critics [What
would you do if you were in Israels shoes and Hamas was kidnapping and murdering teenagers, ring
rockets and mortars, and building tunnels for the commission of mass murder of Israelis during net
months Jewish Holy Days?] who promulgate predictable peace-plans [Livni Presents Six-Point Plan for
Gaza Ceasefire], as others wonder, generically, What is Going to Become of Gaza? BB must take the
measure of myriad data, such as how Saudi Arabia reacted to this third Gaza War, although it seems that
Gaza Is Not About to Become an Islamic State, because the extreme Salafi-jihadi groups in Gaza exist at
the fringes of Palestinian society. They will find it far more difficult to seize power in the first place,
much less govern if in power, for these groups lack the grassroots political, charitable and social services
that are the backbone of Hamas. Gazan Salafi-jihadis are more concerned with violent methods of
establishing a transnational Islamic state, while Hamas has consciously focused its efforts on creating a
Palestinian state that is Islamist in nature, not a transnational caliphate. So long as Gaza is not left as a
festering wound and a political vacuum, there is no reason for hysterical predictions of an Islamic State
in Gaza. These views contravene those of U.S. Army Lt. General Michael Flynn, director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, said, "If Hamas were destroyed and gone, we would probably end up with
something much worse." {In my opinion, the IS-movement is so potent that anything could happen.}

The Zionist passion to retain Judea/Samaria is fueled by archaeological discoveries, such
as two announced last week. A Stunning Mosaic was Found at an Ancient [5
th
Century
B.C.E.] Galilee Synagogue [in the village of Huqoq] by a team headed by Jodi Magness
[professor of Early Judaism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]; it depicts
elephants. The first section of the mosaic floor [found in the summer of 2012] revealed
depictions of Samson setting the Philistine's fields ablaze with the aid of unfortunate
foxes; in 2013, a panel was revealed showing Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza.
Also, a 2,000-Year-Old Trove of Ancient Coins was Found in Israel; rare bronze coins
from the Second Temple period were discovered after pottery shards discovered several
months ago [during construction to widen the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Highway] prompted
more excavation. "The hoard, which appears to have been buried several months prior
to the fall of Jerusalem, provides a glimpse into the lives of Jews living on the outskirts
of Jerusalem at the end of the rebellion," said Israel Antiquities Authoritys excavation
directors [Pablo Betzer and Eyal Marco]. Inside a buried ceramic box researchers found
114 bronze coins dating to the fourth year of the Great Revolt by the Jews against the
Romans. The discovery was announced on the Ninth of Av, the Hebrew date where Jews
commemorate the destruction of the Second Temple.

Fortunately, BB need not weigh the equally-predictable claim by some Arabs that the War Stoppage
reflected a Hamas Victory Despite Destruction; indeed, they are thrilled that 23 Hamas Militants
Survived Weeks in a Collapsed Tunnel. Of greater import is the fact that the Hamas West Bank Head
was Indicted for Planning a Wave of Terror Attacks; meanwhile, Hamas executed a Former Leader [who
was instrumental in founding the group] for Spying for Egypt. This seems symptomatic of Gazan unrest.

Fortunately, when the question is posed whether the-us can still-be-a-leader-in-the-middle-east,
level-headed analysts conclude that steadfast-support-for-israel-is-the-only-solution, for the
U.S. Must Strongly Affirm Israel's Right of Self-Defense. Unfortunately, American Intervention in
the Gaza Conflict was difficult to understand. Washington acted against its own strategic
interests in prodding Israel to pull back from clubbing Hamas, and in involving Turkey and Qatar
[the lawyers and financiers of Hamas] in the ceasefire negotiations, while snubbing Egypt. The
Obama administration has failed to recognize the emergence, importance and opportunities
presented by an axis of moderate pro-American Middle East states that developed during the
recent crisis. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, many Gulf states (with the exception of Qatar), and
Israel all shared similar interests in this conflict, as did Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority.
They all sought the dramatic weakening of the radical Islamic, Iranian-backed Hamas. Yet
Washington declined to support this emerging bloc. U.S. behavior towards Egypt is worrying.
The Obama administration seems incapable of dealing squarely with Egyptian President Al-Sisi
because he deposed the Muslim Brotherhood government. Perhaps Washington was seized
with the thesis that views the Muslim Brotherhood as a pragmatic actor and a potential ally
against more extreme iterations of Islam. This could also explain the Obama administration's
misperception of the AKP, Turkey's ruling party, which is an offshoot of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Strangely, Obama befriends a rabidly anti-Western and openly anti-Semitic leader.
As a direct result of such machinations, although The Obama administration knew from
Palestinian contacts earlier this week that representatives of Israel, Egypt and the Palestinians
were working on a new cease-fire proposal, it didn't know details because they were left largely
out of the discussions; key American officials said they first heard about the breakthrough from
Twitter and the media, rather than from their Israeli or Egyptian counterparts.

Hamas' Psychological Military Strategies Against Israel is based in invoking The Media; the IDF has found
a Hamas training manual that advises its combatants to use civilian shields. Hamas' war strategy works
like this: 1. Attack Israel's civilians to provoke a counter-attack. 2. Hide behind Palestinian civilians while
forcing them to stay, guaranteeing that the return fire wounds or kills civilians. 3. Encourage Western
news media to play up the civilian suffering. 4. Conjure a firestorm of outrage around the world that
eventually pressures Israel into desisting from counteroffensive measures. The Hamas strategy is win-
win. If the Israelis abort a strike to avoid civilian casualties (as they often do), then Hamas is spared the
blow. If an Israeli strike cause civilian casualties, Hamas has dead babies to parade before the cameras.
Indeed, it matters not that the IDF Fulfilled All Ethical Requirements in Gaza, that IDF Tactics are on Solid
Legal Ground, or that Israel's Conduct in Gaza Is a Model for Other Nations.

In this regard, The UN Handmaiden of Hamas is the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA); it is one of the UN's most
perverse, destructive creations. In Gaza it essentially functions as Hamas' handmaiden.
During the clashes of recent weeks, as Israel sought to stop rocket attacks by Hamas and
to destroy its terror tunnels, UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krahenbuhl publicly
condemned Israel, accusing the Israelis of "serious violation of international law."
Hamas controls UNRWA's staff unions in Gaza, where in 2012 a Hamas-affiliate slate
swept 25 of 27 seats. The 30,000 staff on the payroll are almost all Palestinian. With a
budget topping $1 billion, the agency's welfare programs relieve Hamas of many of the
costs of servicing the enclave it controls as its launchpad for terror. In 2011 the agency
opened an office in Washington run by two former U.S. government insiders: Matthew
Reynolds, previously the State Department's assistant secretary for legislative affairs,
and Chris McGrath, previously a media-events director for Sen. Harry Reid. Thus, U.S.
tax dollars fund UNRWA officials now lobbying in Washington to obtain yet more money
for an agency entwined with the rocket-launching, tunnel-digging rulers of Gaza.

Examination of the Names of Palestinian Arabs Killed in the Gaza War revealed the fact that Half Were
Terrorists, but Hamas has disseminated Phony Statistics on Civilian Deaths [that are swallowed without
question by the lazy media] claiming close to 90% were civilians. Even the New York Times reported that
even a human rights group antagonistic to Israel acknowledged Hamas probably counts among the
"civilians killed by Israel" the following groups: Palestinians killed by Hamas as collaborators; Palestinians
killed through domestic violence; Palestinians killed by errant Hamas rockets or mortars; and
Palestinians who died naturally during the conflict. This partially-explains why the Ministry of the
Interior run by Hamas Warned Gazans not to Divulge Information about Fighters ["resistance"
casualties] Killed in Gaza War because Israel was allegedly collecting all the information and reports
[about casualties] and would use them as evidence to "justify its crimes against [Palestinian] civilians."

The ACCURATE Gaza Numbers Game reveals that 18% of the rockets fired by Hamas
[about 600 rockets] were fired from schools, hospitals, mosques, and cemeteries. 14%
of the rockets fired by Hamas [more than 450 rockets] actually fell inside Gaza. Thus,
before Israel is blamed for every bit of damage done inside Gaza by rocket fire, a
calculation must be made of the damage inflicted by Hamas itself.

Thus, Caution is Needed with Gaza Casualty Figures, for most news organizations have been quoting
Hamas-generated data [from the health ministry] on numbers of Palestinians killed that have been
filtered through the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Israeli attacks have
not been "indiscriminate," as the UN Human Rights Council says, because they have killed three times as
many civilian men as women. IDF Spokesman Capt. Eytan Buchman noted that "when militants are
brought to hospitals, they are brought in civilian clothing, obscuring terrorist affiliations." [He also noted
that, during Operation Cast Lead (in December 2008-January 2009), Hamas and Gaza-based
organizations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was
between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF. Thus, it is dangerous to trust
these data because Hamas-approved propaganda figures have proven to be extremely unreliable.

Illustrating the intransigence of the print-media is this pronouncement by the NYT's
Executive Editor regarding use of the word 'Torture'; it is interlaced with anti-Bush
innuendo: "Over the past few months, reporters and editors of The Times have debated
a subject that has come up regularly ever since the world learned of the C.I.A.'s brutal
questioning of terrorism suspects: whether to call the practices torture. When the first
revelations emerged a decade ago, the situation was murky. The Times described what
we knew of the program but avoided a label that was still in dispute, instead using terms
like harsh or brutal interrogation methods. [But now far] more is now understood, such
as that the C.I.A. inflicted the suffocation technique called waterboarding 183 times on a
single detainee. So from now on, The Times will use the word 'torture' to describe
incidents in which we know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an
effort to get information. {If memory serves, this was done on three [3] detainees, and
negative info acquired led (allegedly) to finding OBL in Pakistan.}

It seems a committed-leftie, Al Hunt, will bite the dust at Bloomberg
[although its unclear what will emerge thereafter]; his weekly public
affairs show 'Political Capital' was canceled, as the focus of all such
activities has been shifted from D.C. to N.Y.C.

Ads by a conservative anti-spending super PAC Hit Georgia Michelle Nunns Senate
Campaign for Calling Jews a Financial Opportunity; the goal is to diminish the Dems
Jewish support by citing a leaked memo from Nunns strategists that referred to the
Jewish community as a financial opportunity and suggested her position on Israel
would be contingent on her fundraising strategy.

Hillary recently Gave the White House a warning about an interview that reflected her effort to make a
more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and
then went on to serve; on a number of occasions, she conveyed the sense that this effort is already
underway. For example, she said Obama's foreign policy lacks organizing principles that great nations
promulgate; "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.' [Her organizing principle is "Peace,
progress, and prosperity.]

She softened the blow by noting that Obama was 'trying to communicate to the
American people that he's not going to do something crazy,' but she repeatedly
suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.

She disagrees with the view that BHO believes the U.S. isnt so great and, therefore, the
USA shouldn't be telling people what to do." Instead, she lamented the fact that 'we
don't even tell our own story very well these days' [such as noting that 'defeating
fascism and communism is a pretty big deal'] 'Okay, I feel that this might be an old-
fashioned idea, but I'm about to find out, in more ways than one.' [The interviewer felt
this signaled that, yes, indeed, she's planning to run for president.]

She averred 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS. During a discussion
about the dangers of jihadism (a topic that has her 'hepped-up') and of the sort of
resurgent nationalism seen in Russia today, she argued "there is a happy medium
between bellicose posturing ... and its opposite, a focus on withdrawal.When you're
down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you're not going
to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting
yourself forward.'

Her subsequent quotes constituted truisms that wouldnt be easily challenged, focused on prosperity:

"People are not only turned off about being engaged in the world, they're pretty
discouraged about what's happening here at home. I think people want ... to make sure
our economic situation improves and that our political decision-making improves.
Whether they articulate it this way or not, I think people feel like we're facing really
important challenges here at home: The economy is not growing, the middle class is not
feeling like they are secure, and we are living in a time of gridlock and dysfunction that
is just frustrating and outraging.

"People assume that we're going to have to do what we do so long as it's not stupid, but
what people want us to focus on are problems here at home. If you were to scratch
below the surface on that-and I haven't looked at the research or the polling-but I think
people would say, first things first. Let's make sure we are taking care of our people and
we're doing it in a way that will bring rewards to those of us who work hard, play by the
rules, and yeah, we don't see the world go to hell in a handbasket, and they don't want
to see a resurgence of aggression by anybody."

"If we don't restore the American dream for Americans, then you can forget about any
kind of continuing leadership in the world. Americans deserve to feel secure in their
own lives, in their own middle-class aspirations, before you go to them and say, 'We're
going to have to enforce navigable sea lanes in the South China Sea.' You've got to take
care of your home first. That's another part of the political messaging that you have to
engage in right now. "

Drudge hyperlinked to unattractive photos: HILLARY BEACHED! Clinton as you've never seen her before.

The 13 Most Rabidly Leftist, Politically Correct Colleges For Dirty, Tree-Hugging Hippies

Jonah Goldbergs weekly e-mail mirrored prior observations herein, employing colorful lingo and similes:

Let us stipulate at least for the sake of argument that the First Cause of Iraq's
unraveling was the Iraq War. That doesn't change the fact that the second, third, fourth,
fifth, and nth causes of the chaos are the result, directly or indirectly, of President
Obama's decisions (or indecisions). Obama chose to pull troops out of Iraq as quickly as
possible. Obama chose to dismiss ISIS as the "jayvee squad" this year. Obama chose to
issue a "red line" ultimatum, then chose to say "never mind." The guy has been
president for five years. And yet to listen to him and his defenders he's been utterly
powerless to undo his predecessors' mistakes, real or alleged. It's like these people think
the twice-elected president of the United States is still new to the job.

All of that is irrelevant, too, at least when it comes to the question of what to do now.

Until this past week, Obama had done and said nothing to indicate that the U.S. would
actually do anything to help the Yazidis (just as Obama has done little to nothing to help
the slaughtered Shiites and Christians of Iraq, the rebels in Syria, the sovereign
government in Ukraine, et al). Now that events in Iraq have descended from "urgent" to
"Hieronymus Bosch," Obama has finally acted; let us send as much aid as we can to the
Yazidis and, if in the process, we kill a lot of ISIS fighters, that'll be a nice bonus.

Obama's foreign policy works on the assumption that global events are things that
happen out there. "The world stage" used to be a platform for U.S. leadership. For
Obama, the world stage is more like, well, a stage where other nations put on a show
for our benefit. There are plenty of good arguments for America to be more circumspect
internationally (and plenty of bad ones). But I don't think Obama and his supporters
fully recognize that when the lead actor on the world stage decides to walk off and sit in
the audience, it changes the performance and the roles of the other performers.

Box-Checking as Leadership

I will confess I never really appreciated the perfidy of the phrase "leading from behind"
until Wednesday's presidential press conference.

Earlier that day, the secretary of defense, who has been kept away from the press lest
the cameras remove all doubt about his incompetence, announced that 20,000 Russians
were massing on the Ukrainian border in what seemed like preparation for an invasion.

(I often hear this would be the first instance of a European nation invading another since
1939. I'm not sure that's exactly true from, say, the Georgian or Hungarian perspective.
But that's quibbling. Such a crime would be, in the parlance of international-relations
scholars, a huge frick'n deal.)

At the press conference, the president made no mention of this in his prepared remarks
about the Africa summit, which he read aloud with all of the passion of a DMV
bureaucrat explaining the different methods of payment for a parking ticket. He then
took questions. Chris Jansing of NBC asked whether the sanctions against Russia were
working. With his customary logic-chopping defensiveness, the president responded
that the sanctions were doing what they were intended to do, but it was unclear
whether they were actually working. This is like explaining that the pepper spray did
everything it was supposed to do but the bear is eating your face anyway.

It's also perfectly Obamaesque. I did exactly what I set out to do. If it's not working, it's
only because someone else isn't responding the way they're supposed to. I gave a
speech telling the oceans to stop rising, damn it! I even said "let me be clear."

The point of the sanctions isn't to prove that sanctions can cause "economic pain." The
point is to deter Vladimir Putin. And on that score, they clearly aren't working at all. It's
amazing to me how much Obama thinks and talks like a bureaucrat. I've checked my
box! I did my job! I've fulfilled my responsibilities. If the bear is eating your face, it must
be the fault of Jones in accounting. Hate that guy.

This has been Obama's standard response to problems around the globe. He did what
he was "supposed to do," and whenever the consequences of his actions create
problems, it's because others didn't do what they were supposed to do. I pulled troops
out of Iraq. I reneged on missile defense in Eastern Europe. I "reset" with Russia. I
intervened in Libya. I didn't intervene in Syria. I told Leon Panetta to deal with Benghazi.
I took the blue pill. The fact that the Iraqi pullout was destabilizing, that Putin saw his
moves as weakness, that Islamists took over Libya, that Assad stayed in power, that the
Matrix revealed itself anyway: These all reflect someone else's failures.

He was then asked if the 20,000 troops massed on the Ukrainian border might lead him
to "reconsider" sending lethal military aid to the Ukrainians. After prattling on about
how Ukraine doesn't need aid to beat the separatists, Obama added, "Now if you start
seeing an invasion by Russia, that's obviously a different set of questions. We're not
there yet."

Now, I don't want to go to war to defend Ukraine. I don't want Obama to say we would
go to war to defend Ukraine and not because I think that such a statement would
necessarily be irresponsible if it came from a different president. But I don't think Barack
Obama would go to war to defend Ukraine even if he said he would. As with his "red
line" debacle, the worst thing a president can do is vow to take a hard-line and then not
take it. But would it be too much to ask the president of the United States to
characterize a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine as outrageous?

Keep in mind that "outrageous" is safer than "unacceptable." The problem is that his use
of "unacceptable" is almost entirely ironic. He uses it like a theater critic saying a cast
change is "unacceptable" when it is obvious the critics' acceptance is irrelevant. His use
of "unacceptable" has been more promiscuous than Vizzini's use of "inconceivable" in
The Princess Bride. (How long has it been since Putin's annexation of the Crimea was
"unacceptable"?)

Leading from the Sidelines

In the best sense, "leading from behind" sounds like something a football coach does.
He can't be out on the field, but he coordinates, instructs, and inspires from the
sidelines. Among the myriad problems with this analogy is the simple fact that
international affairs isn't like a football game, where the coach can bench players for
failing to follow instructions or execute the plays. In Obama's version of leading from
behind, he's more like a football handicapper who has no control of events and merely
watches from the virtual sidelines as events transpire, adjusting the odds as they unfold.
This analogy fails, too, of course because the president of the United States isn't an
observer.

Obama is open to sending lethal aid it seems only if Ukraine is invaded. But
refusing to send lethal aid makes invasion all the more likely. I understand that the
president thinks he's very clever by seeing the guiding principle of his foreign policy as
"don't do stupid sh*t." But the real-world consequence of that principle is to let events
unfold and then whine about being neck-deep in sh*t you think you can blame on
others. It's not leading from behind, it's failing from behind.

Cuomo vs. Christie

I've been getting into fights with people about the discrepancy between media coverage
of Andrew Cuomo's troubles and coverage of Chris Christie's "bridgegate." Let me see if
I can lay out the case briefly here. Back during the feeding frenzy, I never said that the
Christie story wasn't legitimate news, just that it was being overdone by the national
media. In response, hysterical liberals insisted that I just didn't get it. Christie was an
important governor with presidential ambitions from an important state. Some more
sophisticated types pointed out that New Jersey is also very close to New York media
centers. The allegations supported the narrative that Christie is a bully.

Um, okay. Which of those doesn't apply to Cuomo? I'll take my answer off the air.

Now more serious people will make some valid analytical points. Christie had become a
presidential front-runner because of his Abbott and Costello routine with Obama. The
allegations were easy to understand and infuriating to normal people (i.e., He messed
with traffic!). These are all points with some merit. But they don't provide a rationale for
why the media should have gone crazy about the story. A bunch of people (including
MSM journalists) have e-mailed or tweeted at me that the media was right to get its
dress over its head because Christie was a potential Republican front-runner who could
beat Hillary. And they think this is a defense against the charge of media bias! I didn't go
to J-School, but I'm pretty sure "taking the Republican down a peg," is not a journalistic
principle. And if being the front-runner the run-away front-runner at that is
grounds for heightened journalistic scrutiny, then I am eager to see the coming media
tsunami crash down on Hillary Clinton. I am also eager to see a caveman fight a ninja.
I'm not holding my breath for either.

But fine. Let's say that Christie deserved more coverage than Cuomo. I'm open to that.
But how much more coverage? Twice as much? Three times? One hundred times? I'm
sure if I made the effort to count hours of network time, word counts in newspapers
etc., the ratio would be a lot closer to 1001 than 21, and such metrics can't account
for the poorly hidden passion of the reporters. And yet, no one seems willing to at least
admit that the Christie feeding frenzy was excessive.

Bulls-eyes for Me, But Not for Thee

Speaking of frenzies, there was a time when people who are supposed to be America's
top "thought-leaders" took seriously the idea that former Representative Gabby
Giffords was shot because of a map on Sarah Palin's Facebook showing targets on
various competitive congressional districts. It was a time worth remembering because it
gave at least a glimpse of what logic-bending, fact-free hysteria looks like. The notion
that our elites are immune to such hysteria is an obvious fiction that serves the interests
of elites. They get to decide what constitute real scandals and outrages and what are
merely paranoid delusions and ginned-up panics. If word got out that the people making
such decisions were just as susceptible to the mirages of the mob and the spirit of the
witch-hunt, that would do them no good at all. They need to maintain the exclusive
right to charge others with exhibiting the paranoid style in American politics.

It's difficult for me to express how much contempt I had for the entire elite media-
industrial complex back then (though I tried here). Anyway, I bring it up because here's
the Daily Beast if memory serves, a torch-carrier of the old mob against martial
metaphors and images putting Rand Paul in the center of a bull's eye. I don't for a
moment think this actually puts Rand Paul's life in danger. But it does help illuminate
the double standard.