The Inconsistent Foreign Policy Of Barack Obama

I am sure a few of my regular readers will disagree with me on this post. But nevertheless, I have to say some things about Libya and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.

Before we discuss Obama's usual inept handling of another foreign crisis, there are some inconsistencies we must think about... long before before we draw any intelligent conclusions. As in any case, there are things we know and things we don't. Let's start by looking at what we know.

We know that Obama likes dictators (at least the Latin American versions).

He loves Hugo Chavez. We all know Chavez fits the socialist model that the President was educated to believe in. We all know that Bro. Hugo is the modern-day replacement for Fidel Castro's failed leadership in Latin America, for failing to implement the true communist paradigm in Latin America.

We know that he loved former President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. You may remember him as the man who tried to illegally modify the Honduran constitution, so he could run for another term... for the purpose of implementing a Chavez style economic and political system. When the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya and his underhanded plan of action, both Obama and Chavez did everything they possibly could to subvert the rule of law in that country.

What we do not know is why Obama is not supporting dictators a half a world away in the Middle East.

He did not support Mubarek of Egypt during its recent popular uprising and by all appearances now, he is not supporting Libya's Muammar Gaddaffi in favor of another "so-called" populist uprising.

It's hard to make sense of this approach until we realize that Obama clearly has no consistent values or core principles. Then only thing consistent with Obama is, he will do what is best for Obama, and those who will help him. We do know that those who support Obama's Presidency the most are the people who have in years past advocated for revolution. Bill and Bernice Ayers are two names that prominently stick out, as well as many others.The people I speak of are those who follow the Alinsky model. They never want a crisis to go to waste and if there is no crisis, they can create one.

I firmly believe that at the time of Obama's election, there were unseen forces overblowing the economic crisis at the time, for the specific purpose of getting the man elected. Not that everything was hunky dory mind you, it was a downturn that was bound to happen and not be denied. But these forces used a complicit media (who merely wanted to see history made in the form of electing a black man as president) and all other means within their reach to drive the frenzy of what was then described as a looming depression never before seen. They made a bad situation even worse.

But to be fair about it, this goal and objective was set by forces much larger than Obama. I say this because as we see today, Obama is an extremely ineffective leader at almost every level. Instead of focusing on important things like the Japanese crisis, the Middle East, and important domestic issues, he plays golf, he fills out brackets, and he tours Latin America to create diversions from his incompetence as a leader.

In short, he doesn.t know how to manage a Burger King, much less a country. He is only a prop and a poor one, at that.

But back to Libya, and let me be blunt.

Obama and Soros Inc. want instability in the Middle East for the purpose of replacing the U.S. Dollar as the primary oil trading currency. Soros makes his money by getting currencies devalued, so it stands to reason that he may be hedging his bets on a new currency for the specific purpose of buying and selling oil. (Maybe if he is successful, we can call it the Soro. But I digress.)

So instability is their friend right now. Nothing can cause more willingness to change what has always been, except turmoil and fiercely uncertain conditions in such an important commodity. But as with every diabolical and contrived plot, there are strong possibilities of unintended consequences, which are not being thought about right now in the midst of this mess.

We are signing on to support the "so-called" pro-democracy forces in these nations where tyranny has reigned for so many years. But in the middle of this, we are failing to remember the Iranian Revolution.... whereby one form of tyranny was replaced with another.We are risking all of this for one man who had billions already, to stand the chance of making even more.

We are forgetting that groups that are supportive of al-Qaida (and the dangerous anti-freedom message of Muslim imperialism) is playing a huge role in these demonstrations. What makes us think that al Qaida will make a better form of government than the low-life tyrant we know as Gaddaffi?

Even more troubling is the liberal school of thought, that opportunistically used the Iraq War as political fodder against the GOP and George W. Bush, Now that Obama is President, they are magically supportive of a regime change in Libya and openly for these Sharia Law loving rebels taking control of the oil supply, in the Middle East. And Obama falls directly into this category. He and his Leftist friends questioned the use of military force to effect a regime change in a sovereign nation back then, But now it's okay.

In Iraq, we have spent much time in country and we sacrificed many American lives to see that these groups did not take control of Iraq. How is it that we can be assured this will not happen with no ground troops in Libya?

So to my friends who regularly read this sleepy little blog, I must ask you to think about some things in the closing of this post.

These people have never been able to handle freedom in the past. They seem to need authoritarian leadership of some kind or another. They are not doing well under dictators, but how well will they fare under the tyranny of forces that subscribe to harsh medieval conditions? Will they allow for free elections? I doubt it. Will they allow freedom of speech? Nope. Will they use their oil producing capabilities as weapons? You know they will. And they will use whatever profits they can make, to destroy all those who are not willing to submit to Allah (starting with Israel).

How will it affect other Middle East nations? Will Saudi Arabia fall next with encouragement and military help from the civilized world? Polls show that Osama bin Laden could win an election there, if there were elections. Would that be worth ridding that nation of the monarch whose hand was kissed by President Obama?

Most importantly of all let's think about one more thing. Knowing how ungrateful many people in the Arab world have been concerning the huge toll on American blood spilled to make Iraq free from a brutal dictator, do we really think Libyans will appreciate any effort the U.S. or its allies will put forth?

Personally, I think Gaddaffi is a thug, a creep, and a terrorist responsible for the killing of many of my countrymen. I think he deserves to be dropped into a pit full of hungry crocodiles. But I am not sure he is worth spilling any American blood over, especially when the Libyan people will very likely not appreciate any of it.