Foreign Policy is about Substance and Deeds – Not Words

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Fareed Zakaria said on CNN Sunday that the United States should conduct foreign policy in accordance with its interests and values.

He was of course deriding Donald Trump’s style of foreign policy. And surprise, surprise, Fareed was critical of Trump’s handling of it.

He, like all other leftists, just can’t seem to wrap their collective pin-heads around the Trump way.

Zakaria says that, “America’s foreign policy should not be based on personalities. Donald Trump’s worldview seems utterly rooted in his likes and dislikes of other leaders – from Kim Jong Un to Angela Merkel to MBS [Mohammad bin Salman].”

In other words, from the left’s vacuous vantage point, Trump favors whom he appears to like and vice versa. read more

White House Ruled by Fear

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Obama is an interesting case study of the classic schoolyard bully. The bully controls his turf, his schoolyard. He sets the rules, does what he wants and believes he’s free to push everyone else around.


It’s a familiar environment and he’s comfortable there. But take him out of that comfort zone, place him in another schoolyard, where he has no influence or reputation and he becomes a shrinking Violet, afraid to act for fear that his bluster and bravado might lead to an actual confrontation for which he is neither prepared nor equipped.


This is Barack Obama – domestic policy schoolyard bully. This is what he knows – community agitation. He understands nothing of foreign policy and it scares him to death.


No one outside United States fears or respects him. No foreign entity worries about his IRS, Justice Department, BLM, EPA, etc.


And this is the reason our foreign policy is a shambles. Obama is afraid to lead, afraid to take decisive action outside his own schoolyard. read more

Better The Devil You Know

by: the Common Constitutionalist

There are several major earth moving news stories happening simultaneously – the ongoing saga between Russia and Ukraine – the Israeli, Hamas battle in Gaza, which may escalate into a two front conflict. It seems Fatah in the West Bank is moving closer to aligning permanently with Hamas, which will surely mean stepped-up assaults by terrorists on Israel from both Gaza and the West Bank.

The self-proclaimed Islamic state is expanding and has declared war on everyone – Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

Meanwhile in Africa, more and more territory is being plagued by increased outbreaks of the Ebola virus. It appears to be uncontained and spreading.

And there is, of course, the perpetual chaos at our southern border.

All in all, it seems the world is coming apart around us.

I find myself longing for the good old days, when our greatest concern was containing strong-arm dictators from attacking their neighbors. read more

Shocker: CNN Writer Loves Diplomacy

by: the Common Constitutionalist
Every time the United States has gone to war and even during a postwar period, there is the inevitable debate of isolationism versus intervention – diplomacy versus a military solution.

Going all the way back to George Washington, where many mistook Washington’s want for neutrality as isolationism. Prior to both World Wars, there were many who called to remain isolated.

It’s a natural tendency, particularly after a long protracted engagement, to simply say, “the heck with the rest of the world – we can’t solve everyone’s problems and we can’t be the world’s 911”.

In other words, this foreign policy debate is nothing new.

So I found it interesting when I discovered a article I printed from last December and just forgot about. It was entitled, “Against a New American Isolationism“, by John Glenn (not that John Glenn).

The article began by stating, “At a moment when diplomacy is back in the international spotlight, are Americans becoming isolationist, wanting the United States to pull back from the world?” And that, “Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik released a memo identifying ‘pull back from the rest of the world’ as the number one area of consensus across the political spectrum ahead of the 2014 elections.”

He then goes on to write that it is not isolationism but rather a choice between solving domestic issues and foreign intervention. read more

America’s Foreign/Military Policy Doctrine

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Last week Mark Levin spoke on his radio show about foreign policy – in light of the whole Iraq mess resurfacing.

Actually Iraq never went away. Do we really think ISIS just coincidentally attacked now?

It’s not as if the terrorist gang was just formed yesterday. They’ve been around since 2006. ISIS was actually formed by the unification of three separate terror groups – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda faction, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq and the Jund al-Shahhaba (the soldiers of the Prophet’s companions).

After America vacated the area, they organized and moved in to fill the void that we left.

Mark asked the question: “What is the United States going to do about things like this – nothing? Will we pick a side? Should we pick a side, or will we just stand on the sidelines and watch?

He asked on what our foreign policy/military policy should be based? What is the doctrine we should follow, or is there simply no doctrine? read more

A Tale of Two Administrations

By: the Common Constitutionalist
The Obama administration is one the most, if not the most schizophrenic in American history.

I literally mean the dictionary definition of schizophrenic which is, “a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.”

In other words, the separation between our government’s treatment of foreign policy, or more precisely, how other countries now view America, and domestic policy, or the way the average American citizen views their/our own government.

Take a look around the globe and name one country that any longer fears the potential wrath of United States, except our once loyal ally, Israel.

Russia, under Putin is on the move. He can’t stand Obama, knows he’s a girlie man and will continue to do whatever he wishes, regardless of our administrations feckless attempts to talk him into submission.

Russia supplies at least 25% of Europe’s natural gas and there is currently no replacement for it. He’s knows this, therefore they won’t dare face him down. Putin obviously knows that any “tough” talk coming from Obama or his minions is just that – talk.

He has no fear of the United States and thus no fear of expanding his empire. read more

Obama’s View On Terrorism

President Obama’s State of the Union gave us a look at the premises driving his foreign policy. It showed that he believes Islamic terrorists to be driven by frustration over perceived injustices at the hands of the West, rather than an ideology. It is because of this belief that he can promote the nuclear deal with Iran and depict the regime as a less threatening version of the Soviet Union.

Three key lines in the speech illustrated the fundamentals underlying the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.

First, Obama indicated that he sees terrorism-sponsoring Islamist regimes as comparable to the communists of the Cold War. Both are primarily motivated by power and wealth and are open to mutually-beneficial deals. He said:

“If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.” read more

Obama Flunks the Leadership Test

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Leftists and foreign policy simply don’t mix. It’s not just this administration. Look at Carter or even that Democrat icon, the aspirin factory bomber, Bill Clinton.


However, this administration is proving itself to be the worst in American history. In just a few short years Obama has taken a relatively well-respected nation and turned it into a laughingstock.


Some might say that under George W. Bush, foreign countries didn’t “like” the United States, due to, like Reagan, his “cowboy style”. To that I say – who cares! In foreign policy, as in business, it is always better to be respected than liked.


Yet Liberals strive to be liked by other nations, rather than lead. And leading from behind is not leading.


Obama is said to be a great leader, so I decided to put this community agitator to the test – a leadership test, and not just foreign policy but overall leadership ability.


The great leader must be a true believer, whether it is a product, a service or a vision. He must believe in that vision.


Well, I’d say domestically Obama passes with flying colors. It may be a vision of a Marxist America, but it is a vision and he truly believes it. Foreign policy – not so much. On the other hand, judging by whom he has been consistently supporting, maybe he is a true believer, if you catch my drift.


A great leader is also a great decision-maker. They seek counsel from others but they themselves decide a course of action. If challenged, the great leader has a reasoned argument why he or she is right. It is very rarely “because I said so”.


Obama is truly a failure at this. His strategy of leading from behind lends only to confusion. The Syrian “red line” debacle is a perfect example. It was in fact Obama that drew that red line last year on the campaign trail. A true leader would man up and say he said it and meant it. A great leader would not try to weasel out of it by deflecting to, “I didn’t set the red line, the world set it”. That’s just pitiful and weak.


Successful leaders are great communicators. Again, Obama grades quite low. But isn’t he known as a master orator? Yes, many think that, but any low-rent actor can read an impassioned speech off of a Teleprompter. Just listen to the man speak extemporaneously. It’s pathetic. He hems and haws – fumbling for words. I believe it’s because, when off prompter, he may slip up and reveal his true thoughts and beliefs.


A great leader ultimately takes accountability for those under him or her. Have you ever heard or seen Obama stand up for his people? Many of them have been in some real hot water lately – called in before congressional committee after committee. Instead of standing up for them, he throws his press secretaries out to lie on his behalf. This is the act of a coward, not a leader.


A great leader remains humble, deflects adoration away from him or her and is happy to credit subordinates. He surely does not have this leadership quality. Everything is “I did this or I did that”. The man doesn’t have a humble bone in his body.


Finally, a true leader leads by example. Do as I do, as it were. Barry, like virtually all leftists, is the polar opposite. He is the epitome of “Do as I say, not as I do”. I’m sure he’s thinking of all those less fortunate citizens in our country as he rides his bike on Martha’s Vineyard or tees off for the thousandth time.


Think of any great leadership trait and compare it to the leadership qualities of Obama. You too will see he fails at every turn. He is a manufactured president, the Stepford president, not a great leader.

We Don’t Know Real Intolerance

Egypt: Persecution Of Christians Expands

Living in America, I often forget just how lucky I am. Really though, the word “lucky” doesn’t even begin to do justice to the level of freedom and prosperity to which we are accustomed. Even at its worst, Conservatives and religious people in the United States are mocked, and verbally bullied. Rarely is there intolerance of such an extreme nature that people are imprisoned or killed because of their beliefs.

It’s easy to think that imprisonment and execution are fantasies from hundreds of years ago; not ever happening in modern times. But outside the United States, especially in the Middle East, minority religious persecution is rampant, and often barbaric.  Continue Reading

The Hug Said It All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Well, it took me a while to realize what I was actually watching during the final Romney/Obama debate.

As Charles Krauthammer so aptly described in his post-debate analysis; it was Romney going big and Obama going small. I might add that Obama didn’t just go small, but also petty.

Obama did his darndest to pull Romney into his own micro-squabbling world, but Mitt just would not take the bait and one could tell by the look on the presidents face that his, or someone’s (maybe Axelrod’s) strategy wasn’t working.

This is what took me some time to figure out. I finally realized that Romney was Ronald Reagan and Obama was Saul Alinsky.

Romney’s strategy seemed to be to stay above the fray. Be friendly and likeable while choosing the battles he could frame with big overarching themes. Romney appeared more likeable as Obama insulted and demeaned him.

The times Mitt did engage Obama, he showed he had a firm grasp of the issues. He felt he did not have to dwell on any particular issue or go into detail. Instead, just to reassure the American public that he knows his stuff and can be trusted. This would, of course, drew the ire and insults from the president.

Frankly, if one didn’t know better, one would think Romney was president and Obama was the challenger.

Now, for those of us who are conservative and keep abreast of all the issues, the overly agreeable and aisle-crossing Romney was a bit frustrating, but this debate was not intended for us. It was the final debate and Romney calculated that he could pull in the balance of the “undecideds” with a grander theme. I think it worked and the Obama team appeared to be blind-sided by it.

About 30 minutes in, I realized we were not watching a debate on foreign policy at all. Romney masterfully kept bringing it back to the American economy, his strongest suit. He reiterated time and again that American foreign policy was dependent upon a strong economy, which only he could restore.

The specific points he did make were fact-checked and he was found to be 100% correct.

The matter of General Motors was a great example. Romney claimed he wrote an op-ed in the Wallstreet journal describing how he thought GM should be guided through a controlled bankruptcy, enabling the car company to free itself from debt and other obligations. He said that the government should guarantee loans and such to help them recover. Obama flatly stated that Romney was not telling the truth and he did not say this. It was fact-checked and what Romney had written years earlier was exactly as he described it during the debate.

The lowest light (there were many low lights) for Obama was, of course, the discussion over the size of our Navy. Romney stated that our Navy is smaller than any time since the early 20th century. He is correct, by the way.

Obama, in a condescending tone, explained that things are different now and we also don’t use horses and bayonets any longer either. Mr. Romney must just not understand modern warfare. Well, in fact, Mr. Obama, the military still uses bayonets and have many times, utilized the horse in Afghanistan. How odd you didn’t know that.

Toward the close of the debate was a discussion on trade and the imbalance with China. This was a walk-off home run for Romney. It was even more satisfying seeing the moderator, Bob Schieffer, desperately trying to help the beleaguered president, to no avail. They could do nothing but watch as Mitt calmly and succinctly presented his case for dealing with China.

This brings me to the hug. Romney won the debate and both he and Obama knew it, the minute it was over. How can I be so sure? Easy; body language.

As the debate ended they both got up, shook hands, at which time, their wives approached them on stage. Mitt was all smiles as he hugged his wife. The cameras were rolling on both the candidates. Simultaneously, Obama hugged Michelle. No smile, eyes closed, with a rather somber look on his face. His expression gave me the impression he knew it was over.

A simple hug was all it took for me to declare a winner, although, by that time, I and most others already knew.