Russia A Regional Power: Yes But What Region Mr. Obama?

At a press conference yesterday at The Hague, Netherlands, ABC White House correspondant, Jonathan Karl, asked "Mr. President, . ... In China, in Syria, in Egypt, and now in Russia we've seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. Are you concerned that America's influence in the world -- that your influence in the world -- is on the decline? And in light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America's greatest geopolitical foe, if not Russia, who?" President Obama responded, Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness. ... Karl's question was a truly good one but he missed a golden opportunity for a follow-up. If Russia is only a 'regional power' then what region would that be? Russia covers 11 time zones and 1/9th of the earth’s land area. It reaches from the North Pole to the Black Sea and from the well into the European continent in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east. With 6,592,800 square miles of territory, it is 1.7 times larger than the second largest country, Canada, and its 3,855,100 sq miles of land. Russia has close ties in the western hemisphere with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Columbia. According to RIA Novosti, a leading Russian news outlet, “Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Russia is looking to build military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Seychelles, Singapore and several other countries.” So my follow-up question to Mr. Obama would have been, “And what region is that, exactly Mr. President?” The answer to that question would certainly be interesting wouldn’t you agree?

The Story of Noah; No Mention of God - Leave It To Hollywood

Let me start out by saying that I haven't seen this movie yet. It doesn't open until the 28th of March. However, I have heard and read the reviews, I am aware of the controversy and I've heard the radio advertisements that say the filmmakers took artistic license but they believe they stayed true to the Biblical story. Really? Perhaps I'm not as familiar with the story as I think I am but I find it hard to believe that it is true to the Biblical story when, during the 139 minutes of runtime, God is not mentioned once. I reread the story in Exodus and in truth, no one utters the name God. However, God spoke to Noah and I find it difficult to imagine how to tell the story without so much as a narrator explaining that Noah is hearing the voice of God or depicting Noah trying to persuade others to repent without explaining to them what God revealed to him.

I doubt the sincerity of the filmmakers claims when I read things like the following in the Washington Post: "The producer of the movie 'Noah,' a self-professed atheist, says he is proud of the fact that he’s taken a story inspired by God’s word and turned it into something so secular." Why turn a Biblical story into something secular? Further, the Washington Times reported that in the UK Telegraph the director "...claimed his leading character, Noah, was the 'first environmentalist,' something that suggests the movie storyline doesn’t exactly follow the Bible’s."

It seems to me that the producer and director were more interested in pushing a liberal secular, overpopulation alarmist and environmental extremist point of view. The story in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran for that matter doesn't have anything to do with environmentalism or overpopulation and is anything but secular. How can a story about the relationship between God and man lack any  religious aspect? Leave it to Hollywood. Expect the Left Coast and Manhattan elitist crowds to love it.

Unilateral Disarmament: Rosetta Stone for Small Nations

There's just no better way for a small nation to learn a second language. Give up the means to defend yourself. It's like geo-political Rosetta Stone. Just ask Ukraine and the 40% non-ethnic Russian Crimeans in a few years.

US-Russian Relations

Crimea: Another Secretary of State Clinton Success?

America elected our current president based mainly on the superficial desire on the part of liberals and well-meaning but otherwise confused moderates to elect our first African-American president. Will we make the same grave error in 2016 by electing the first woman president, Hillary Clinton? For the sake of the country and the free-world for that matter, let's hope not. The Office of the President of the United States of America is far too important to allow it to continue to be used as an affirmative action program. A major factor in judging Mrs. Clinton's qualification to be president has to be her performance as Secretary of State. For our nation's top diplomat, performance comes down to the answer to two questions. One: Are America's interest throughout the world better now than when they took over their post. And Two: Are ties with our friends and allies stronger now than they were before. To both questions, the objective answer has to be a resounding no. Starting with her first diplomatic trip to Russia and the ill-fated "reset button" incident, our relationship with Russia has continued to deteriorate. Russia has resisted our attempts to prevent Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons, interfered with efforts to stop the violence in Syria, and now invaded Ukraine. (As of this writing, a referendum in Crimea seems to indicate that it will break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia leaving the US with few good options.)Furthermore, during her tenure as Secretary of State, North Korea has joined the group of countries with nuclear weapons capability, Libya went from a country that was cooperating with the US and strengthening its ties with America to one where Al Qaeda affiliates have taken control of a large part of the country and it is no longer a safe place for American diplomats to serve. This became abundantly clear when our Ambassador and three other personnel in Secretary Clinton's charge were murdered in Benghazi. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the costly gains paid for with American blood and treasure have been lost as Al Qaeda and the Taliban return to Iraq and Afghanistan respectively due to a failure to reach diplomatic agreement on how the US should support the new governments after our military role has ended. As a result, America is withdrawing our forces from the region without any mechanism in place to maintain those gains. The answer to question two is also clearly, no. Relations with Russia have not been this bad since prior to the collapse of the old Soviet Union. President Putin's actions make it obvious he has no respect for President Obama or his current Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry. Relations with key friends and allies such as the UK, Israel and Germany are strained as a result of snubs, inattention, and the embarrassing revelations of NSA eavesdropping on personal communications of their leaders. In Egypt and Libya, we encouraged the ousting of two leaders, Muammar Khadafi and Hosni Mubarak - no gems of humanity to be sure - but they were favorable to our national interests. Following Mubarak’s overthrow, unbelievably, our government supported Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood – the original Islamist movement organization. For their first official act once in control, Morsi and his government announced that, after 30 years of peace with Israel under Mubarak, they would no longer honor the Camp David Accords thus undoing one of the few accomplishments of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Today, chaos reigns in both nations as Islamist groups vie for control. As we get closer to the 2016 presidential campaign season, look for Clinton supporters to try to rewrite the record of her accomplishments, especially as Secretary of State. We should also expect the bootlicks at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post and the other leading mainstream media outlets to continue to ignore the diplomatic wreckage left in the wake of her Sec State aircraft's contrail. This won’t be an easy task but they are a clever lot and I’m confident they will do their best. Perhaps they will continue to ignore stories like Benghazi in favor of the items the public is clamoring for and really needs to know about such as Gov. Christie’s Bridgegate scandal. Any sarcasm detected was intentional.

Murder on the Rise in Montgomery County Maryland - Surprised?

I usually like to stay focused on national and world issues but this one is just too good and it does have national implications. Yesterday, Montgomery County Maryland reported its ninth murder of the year - only 2 months into 2014. Last year there were only eight murders total in the county which is the epicenter of liberal lunacy in the "Free State". At this rate, Montgomery County is on track for a 2014 year total of 54 murders or a 675% increase. Does this surprise anyone? It shouldn't! As I predicted in my Sunday, March 17, 2013 piece "Under Martin O'Malley, Maryland Open for Business to Violent Criminals" this would be the effect of Gov. O'Malley's successful push to repeal Maryland's death penalty law and implement new gun control laws that restrictive law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment right to self-protection. Who would have guessed it? Answer: Any thinking person, that's who.