*First appeared in the April 30 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Over the weekend, I watched a documentary about Eva Mozes Kor, an Auschwitz death camp survivor on a one-woman mission to unconditionally forgive her Nazi captors and, in particular, the psychotic geneticist Dr. Josef Mengele who experimented on her and her twin sister.
Unbeknownst to me, this past Sunday also marked the annual Israeli memorial for the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi death camps during World War II. This year, Holocaust Remembrance Day came on the heels of an eerie hoax, which consisted of leaflets being passed out in eastern Ukraine saying Jews must register with pro-Russian separatists, pay a fee, and declare property holdings.
While the leaflets have now been declared fakes, you can imagine my shock upon reading headlines about anti-Semitic pamphlets being distributed in eastern Ukraine. It caught my attention then and keeps my attention now.
Hoax or not, the leaflets evoked strong responses from leaders across the world. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the papers, saying they were “not just intolerable” but “grotesque.” Another spokesman for the White House called these reports “chilling, outrageous, and must be universally condemned.” I agree. These actions must be condemned, the perpetrators must be found out, and they must be dealt with properly. There should be no leniency when it comes to the distribution of such pamphlets in a part of the world where tensions are already at a boiling point.
Beyond the anti-Semitic hoax, the showdown between Russia and Ukraine continues to play out on the world stage in a production that appears to cast Russian President Vladimir Putin as leading man. President Obama’s role as co-lead hasn’t yet materialized, and all signs point to a man intent on playing a supporting role.
Monday, the President and European officials announced sanctions on Russian government officials and businesses in an effort to put economic pressure on Putin so he’ll cease military activities in Ukraine. According to the Wall Street Journal, their actions were “expected more than a week ago” and “fell significantly short of the expansive sanctions of Kiev’s government and many members of Congress have been demanding.” The Moscow stock market actually jumped on Monday as investors “found the latest sanctions to be less severe than anticipated.”
The so-called sanctions didn’t target broad sectors of Russia’s economy, such as energy, banking, or military. Apparently too many members of the European Union have economies more closely linked to Russia’s than the U.S. Others feared that such drastic measures would erode efforts at achieving peace through diplomatic solutions. Because of these concerns, the U.S. didn’t take more severe actions, White House officials told multiple newspapers this week.
More than a few public voices have openly questioned whether the United States President is taking concrete actions to control the situation in Ukraine, and why the U.S. – not the E.U. – isn’t guiding strategy decisions.
In an editorial, Newt Gingrich reminded Americans this year is “the centennial of the First World War. One-hundred years ago this month, in April 1914, no one thought there would be a war. But war began, triggered by events in Easter Europe…It came as an enormous shock, in retrospect almost like the Titanic hitting an iceberg.”
Of Obama’s actions, Gingrich (he wrote the column prior to this week’s announcement) opined the Obama administration is doing too little in this very difficult situation, which presents an enormous danger. “The world will become less safe as we show weakness to our allies,” and America’s weakness is being driven by clumsy, wandering decisions on how to deal with a dispute that, in Gingrich’s words, could “land us in a war no one intends.”
“We need a national debate on what our policy is going to be,” Gingrich urges the President, and then we need to engage our European allies on what our policy is going to be.
No doubt President Obama has had similar thoughts. But he cannot operate in the vacuum of public policy; he must also take into consideration public opinion. Even Gingrich admits the American people are tired of wars. To borrow a quote from Neville Chamberlain: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Without question, President Obama is in a difficult position. At best, he’s simply caught in the middle of escalating tensions between a power-hungry Putin and an American alliance that cannot defend itself against without our help. At worst, Obama’s reluctance to take stronger actions has emboldened Putin as he seeks to “reconstitute the Soviet empire.” Anti-Semitic hoaxes that remind the world of the monstrosities of an out-of-control German leader add fuel to the already blazing fire.
The President doesn’t have an easy path before him. But he must take the right steps to prevent further escalations. Mistakes at this juncture won’t easily be made right.
Showing posts with label President Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Barack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
Selected observations on the State of the Union
*Originally appeared in the Jan. 30 edition of the Laurel Chronicle newspaper
Tuesday night marked the fifth State of the Union delivered by President Obama, thus fulfilling his duty to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
As expected, he called on Congress to extend unemployment benefits, enact measures to ensure equal pay for equal work, and establish a minimum wage of $10.10. The President who has claimed his is the “most transparent” of all administrations allotted all of one sentence to talk about transparency and reforms in America’s surveillance programs.
His sharpest tone came when defending his signature healthcare law, a.k.a. Obamacare. Suggesting Republicans haven’t come up with specific plans to improve healthcare, the President said the “American people are not interested in refighting old battles” and that we “all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against.”
Translation: Obamacare is the law. I don’t want to talk about how it increases healthcare costs and raise taxes on Americans. I don’t want to talk about my administration’s complete failure to set up a website – a website! – to enroll participants. Let’s just move on. Nothing to see here.
Obama wasted no time in making one thing clear: He’ll move forward with priority agenda items with or without Congressional approval. His words: “Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…that’s what I’m going to do.”
Translation: Nah nah nah nah boo boo.
It’s interesting how aggressive this statement was, given the President is not exactly enjoying high marks from the public right now. For the first time on the eve of a State of the Union address, “more Americans rate his performance negatively than positively, with 50 percent disapproving” according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Even more people – 69 percent – think it’s better for Obama to work with Congress than go around it, according to a Rasmussen poll.
It’s also interesting to note how freely the President discusses his authority to implement policies through executive action. For a constitutional scholar, Obama seems to dismiss this document as little more than a loosely arranged set of recommendations.
The President spent some time talking about economic policies, although I won’t focus on the entirety of his proposals in this column. I was pleased to hear his support for investing in proven (that’s an important word) job training programs that train workers in high-growth and high-demand areas where jobs actually exist. He cited on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs as models that work, and I tend to agree.
Just as I was nodding my head in agreement, however, he went to talking about extending unemployment benefits – again. Unemployment insurance is a temporary program that has already been extended eleven times. Eleven times. Not only do I think this is fiscally irresponsible, I also think it’s just bad public policy to treat a temporary program as a permanent solution to today’s economic challenges.
After the speech, I stumbled across Roll Call newspaper’s “State of the Union in Three Words” hashtag (#sotuin3words). Here is a sampling of how several members of Congress summed up the speech:
“Talk is cheap.” “A home run.” “Lame duck quacking.” “No jobs plan.” “Invest in America.”
Of course, there were also a few that exceeded the three word limit (“Skills Act; pass it!”) that made me chuckle.
This won’t come as a surprise to those who know me, but my favorite line in the State of the Union was related to the Winter Olympics: “Next week, the world will see one expression of that commitment [to dignity and equality] – when Team USA marches the red, white, and blue into the Olympic Stadium – and brings home the gold.”
For those of you who wonder about “worst-case” scenarios (terrorist attack, zombie apocalypse, etc.) wiping out the president and his team during the State of the Union festivities, fear not. This year, as is tradition, one member of the President’s Cabinet stayed behind to ensure continuity of the U.S. government should we be faced with ravenous zombies. The lucky designee was U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a.k.a. the “designated survivor.”
I’ll leave you with another interesting fact that I didn’t learn until this week’s annual address. Turns out, this speech hasn’t always been one. Our nation’s third president Thomas Jefferson disliked the idea of giving a “state of the union” speech, as he considered it too imperial-like. Instead, Jefferson opted to send his thoughts in writing, thus starting a tradition that would last over a century (until President Woodrow Wilson decided to revive the spoken address).
Tuesday night marked the fifth State of the Union delivered by President Obama, thus fulfilling his duty to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
As expected, he called on Congress to extend unemployment benefits, enact measures to ensure equal pay for equal work, and establish a minimum wage of $10.10. The President who has claimed his is the “most transparent” of all administrations allotted all of one sentence to talk about transparency and reforms in America’s surveillance programs.
His sharpest tone came when defending his signature healthcare law, a.k.a. Obamacare. Suggesting Republicans haven’t come up with specific plans to improve healthcare, the President said the “American people are not interested in refighting old battles” and that we “all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against.”
Translation: Obamacare is the law. I don’t want to talk about how it increases healthcare costs and raise taxes on Americans. I don’t want to talk about my administration’s complete failure to set up a website – a website! – to enroll participants. Let’s just move on. Nothing to see here.
Obama wasted no time in making one thing clear: He’ll move forward with priority agenda items with or without Congressional approval. His words: “Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…that’s what I’m going to do.”
Translation: Nah nah nah nah boo boo.
It’s interesting how aggressive this statement was, given the President is not exactly enjoying high marks from the public right now. For the first time on the eve of a State of the Union address, “more Americans rate his performance negatively than positively, with 50 percent disapproving” according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Even more people – 69 percent – think it’s better for Obama to work with Congress than go around it, according to a Rasmussen poll.
It’s also interesting to note how freely the President discusses his authority to implement policies through executive action. For a constitutional scholar, Obama seems to dismiss this document as little more than a loosely arranged set of recommendations.
The President spent some time talking about economic policies, although I won’t focus on the entirety of his proposals in this column. I was pleased to hear his support for investing in proven (that’s an important word) job training programs that train workers in high-growth and high-demand areas where jobs actually exist. He cited on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs as models that work, and I tend to agree.
Just as I was nodding my head in agreement, however, he went to talking about extending unemployment benefits – again. Unemployment insurance is a temporary program that has already been extended eleven times. Eleven times. Not only do I think this is fiscally irresponsible, I also think it’s just bad public policy to treat a temporary program as a permanent solution to today’s economic challenges.
After the speech, I stumbled across Roll Call newspaper’s “State of the Union in Three Words” hashtag (#sotuin3words). Here is a sampling of how several members of Congress summed up the speech:
“Talk is cheap.” “A home run.” “Lame duck quacking.” “No jobs plan.” “Invest in America.”
Of course, there were also a few that exceeded the three word limit (“Skills Act; pass it!”) that made me chuckle.
This won’t come as a surprise to those who know me, but my favorite line in the State of the Union was related to the Winter Olympics: “Next week, the world will see one expression of that commitment [to dignity and equality] – when Team USA marches the red, white, and blue into the Olympic Stadium – and brings home the gold.”
For those of you who wonder about “worst-case” scenarios (terrorist attack, zombie apocalypse, etc.) wiping out the president and his team during the State of the Union festivities, fear not. This year, as is tradition, one member of the President’s Cabinet stayed behind to ensure continuity of the U.S. government should we be faced with ravenous zombies. The lucky designee was U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a.k.a. the “designated survivor.”
I’ll leave you with another interesting fact that I didn’t learn until this week’s annual address. Turns out, this speech hasn’t always been one. Our nation’s third president Thomas Jefferson disliked the idea of giving a “state of the union” speech, as he considered it too imperial-like. Instead, Jefferson opted to send his thoughts in writing, thus starting a tradition that would last over a century (until President Woodrow Wilson decided to revive the spoken address).
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Public opinion on Snowden mixed, but spy revelations impact politics, policy
*Originally appearing in Jan. 23 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
A few nights ago I watched the movie J. Edgar. With the talk of wiretaps, conspiracy, and governmental spying on American citizens, I couldn’t help but draw a parallel to today’s NSA.
Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden rocked the world with his revelations about intelligence gathering practices conducted by the NSA.
The revelations caused swift and unexpected reactions. The public was outraged (though perhaps not for long?), and political alliances were forged based on concern for personal privacy or national security, not political party affiliation.
Yeah, it was weird.
Today, it seems the public has (somewhat) moved on from the NSA leaks, even as President Obama and others promise to reform the way we collect information that can help protect our national security interests.
In a Jan. 17 nationally televised speech on NSA reforms, President Obama recognized that in our “rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats,…the possibility that we [lost] some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced.”
The President recommended a series of reforms, including prohibiting spy agencies from storing Americans’ phone records (though experts agree this will take months, if not longer, to implement); restricting how we spy on foreign allies; and creating a new public advocates panel to weigh in on these issues.
His words sounded good, but his promises were ambiguous. I assume that’s intentional, since he’s walking a not-so-enviable line between protecting personal privacy and protecting America from security threats.
You could say he’s between “Iraq” and a hard place. (Government spying increased after 9/11, which led to searches for weapons of mass destruction, the fall of an Iraqi dictator, and an ever-growing NSA data collection program…)
To those who have questioned whether Snowden’s leaks have done more to harm the country than to help it, I say only this: Without the Snowden revelations, there would be no presidential address on NSA reforms and no meaningful discussion about the role of the government in spying on American citizens. It’s a simple truth, but an important one.
So, are you paying attention? According to a Pew Research Center poll, a mere eight percent of Americans have heard a lot about Obama’s proposals. Seventy-three percent say the President’s changes will have zero impact on protecting personal privacy (two out of three people felt similarly in a Rasmussen poll). Skepticism of the NSA surveillance programs keeps on growing, with 52 percent of Americans disapproving and only 38 percent saying they trust leaders to ensure spy programs are constitutional.
In the midst of this, I wondered how Jones Countians felt about the NSA spying on citizens, Edward Snowden (hero or traitor?), and general attitudes toward government overreach. Toward this end, I polled folks on Facebook…and got a dismal response. Either folks don’t care (see above), didn’t see my post, or simply didn’t want to be quoted in a column.
One response I did get, however, was insightful. Aaron Jacobson, who I know from church many years ago, said Snowden is neither a “hero or traitor. It seems a little too easy to classify in those terms.” Snowden has raised “some very serious issues that strike at the very heart of what our democracy means and what privacy and freedom mean within it.”
My father reminded me of a Ben Franklin quote, which I will paraphrase here: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I certainly agree with that philosophy, but its practice is more complex.
So, in summary, Snowden’s actions are controversial, but they’ve had an impact on the way leaders are publicly dealing with security and privacy issues. Whether the impact is reality or perception, long-standing or fleeting remains to be seen. Public outcry has waned, but skepticism about the spy programs keeps growing. And to top it all off, these issues really aren’t driven by either political party.
A few nights ago I watched the movie J. Edgar. With the talk of wiretaps, conspiracy, and governmental spying on American citizens, I couldn’t help but draw a parallel to today’s NSA.
Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden rocked the world with his revelations about intelligence gathering practices conducted by the NSA.
The revelations caused swift and unexpected reactions. The public was outraged (though perhaps not for long?), and political alliances were forged based on concern for personal privacy or national security, not political party affiliation.
Yeah, it was weird.
Today, it seems the public has (somewhat) moved on from the NSA leaks, even as President Obama and others promise to reform the way we collect information that can help protect our national security interests.
In a Jan. 17 nationally televised speech on NSA reforms, President Obama recognized that in our “rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats,…the possibility that we [lost] some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced.”
The President recommended a series of reforms, including prohibiting spy agencies from storing Americans’ phone records (though experts agree this will take months, if not longer, to implement); restricting how we spy on foreign allies; and creating a new public advocates panel to weigh in on these issues.
His words sounded good, but his promises were ambiguous. I assume that’s intentional, since he’s walking a not-so-enviable line between protecting personal privacy and protecting America from security threats.
You could say he’s between “Iraq” and a hard place. (Government spying increased after 9/11, which led to searches for weapons of mass destruction, the fall of an Iraqi dictator, and an ever-growing NSA data collection program…)
To those who have questioned whether Snowden’s leaks have done more to harm the country than to help it, I say only this: Without the Snowden revelations, there would be no presidential address on NSA reforms and no meaningful discussion about the role of the government in spying on American citizens. It’s a simple truth, but an important one.
So, are you paying attention? According to a Pew Research Center poll, a mere eight percent of Americans have heard a lot about Obama’s proposals. Seventy-three percent say the President’s changes will have zero impact on protecting personal privacy (two out of three people felt similarly in a Rasmussen poll). Skepticism of the NSA surveillance programs keeps on growing, with 52 percent of Americans disapproving and only 38 percent saying they trust leaders to ensure spy programs are constitutional.
In the midst of this, I wondered how Jones Countians felt about the NSA spying on citizens, Edward Snowden (hero or traitor?), and general attitudes toward government overreach. Toward this end, I polled folks on Facebook…and got a dismal response. Either folks don’t care (see above), didn’t see my post, or simply didn’t want to be quoted in a column.
One response I did get, however, was insightful. Aaron Jacobson, who I know from church many years ago, said Snowden is neither a “hero or traitor. It seems a little too easy to classify in those terms.” Snowden has raised “some very serious issues that strike at the very heart of what our democracy means and what privacy and freedom mean within it.”
My father reminded me of a Ben Franklin quote, which I will paraphrase here: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I certainly agree with that philosophy, but its practice is more complex.
So, in summary, Snowden’s actions are controversial, but they’ve had an impact on the way leaders are publicly dealing with security and privacy issues. Whether the impact is reality or perception, long-standing or fleeting remains to be seen. Public outcry has waned, but skepticism about the spy programs keeps growing. And to top it all off, these issues really aren’t driven by either political party.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
America: Is the world’s policeman on furlough?
*First appeared in the September 5, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
Lately, it seems that everyone has become a foreign policy expert. We all have strong opinions on Syria; we pretend to understand the geographic, religious, governmental, ethnic, and other complexities of Middle Eastern turmoil; we attempt to possess a strong handle on military strategy.
I'm just as guilty as the pretenders, as I have chosen to write a column on this very subject. However, rather than take a side, I'd like to look at the larger question that has plagued more than one President: What is America's role in the world?
Does the United States - the world's remaining "superpower" - have a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman? Or, should we temper our military efforts, engaging only in those conflicts which have a direct relationship to our economic, military, or other national interests?
President Obama is on a mission to answer this question - well, sort of. He believes that chemical weapons (sarin, specifically) were used by the Assad-led regime against the Syrian rebels. He has previously said chemical warfare was his "red line" that, once crossed, would guarantee American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict. Now our Commander-In-Chief says that Congress must give him approval to act before he will direct any military action in Syria.
To be honest, the President hasn’t been especially decisive on the issue. His actions don’t reflect his words. In a joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President reiterated his belief that America must act, saying that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons puts “America and Congress’s credibility on the line.” President Obama said our sincerity was at risk particularly because America gives "lip service" to the notion that international norms - such as the ban of chemical warfare - are important.
Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt agreed that "in the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent" and that despite the hesitance of other countries, the United States has a larger responsibility to the world.
So, Americans are perceived to have a larger responsibility than others to act, according to both our President and the Swedish Prime Minister. But is this perception reality?
The President says we must act; that we have a great responsibility to act...yet he has stalled military action by seeking congressional approval – an unusual precedent set by the chief executive. For an executive to cede power back to Congress in this manner gives the appearance of weakness.
It reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy mantra, "peace through strength." The popular President who was successful in ending the Cold War said this about peacekeeping: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."
Instead of embracing peace through strength, President Obama has been indecisive, sending mixed messages to our friends and our enemies both at home and abroad.
Further, President Obama drew the Biblical line in the sand at the use of chemical warfare yet, to date, no action has been taken. This has not only portrayed our leader as wavering and our nation as militarily tepid, but has also shown the world that its default global policeman is on furlough under the current administration.
Even our citizens are weary of our inherited role as peacekeeper, with nearly 59 percent opposing Syrian involvement according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll.
Does this indicate a change in attitudes, or is it simply a result of a war-fatigued nation? Will it be permanent, or will America regain its status as international law enforcer in future years?
Only time will tell how the current Syrian crisis plays out and how the United States will deal with this and future conflicts. While our nation may be moving away from its role as the world's policeman, I think it's important for our citizens and our leaders to remember America's unique role in global conflicts.
We are the beacon of hope; the protectorate of what is just and fair; we fight the good fight...or at least that is our global perception. But void of strength and absent a unified vision, we will be unable to maintain the respect, fear, and strategic allegiances that accompany the global policeman.
Remember former President Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy - that is, "speak softly and carry a big stick." America can only afford to speak softly if we've got the big stick to defend ourselves – and are willing to use it. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this President is willing to take that action.
Lately, it seems that everyone has become a foreign policy expert. We all have strong opinions on Syria; we pretend to understand the geographic, religious, governmental, ethnic, and other complexities of Middle Eastern turmoil; we attempt to possess a strong handle on military strategy.
I'm just as guilty as the pretenders, as I have chosen to write a column on this very subject. However, rather than take a side, I'd like to look at the larger question that has plagued more than one President: What is America's role in the world?
Does the United States - the world's remaining "superpower" - have a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman? Or, should we temper our military efforts, engaging only in those conflicts which have a direct relationship to our economic, military, or other national interests?
President Obama is on a mission to answer this question - well, sort of. He believes that chemical weapons (sarin, specifically) were used by the Assad-led regime against the Syrian rebels. He has previously said chemical warfare was his "red line" that, once crossed, would guarantee American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict. Now our Commander-In-Chief says that Congress must give him approval to act before he will direct any military action in Syria.
To be honest, the President hasn’t been especially decisive on the issue. His actions don’t reflect his words. In a joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President reiterated his belief that America must act, saying that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons puts “America and Congress’s credibility on the line.” President Obama said our sincerity was at risk particularly because America gives "lip service" to the notion that international norms - such as the ban of chemical warfare - are important.
Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt agreed that "in the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent" and that despite the hesitance of other countries, the United States has a larger responsibility to the world.
So, Americans are perceived to have a larger responsibility than others to act, according to both our President and the Swedish Prime Minister. But is this perception reality?
The President says we must act; that we have a great responsibility to act...yet he has stalled military action by seeking congressional approval – an unusual precedent set by the chief executive. For an executive to cede power back to Congress in this manner gives the appearance of weakness.
It reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy mantra, "peace through strength." The popular President who was successful in ending the Cold War said this about peacekeeping: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."
Instead of embracing peace through strength, President Obama has been indecisive, sending mixed messages to our friends and our enemies both at home and abroad.
Further, President Obama drew the Biblical line in the sand at the use of chemical warfare yet, to date, no action has been taken. This has not only portrayed our leader as wavering and our nation as militarily tepid, but has also shown the world that its default global policeman is on furlough under the current administration.
Even our citizens are weary of our inherited role as peacekeeper, with nearly 59 percent opposing Syrian involvement according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll.
Does this indicate a change in attitudes, or is it simply a result of a war-fatigued nation? Will it be permanent, or will America regain its status as international law enforcer in future years?
Only time will tell how the current Syrian crisis plays out and how the United States will deal with this and future conflicts. While our nation may be moving away from its role as the world's policeman, I think it's important for our citizens and our leaders to remember America's unique role in global conflicts.
We are the beacon of hope; the protectorate of what is just and fair; we fight the good fight...or at least that is our global perception. But void of strength and absent a unified vision, we will be unable to maintain the respect, fear, and strategic allegiances that accompany the global policeman.
Remember former President Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy - that is, "speak softly and carry a big stick." America can only afford to speak softly if we've got the big stick to defend ourselves – and are willing to use it. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this President is willing to take that action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)