Admittedly, the headline above is just a rhetorical question, since any Republican President, and for that matter, some Democratic Presidential candidates would be a vast improvement over our presidential "lame-brain", Obama. No, in all fairness, I should not disparage Obama's intelligence, which is certainly considerable. But it is not matched by a corresponding level of wisdom, and that is unfortunate for his Administration, which is apparently built around like-minded numb-skulls who are even more greatly deficient in this area than he is. Consequently, his advisers are probably mere "Liberal" sycophants who praise him for his great wisdom, when they could not correctly define the term if their life depended upon it. The Biblical definition of "Wisdom" begins with a fear of the Lord, which this Administration obviously lacks, and includes the righteous discretion between knowing when to act, and when not to. And they certainly lack that, too.
Today, we have the announcement that Senator Rand Paul is officially running for president. Whoopee!!! What an improvement! A fiscally conservative "Libertarian" who wants to become President so he can continue the "Isolationist" foreign policy of the Obama Administration, for different reasons. I can't see the difference between Obama's withdrawing troops from Iraq, allowing a civil war to break out between the I.S.I.S. Sunni muslims, and the Iranian Shiite muslims, and Paul's general isolationist views that will allow foreign governments to "fight their own wars". That sounds fine in principle, but how do you tell the Ukrainian people to fight the Russian troops that dress up in civilian clothes and fight with sophisticated Russian weapons against their own troops with considerably less weaponry, in terms of both quantity, and quality. And the same is apparently true in Yemen, where Iranian troops are obviously pretending to be civilian militias, who just happen to be Shiite muslims, who support Iran's efforts to take over the whole Middle-East corridor. Sure, Iran should be able to defeat the horribly murderous "I.S.I.S. Caliphate" which we would certainly approve, but then what? Iran would then be able to establish their own Shiite "Caliphate" with their alliances with Iraq, Assad's Syria, and Lebanon all approving. Kuwait would be a tiny morsel to be gobbled up within hours, along with their rich oil fields. And Iran would then be able to control all the territory west of Afghanistan, clear to the Mediterranean Sea. How long before they would gobble up Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan too, along with it's nuclear arms capacity? Talk about a "Muslim Caliphate"! This would be a Shiite dream stretching from the western borders of India, to the Mediterranean, threatening the safety of India, to the east, and Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf States to the south, and most importantly, they would be camped on the "mountains of Israel", immediately to their south, just drooling over the chance to invade their most hated enemy, just as soon as Putin (their Russian ally) could bring his troops down to take over the invasion of Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, leaving them free to "drive Israel into the sea". Yessir, "Isolationism" is certainly the solution to all our foreign policy difficulties, unless you happen to be Saudi Arabian, or (God forbid!) Israeli! Thank God Jesus is not an "Isolationist", and He has no intention of allowing Russia, and Iran to run "rough-shod" over the whole Middle-East, destroying everything in their paths, including His "chosen people", Israel. He has His own plans for the region, as explained in His Ezekiel 38, & 39 prophecy, which I've expounded on at length (see the "Archives" list to the right of this column). And He's not likely to ask either Obama, or a potential President Paul if they approve!
Where does "Isolationism" serve to help the world to protect themselves from the hegemonistic tyrants of the world, bent on grabbing as much of other peoples' countries as they can, while we sit on our fat bank accounts, and tell them to fight their "own wars"? Where would we be today if France had said the same thing to our fore-fathers, rather than bankrupt their economy by supporting our revolution? Granted, they paid a heavy price for our freedom, but they had already antagonized their populace with decades, or more, of financial shenanigans worthy of their eventual beheadings alone. Excepting their financial differences, I don't see a lot of difference between Sen. Paul, and Obama, whom I rate as the worst President in American history!
No comments:
Post a Comment