Unclear Strategy in Libya Presents Dangers to U.S.

Paul A. IbbetsonThe Barack Obama administration has remained motionless while the people of Libya have struggled and even died to replace Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi. Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969, has been a sponsor of terrorism around the world and a ruthless dictator to his people for over 40 years. Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the “mad dog of the Middle East.” His removal from power, if done in the right way, could have been a positive situation for both the people of Libya and the U.S. Unfortunately, that window of opportunity has passed and now the Obama administration, after allowing hostilities to escalate, will attempt more passive U.N. strategies to quell this radical Islamic dictator. This strategy by the White House will inevitably fail in helping freedom seekers in Libya and it will also cause complications for America down the road.

The White House has already set a precedent for inaction in this region, and the sudden change we see coming from the Obama administration gives the appearance to the world that the President is being motivated to action by other forces. To radicals such as Gaddafi and his allies this is a sign of weakness. Barack Obama has done nothing but reinforce the point that the United States will take the backseat in reducing violence among the Libyan people. In fact, the president has gone to considerable efforts to make sure that friends and foes alike in the world understand just how many military options the U.S. won’t use to deal with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Settling back into America’s more familiar emasculated role within the United Nations, the United States will be limited predominantly to air strikes in Libya. Now Americans can settle in and watch the UN Security Council perform its primary function, creating resolutions that we must follow but that the radicals disregard when it is in their best interest. A little certainty of the old George Bush “shock and awe” would have rectified this situation rapidly, but alas, Gaddafi, as opposed to Saddam Hussein, has made a better dice roll when it comes to picking administrations to provoke. In fact, just what is the objective with the U.S. becoming involved in a Libyan civil war?

The White House states that the U.S. will work to safeguard the people of Libya. Are we to consider this vague mission statement a plan for regime change, nation building, or something as simple as a minor public show of assistance? Detractors of the president say that situations such as the handling of the Libyan dictator show another example of the President’s inexperience and inability to clearly step forward as leader of America. To others, Obama’s actions when it comes to Islamic nations reflect the strange bond that the president has with Muslim countries of the world. Even now with America’s new ambiguous stance against violence in Libya, the president appears to be more concerned about assuaging concerns in the Muslim world than protecting American interests and the ideals that America is known to stand for. Obama’s half motions and half-hearted policy stances are painful to watch and also come with a price. Obama will fail to find the allies in the Muslim world that he is so adamantly seeking. In fact, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and especially future dictators like these that we will face, will most likely have more success than Obama in garnering support from Muslim organizations such as the Arab league.

The problem with the president’s failure to lead is not centered on Libya; it is a much bigger and farther-reaching problem. Within the Middle East, countries that debate aggression against America must see that our nation’s leadership is clear and concise about what actions we will take to secure our own interests. That includes America’s belief in the value of freedom around the world and what we will do to support those that seek liberty against tyranny. If we are weak as a nation on our core values, we invite aggressors to attempt to force their values and their control over us. This is not acceptable to the long-term security of a free nation and the people of this country should not accept the precarious position in the world where the Barack Obama administration currently places us.

Share Button

Earthquake in Japan: Dependable Aid From America

There is no dependable way to foretell the next Paul A. Ibbetsonnatural calamity that will befall planet Earth. Actually, the only thing mankind can say about the next planet-shaking catastrophe is that after whatever horrendous event has ended, America will have aid en route. Yes, many countries give assistance to afflicted areas of the world; however, the unchallenged leader of emergency aid is always America. The United States is usually the first to arrive at devastated locations of the world by request and is the last to leave, having brought the lion’s share of assistance with no strings attached. In fact, our country’s speed, efficiency and overwhelming willingness to assist nations in need has in some corners become viewed as less of a matter of American charitableness and more of a matter of world entitlement.

This is an unfortunate world mentality that is often reinforced by liberals right here in the U.S. The truth is that Americans are not just exceptional, they are exceptional in their willingness to give to others. How so? America gives proportionally more aid for its size and population than any other developed country. Americans give readily across all income levels. We also give aid as a nation when there is virtually no chance of future reciprocation, such as the huge amounts of aid that have been sent to Haiti. This country sends assistance to places so hostile, such as Somalia, that simply getting the aid to its destination can be a life and death mission. Unlike Islamic nations, America brings charitable goods to countries with dictators that have been designated as enemies of the United States. The ongoing aid in Iraq is a salient example of this; however, a long-standing example of American aid to a previous enemy nation is before the world now in the catastrophe that has struck Japan.

On December 7, 1941, Japan ruthlessly attacked America at Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to officially enter World War II. After countless American lives were lost to the Japanese the war ended only after America developed and used atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America could have walked away from Japan and forced the defeated nation to fend for itself, could have been imperialistic and enslaved the nation as Japan had originally attempted to do with China. Instead, America saved China through Japan’s defeat and saved Japan through American charity and later the infusion of the capitalistic system. No other country of that era attempted, or completed, an equivalent forging of positive bonds as were made between Japan and America after World War II.

Recently as Japan was struck with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a subsequently devastating tsunami, the Los Angeles County Urban Search and Rescue team departed to assist the Asian country with 74,000 tons of rescue equipment and supplies followed shortly by another U.S. rescue team stationed in Fairfax, Virginia. These American rescue units, as reported by ABC News, are specially trained to deal with earthquake-related disasters. In addition, the U.S. government has ordered ships, air support and military troops to assist Japan with Humanitarian aid. Many countries will also do the right thing and help Japan in its time of need, but America will do the most and will do it for the longest. More importantly, through the unique, charitable nature of the American citizen and the country that bears its will, the United States will assist a country we have already built from the ashes up, a former enemy that struck the United States first so many decades ago. For all the chiding America takes around the world and internally from liberals of our own country, when it comes to getting emergency aid, or what some might call the charity “green,” the world always looks to the red, white and blue. Americans are not perfect, but we are certainly exceptional.

Share Button

Mexico: Your Spring Break Death-stination

As eager colleges students from around the country prepare to Paul A. Ibbetsonleave school for spring break, many ask the question, where is the best place to go to have the most fun? For parents, the questions that are pondered and even discussed with their children as they prepare to leave are usually somewhat different. Many parents attempt and often stumble through those awkward conversations about the potential dangers of traveling abroad. Common parental concerns for their children on holiday cover the spectrum but often include discussions about avoiding the following: being arrested, impregnating or becoming impregnated by a new intoxicated friend whose name tends to escape recall, all the way down to the embarrassing impromptu left or right-cheeked tattoo. I think you know which cheeks I am talking about. Some of America’s spring breaking youngsters will fail to heed their parents’ well-intentioned advice and the ramifications will range from laughable spring break stories to parents getting late-night phone calls for the need of the family lawyer and a bail deposit. Even in these more unfortunate spring break scenarios, parents of American children expect their kids to return home, straighten-up, and get back to work or school.

The idea of an American citizen’s child being abducted, raped, tortured, shot, beheaded or otherwise murdered for the most part still remains outside the typical parent’s pre-vacation precautionary mindset. Unfortunately, an untimely death does potentially await traveling Americans on vacations such as spring break. What does that mean? It means that there is always of element of danger traveling as a tourist abroad. The American public still has fresh in their minds the case of 18-year-old Natalee Holloway, the young girl that went missing on May 30, 2005, during a chaperoned high school graduation trip in Aruba. Most viewers of this travel tragedy were likely to have been absorbed in the Holloway family drama, or the bizarre statements and actions of the suspect Joran van der Sloot. One of the important lessons almost lost within this national story was that all tourists when abroad are potential victims. The best that can be hoped for is that one maximizes the likelihood of survival with the same vigor that is put into plans for fun and entertainment. Then there is the subject of Mexico.

Compared to present dangers of Aruba, Mexico is nothing short of a war zone. Most Americans are aware of the massive influx of illegal aliens through the U.S. southern border and since September 11, 2001, a growing number of Americans have been attempting, largely in vain, to force the government to secure the nation’s porous southern border. To a greater extent the secure border argument has been surrounding the staggering economic cost to U.S. taxpayers from illegal immigration but Americans that live near, or have traveled to areas such as Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras, Reynosa, Matamoros and Monterrey know those are places where Mexicans are slaughtered daily and where Americans can get caught in the crossfire. The U.S. Department of State reports that Americans have been trapped between firefights in areas such as Nayarit, Jalisco and Colima and have been unable to leave the area until hostilities have diminished. As reported by Lee Ferran of ABC News, the U.S. Embassy has recently been urging U.S. citizens to limit or avoid traveling in parts of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua. The Texas Department of Public Safety has echoed this sentiment for the simple reason that in those places, tourists’ safety cannot be guaranteed.

Despite the beauty and abundance of natural resources that exist for the tourist trade, traveling to Mexico is akin to playing Russian roulette with more bullet chambers full than empty. Here is an example: the State Department tells people that the Mexican military and police are currently fighting to control Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and that they have set up many checkpoints within the country and that traveling Americans should comply with officials at these checkpoints. The State Department’s website also explains that DTOs have also been known to wear military and police uniforms, have vehicles that resemble police cars and possess automatic weapons and grenades. These DTOs are said to be known to create false checkpoints, placing Americans at risk.

In 2009, the Houston Chronicle reported that over 200 Americans have been killed in Mexico since 2004. As Lise Olsen reported in the investigative piece, more non-military Americans died unnatural deaths in Mexico than in any other country from 2004 to 2009. The average was one dead American per week. If you turn on your television today you are bound to hear a Mexican official related in some way to the tourist trade assuring Americans they are safe at Mexico’s tourist locations. However, in 2009 CNN reported that in the well-known Mexican vacation spot Cancun the tortured body of Mauro Enrique Tello Quiñonez, the area’s top drug enforcement official, was found along with other dead bodies in the heavily visited tourist area. Over 100,000 American teens and young adults are reported to travel into Mexico yearly and they do so with a Mexican government that can neither control its criminal elements in the drug trade, nor safeguard tourists that are simply looking for some fun in the sun, and maybe a little bit more. American parents and their children alike should carefully contemplate whether or not taking holiday in Mexico is worth the heightened risk that it will surely offer this year’s tourists.

Share Button

Christians Push Back Against Gay Agenda in Kansas

Recently there has been a push by liberalsPaul A. Ibbetson to advance the homosexual agenda into pivotal areas of American life. Barack Obama’s abolition of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military has replaced silent service for gays with the requirement that the heterosexual majority of our fighting forces now accommodate a new, aggressive homosexual agenda if they wish to continue to defend the country. The foundation of traditional marriage in American culture is also under full assault. In another stunning attempt to force the homosexual agenda on the American people, Fox News reports that Barack Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the law of the land that states marriage as between a man and a woman, as constitutional. Thus we see the lengths liberals will go to achieve their goals, to fundamentally change society. What many might not be aware of is just how many parts of daily lives are being challenged by the gay agenda and the modus operandi of those involved.

If one looks closely, a repetitious pattern of presentation and action is observable from the liberal left. To start with, some radical change in traditional culture for the greater good is always forwarded, while at the same time the public at large is denied an opportunity to exercise their voices through a vote on the issue. When a people’s vote does slip by the liberal machine, it is later circumvented by a governmental fiat. To liberals, the best societal decisions are best made without society. The issue of how we recognize traditional marriage, the law that Barack Obama is now declaring void without the authority of the courts, as a tyrannical third-world dictator might do, is an issue that has already been decided by the voters. The overwhelming majority of Americans have already voted for traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once again, it would take a complete subversion of the voting majority to attack this Judeo-Christian pillar of American society. Unfortunately, this is not just a Barack Obama problem. The actions of this President are simply a byproduct of a growing problem that has been taking place for some time in this country. In reality, Barack Obama is nothing more than the predictable fruit of the loins of modern-day liberalism, and that fruity fruit has been very fruitful.

As moral depravity is being pushed on America’s defensive forces and the foundation of America in traditional marriage, liberals have been working to destroy Christian values in day-to-day business interactions. While an infiltration of homosexual ideology may have been brewing as far back as 2005, the actual blitzkrieg that struck Manhattan, Kansas, and turned the traditional town into the most liberal in the state happened within 11 short months. Within those months, the gay activist group LGBT became ensconced within Kansas State University, a month was designated by political decree for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender awareness complete with its own gay pride parade, and the passage of the most liberal anti-Christian discrimination law the state of Kansas has ever seen was passed by a 3-2 vote. In keeping with the liberal standard operating procedures of today, the voters of Kansas were bypassed to advance a political agenda that was, and continues to be, counter to the majority’s will. Beware of anyone or any group that tells of the great things they will do that you will eventually enjoy, and then works with all their ingenuity to make sure you are excluded from the decision making process.

While the nation needs to push back the societal suicide being demanded by Barack Obama and liberal surrogates, the people of Manhattan, Kansas, are taking it upon themselves to stand up for their town’s traditional values. They are doing this through a repeal petition on the anti-discrimination ordinance alteration that made lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people a protected class with the ability to bring preemptive charges against citizens of Kansas, thus beginning a process of mayor-appointed kangaroo courts with non-elected judges and business crushing fines. The same bill gives no protection to Christians outside their congregational buildings as “Main Street” is being transformed into “Gay Street” and all those who find themselves in violations will be severely punished. The citizens of Manhattan, Kansas, are pushing back against the gay agenda with the radical notion that they, of all things, should be able to vote on the laws that will affect their daily lives. Local Kansas pastors and other Christian leaders are currently gathering petition carriers and making their case for the ordinance repeal through the community website Awakenmanhattan.com.

As the nation decides whether or not to push back against the liberal gay agenda being forced upon the majority of America, they would do well to watch the battle that is brewing in Manhattan, Kansas. For this city in the heartland of America, the majority of citizens are going to take a stand and attempt to reverse a portion of the invasive gay agenda that is attacking not only our state, but the country. The battle that will be fought and the ending outcome may very well reflect the nation’s will to hold fast to the biblical and constitutional values that have made this country great.

Share Button