Archive | FOREIGN POLICY RSS feed for this section


23 Jul


While criticism continues to pour in, it doesn’t seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is all that bothered by what people outside of his country think of the efforts being made to squash Hamas and their reign of terror in Israel.

Netanyahu appeared on Fox News Sunday and in just three minutes explained why “Operation Protective Edge” is absolutely necessary to the survival of Israel. IJReview reports that the Israeli Prime Minister made three powerful points, which if correctly understood, completely justifies every course of action taken by the country so far.

The Israeli leader’s first point was that Israel will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of its people from Hamas and other radical terror groups.

Netanyahu went on to state that Hamas was targeting massive areas of Israel, a point he drove home by using the U.S. in a powerful illustration.

“I just want your viewers to imagine the United States being bombarded not in one city or two cities, but in every city between New York and Colorado. 80% of your citizens would have to be in bomb shelters or ready to go into bomb shelters within a minute to minute-and-a half, max. No country can accept that, we can’t accept it, and we’ll take the necessary actions to stop it.”

The prime minister also discussed the difficulty in taking out Hamas rocket launchers, since the terror group often conducts their attacks from within urban areas, using fellow Palestinians as human shields, an act Netanyahu condemns as cowardly.

“Here’s the difference between us. We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu is absolutely right. The U.S. would never in a million years accept the kind of treatment that Israel has patiently endured for years. America would retaliate with a massive coordinated military strategy that would not only secure freedom and peace, but would obliterate the enemy ensuring they never return to cause trouble again.

This is precisely what Israel is attempting to do, the same action any country would take, yet liberals the world over are jumping on the pro-Hamas bandwagon, eagerly taking every opportunity they’re given to express their anti-Semitic views.

Hopefully President Obama will snap out of his anti-colonialist coma and see that Israel is being bullied and will be motivated to throw support behind their efforts to secure peace.

This Romney – Obama debate moment now haunting the president! 45 seconds

23 Jul obama

Mitt Romney saw this coming a long time ago, according to a video posted on IJ Review. “Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again,” he said to Obama during the third presidential debate in 2012. “I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin. I’m certainly not going to say to him, ‘I’ll give you more flexibility after the election.’ ”

Romney predicted exactly how Putin would respond to such attempts at appeasement: “After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, of course. There are many pundits who claim now to have seen all along what would happen in U.S. – Russia relations under a continued Obama presidency, just as there are many who predicted then that only Obama could keep the peace between the two countries.

Obama’s response, that Romney wanted to return the U.S. to the Cold War is equally telling. The Cold War had been “over for 20 years,” as Obama said. The president seems to forget, however, that it was Ronald Reagan’s policy of dealing with the Soviet Union from a position of strength that ended the Cold War.

Just as Obama’s appeasement seems poised to start it up all over again.

Mark Caserta: Immigration important to liberal cause

17 Jul


Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.

In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.

Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.

However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.

Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.

Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.

Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.

But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.

For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.

But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.


9 Jul


Instead, He chose to drink a beer and shoot some pool…

Democratic congressman Henry Cuellar ripped President Obama for being “aloof” and “detached” by not visiting the Texas border to see first hand the immigration crisis. Cuellar made the comments on MSNBC:

“He’s so close to the border. And let me say this: when I saw, and I hate to use the word bizarre, but under the circumstances, when he is shown playing pool in Colorado, drinking a beer, and he can’t even go 242 miles to the Texas border, and plus, if he doesn’t want to go down to the border, there’s the Air Force Base where HHS is holding some of the young kids from the border. He could at least make that trip to San Antonio, but again, border community leaders wants to see him down there on the border, and I think the optics and the substance of it is that he should show up at the border,” said Cuellar.

And he had some advice for the White House.”If they are worried about putting a face, the president’s face, to this human crisis, humanitarian crisis, I think it’s worse if he doesn’t even show up. Either way, he’s going to be tied into this humanitarian crisis. he either can roll up his sleeves and go down to the border, or he can just look aloof and detached and not go to the border, send surrogates down there, and say that he’s got everything under control.”

He adds, “It Just floored me, because if he’s saying he’s too busy to go to the border but you have time to drink beer, play pool.”
The president was in Colorado last night — drinking beer and playing pool.


Mark Caserta: US foreign policy heartens aggressors

19 Jun


Jun. 19, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The recent offensive launched by Sunni insurgents is the first real challenge to Iraq’s security since the American withdrawal in 2011. But the stakes are high for the United States as well.

America is only as secure as the strength we portray to the world in the integrity, determination and moral fiber of our leadership. Sadly, the fact that this administration is perceived as sorely lacking in these attributes is conducive to challenge.

A recent Washington Post editorial board column described Obama’s foreign policy as one based on “fantasy,” employed in a world in which the president believed “the tide of war” was receding and the United States could “without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces” as well as its tenacity in temperament.

“President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality,” the column read. “Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.”

But leaders around the world are “old school” and operate in reality when it comes to military prowess.

An effective military isn’t simply based on its size and capability, but the enemy’s perception of its willingness to deploy assets if an immovable, non-negotiable line is crossed. And we can’t negotiate with terrorists. Conciliation empowers them.

President Obama did, however, make the right decision when he brought our troops home in 2011 to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of their own freedom. For years I’ve maintained that the U.S. has erred in thinking that freedom can be delivered by a U.S. carrier. Freedom’s value is relative to the price at which it was secured. In the case of the U.S., thousands of men and women have paid the ultimate price, not only to secure our freedom, but assist the Iraqis in achieving theirs.

But the naivete with which our commander-in-chief “trumpeted” our withdrawal was a huge military mistake brought on by political aspiration and was a gift to our enemies in the Middle East. And now any hesitancy to react with at least drone strikes to bolster the Iraqis and provide them a foothold would be foolish. But once again, the world is watching Obama’s passive and indecisive reaction to aggression.

The 4,500 Americans killed and the far larger number permanently wounded is too great of a price to pay to see all that they fought for lost. Iraq War veterans across the country are watching with dismay as the same insurgency they fought and defeated returns to control in Iraq.

The larger issue is that we have a president whose repetitive display of ineptness in dealing with our enemies is emboldening aggression across the globe.

The U.S. can only expect to avoid major military conflict by electing leadership able to reposition America in the eyes of our enemy.

And show the world the United States is unshakable about protecting our freedom.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: