Asked at any point before May 1^st of last year, the question above would have been ridiculous.  Outside of liberal intellectuals and college students, whose idea of “restoring America’s reputation in the world” is something on the order of “surrender and tell the bad guys you want to be friends,” few would have credited the early part of the Obama Administration as a foreign policy success.

But it’s amazing what one dead bad guy and a bad economy will do to a presidency.  Whether or not Obama really has a chance of parlaying one good moment into a re-election, it’s clear that his campaign is at least toying with the idea of trying to draw a contrast with Mitt Romney on foreign policy to try to distract attention from the fact that unemployment is still above neigh percent and shows no signs of dropping quickly.

So there you have it.  When the economy stays bad despite pretty much your entire policy agenda being enacted, it’s time to run for plan B.  And apparently for Obama, plan B is reminding America that he’s the one on whose watch Bin Laden was killed.

Will it work?  Stay tuned until November to be sure, but here are some questions we can answer to try to project whether this strategy will help Obama in the long term.

• How much does foreign policy matter in this election?

The answer seems to be, “not much.”

An April  Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that only three percent of voters said that foreign policy was the most important issue to them in thinking about the presidential campaign.  A CNN/ORC poll conducted around the same time found that only two percent of Americans say that terrorism is the most important issue facing the country.  Both polls found majorities saying that the economy was their top concern.

•  How much credit does Obama get for Bin Laden’s death?

The evidence on this question seems to be equivocal.   Immediately following Bin Laden’s death, approval of Obama’s handling of terrorism jumped 11 points, from 61% to 72% according to trend from AP-GfK.  But within a month that rating returned to 63% and it has stayed in the low 60s since.

So Americans clearly gave Obama credit for “getting Bin Laden” but not enough to fundamentally change their impressions even of his efforts in combating terrorism.

•  Did that singular event fundamentally change the way Americans view Obama’s Administration?

Here again the answer is a clear “no.”  Obama did see a small job approval jump immediately after Bin Laden’s death, according to Gallup nightly tracking, but that bump quickly ebbed and today he is still stuck with almost as many Americans disapproving of the job he’s doing (46%) as approve (47%)

The bottom line is that it’s not at all clear that Obama can score a win on foreign policy.  What is clear though is that even a win on the foreign policy won’t do much to help Obama win the war and retain the presidency.  It is, as it so often is, still the economy, stupid.

The denizens hailing President Obama’s change of opinion regarding homosexual marriage claim their mission is “the right to marry for everyone”, “marriage equality”, “the end of discrimination” and other such idealistic statements. However, their claims of fighting for fairness noticeably omit others currently not allowed to marry whomever they wish.

Homosexual advocates and their allies frequently lump together all deviant sexual lifestyles as “LGBT”. One could reasonably conclude that members of all four of those classifications are united in pursuit of the same goals and mutual support of each other reaching those. If all four of those classifications are considered equally deserving of marrying whomever they wish, why are homosexual advocates excluding bisexuals from the quest marrying whomever they want? They condone the discrimination against bisexuals by touting a monogamous relationship as the basis for marriage. That limitation prevents those attracted to both sexes from marrying those whom they prefer. Why do these hypocrites want to deny bisexuals the right to both a man and a woman as their sexuality dictates? Why are homosexual advocates trying to force their morality on those others?

Why are supporters of the redefinition of marriage not demanding the right for intra-familial marriages? After all, those were legally recognized in different societies throughout history whereas homosexual marriages were never sanctioned. Incestuous marriages existed in ancient Egypt and in other societies millennia ago as brothers married sisters. Throughout the Middle Ages and Industrial Ages, European aristocracy arranged marriages between cousins. Also, Mohamadans have arranged marriages between cousins since Mohamad proclaimed the limitations on sexual relations, which do not include a ban on marriages between first cousins. The creator of Islam even arranged the marriage of one of his nephews to one of his daughters. So why do homosexual advocates and their apologists hate people of the intra-familial sexual orientation?

The proponents of homosexual marriage state that two people should be allowed to be legally married, whether that is a heterosexual or homosexual couple. Glaringly, that limitation excludes Mohamadan men who want more than one wife. How do they justify their tacit support of the ban on polygyny, thus denying a Mohamadan man a second, third, or fourth wife as the Koran states he has a right to do? Why are homosexual advocates and their lackeys blatantly engaging in Islamophobia?

Facile minds claim that everyone should be granted legal recognition of whatever type of intimate relationships that a person has. Have they never considered the consequences of that change? Do they prefer change for the sake of change? Do they actually prefer to water down this definition so it no longer has any importance? How do they justify demanding legally recognized marriages yet excluding other alternative sexual relationships?  Undermining a cornerstone of civilization carries serious consequences, which its detractors refuse to recognize.

Marriage has served as the foundation of the family for millennia. The mockery of the practice by empty-headed celebrities and shortsighted serial brides and grooms cannot diminish the value of the tradition. By extending the term “marriage” to a non-heterosexual and non-monogamous relationships, it undercuts the meaning of the term. The stability of this institution rests upon its more than mere sexual activity. Marriage binds together a couple with the assumption that the man and woman from different families will create and raise children. That bears much more importance than simply pacifying tiny minorities demanding governmental endorsement of their divergent lifestyles.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 2012

Obama’s energy policies are a key vulnerability in the November elections, which has his staff scrambling to make it look like he’s actually done something to support domestic energy production. Since neither he nor anyone in his Administration knows the first thing about oil and gas, that can lead to some pretty ridiculous claims.

Like, for example, the following graph, found at Obama For America‘s website.  (The small arrow reads “Obama Takes Office”. Click on the graph to see a larger size.).

At the end of this post you will find a FIFY (“Fixed It For You”) graph which identifies several other events of significance equal to or greater than that of Obama’s inauguration.

Read More →

Obama’s energy policies are a key vulnerability in the November elections, which has his staff scrambling to make it look like he’s actually done something to support domestic energy production. Since neither he nor anyone in his Administration knows the first thing about oil and gas, that can lead to some pretty ridiculous claims.

Like, for example, the following graph, found at Obama For America‘s website.  (The small arrow reads “Obama Takes Office”. Click on the graph to see a larger size.).

At the end of this post you will find a FIFY (“Fixed It For You”) graph which identifies several other events of significance equal to or greater than that of Obama’s inauguration.

Read More →

Barack Obama’s recent announcement regarding gay marriage during an ABC News interview comes as no surprise to anyone with a modicum of interest in the 2012 elections. This is less a startling revelation and more a calculated effort to motivate his liberal base and, more specifically, their check books. There is no secret that the Left has adopted LGBT concerns as the “new civil rights battle,” something to motivate themselves in this area. This announcement by Obama was presaged on the Sunday morning talk shows when Vice President Biden stated his new views regarding gay marriage. And, of course, despite the efforts by liberals and their allies, the rallying cry for the announcements by Biden and Obama was the North Carolina gay marriage amendment on the primary ballot which passed.

Any law, to some extent, is an expression of morality in some sense. What is not an expression of morality per se is a Gallup or any other poll that shows an increased tolerance for gay marriage (or any other issue for that matter). Hence, these polls that indicate Americans are more accepting of gay marriage stands in direct opposition to actual voting behavior. As the voters of North Carolina indicated on May 8th, they joined the ranks of some 29 other states that have state constitutional or statutory bans on same sex marriage. Only eight states- New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, Maryland- and DC recognize and/or allow same sex marriage. Obviously, despite their best spin on the situation and despite the results of these public opinion polls, there is greater opposition to gay marriage than there is legal acceptance of gay marriage. As further proof of this tendency, in most instances where gay marriage has been banned at the state level through constitutional amendments enacted in response to ballot referendums, the results have been a resounding rejection of the idea. Even the voters of a blue state like California rejected gay marriage through Proposition 8. To listen to liberals speak, the mores of America have so changed in the recent past that there is overwhelming support for same sex marriage. However, like most liberal mantras, the argument falls apart when presented with reality.

That is not to insinuate that one’s views cannot change over time. As mentioned in other postings here on Redstate, my personal views regarding gay marriage have changed somewhat from a stalwart opponent to one of moderation. Leaving aside the religious arguments against same sex marriage and homosexuality in general, upon research I found no reasons to be a stalwart opponent. However, that same research revealed that there was no good reason for same sex marriage. Most of the “rights” that state-sanctioned gay marriage would confer on couples could be had through intestacy or contract law. In only one instance does the LGBT community have a case- that of a spouse being compelled to testify against the other. Even then, it is possible that some statute, as part of a broader scheme that recognizes civil unions, could address that problem.

One of the things that leads me to like Ron Paul in one sense- and I am not a Ron Paul supporter- is his consistency in principle. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq War and Afghanistan and a frequent and consistent opponent of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, I have my problems with the Catholic Church’s views on certain issues (disclaimer: I am Catholic). For example, I don’t like their stand on immigration and their acceptance of “sanctuary cities” and such. However, their views are consistent and principled upon the sanctity of life wherever those views lead. Those views leads to relentless opposition to abortion and state-sponsored contraception, but they also lead to opposition of the death penalty. What is disturbing about Obama’s “change of heart” and Biden’s changing views is that they reflect a lack of principled, underlying philosophy and worldview. In short, their principles are guided less my reflection and research of an issue and more upon reflection upon their chances of gaining money supporters in the liberal community and research into polls.

Obama tried to nuance the response to ABC News by resorting to Orwellian tactics. For example, he states that the government’s decision not to defend DOMA is based less on an acceptance of homosexual rights and more upon state’s rights. He has stolen a conservative view and applied it to a liberal outcome. We see this elsewhere. Government control over the Internet is the better sounding “net neutrality” while stifling free speech is the “Fairness Doctrine.” In short, Obama claims that the issue of marriage was federalized with DOMA and that should have never occurred. Hence, his Justice Department will no longer defend it in court. But there is a serious problem with that line of thinking from Obama now. If he really believes that marriage in general and gay marriage in particular is a state issue, then he has to accept how the states- through legislation, referendum, or amendment- define marriage. Liberals cannot accept that fact and where the people have spoken through legal referendums, they have resorted to the courts to curry favor in support of their agenda.

And his comments about marriage being federalized are somewhat disingenuous. Mainly through the complicated tax code and social safety net legislation, there are thousands of references to marriage. If he, or anyone, truly wishes to “defederalize” the issue of marriage, then all references, penalties and advantages of “marriage” should be purged from federal legislation.

Acceptance of same sex marriage may very well be changing in America, although it is doubtful given the obvious disconnect between polling data and results at the only polls that count. If so, then over time laws against same sex marriage will fall. That certainly has not happened and, in fact as North Carolina recently proved, the exact opposite may be happening- a collective circling of the wagons around the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However, it is now hypocritical and disingenuous of the President to stand before the American people and state that his views have “evolved” to the point of acceptance of gay marriage and that this issue rightfully belongs with the states. It is great that he has suddenly had this states rights epiphany, but if it is true, then he must accept and honor when the people of those states speak at the polls. I have no problem with Obama being in favor of gay marriage and making it a campaign issue, nor do I have a problem with him using the bully pulpit to advance his new-found beliefs and expressing his view when a state initiative is headed to a vote. However, I have serious problems with Obama and liberals claiming the mantle of states rights then working to abrogate states rights when the decision fails to create their desired outcome. That is not the definition of the evolution of a view on a controversial subject. At best, it is the definition of crass political gamesmanship. At worst, it is the definition of hypoocrisy.

“What I’m hearing from folks around the country is: ‘Game on, we’re in, we will do whatever is necessary to elect Mitt Romney now because Obama has shown where he really stands,’” Brown said.

(HT: Politico.com)

A lot of Social Conservatives looked askance at Mitt Romney’s relatively easy victory in this year’s GOP Primary race. I endorsed Rick Santorumin the GOP Primary myself. Then conceded to reality and decided to suck it up. Thus, I refrain from whinging over various primary season butt-hurts and support my party’s inevitable nominee.

Then yesterday happened – now it’s time to commit even for the Mitt! At least that’s what some recent polling suggests is now happening in the GOP.

Read More →

“What I’m hearing from folks around the country is: ‘Game on, we’re in, we will do whatever is necessary to elect Mitt Romney now because Obama has shown where he really stands,’” Brown said.

(HT: Politico.com)

A lot of Social Conservatives looked askance at Mitt Romney’s relatively easy victory in this year’s GOP Primary race. I endorsed Rick Santorumin the GOP Primary myself. Then conceded to reality and decided to suck it up. Thus, I refrain from whinging over various primary season butt-hurts and support my party’s inevitable nominee.

Then yesterday happened – now it’s time to commit even for the Mitt! At least that’s what some recent polling suggests is now happening in the GOP.

Read More →

Yesterday, president Obama announced his support for gay marriage, and the mainstream media became abuzz with “breaking news” headlines, stories from the “inside”, and “exclusive” interviews with “anonymous” sources. But truthfully, who cares? Did it REALLY surprise ANYONE that Obama supports gay marriage? Sure, publicly, he’s flip-flopped back and forth finally taking the official stance of “my position is still evolving”, whatever the heck that means. But I think we should take a moment to examine the relevance of his support and what that means for the gay movement.

The issue of gay marriage has been primarily fought at the state level, with many states passing restrictions, and a few allowing such marriages to commence. Sure, there’s been some action at the federal level, such as the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (it wasn’t REALLY a repeal but instead, a brand new law), and Obama’s decision to not defend DOMA, otherwise known as the “Defense of Marriage Act” (technically an unconstitutional threat as the president is required to defend the constitution, which includes the “Supremacy Clause” and requires Obama to defend DOMA whether he likes it or not), but none of that is really here nor there as, for the most part, the states are responsible for deciding their own laws governing marriage. In fact, the power of the states to define marriage for themselves is codified in DOMA as each state is not required to recognize a marriage certificate issued in another. So, it can easily be argued that this issue has already been fought at the federal level and, apart from deciding to not defend DOMA, there’s really little else that Obama CAN do to further the movement. Even if Obama were to push for a repeal of DOMA, those states that prohibit gay marriage would simply add a section to their existing laws codifying their intent to only recognize certain marriage certificates (if such a section were not already present).

The issue of gay marriage is never going to be decided by Obama, nor by Congress. Instead, the issue has evolved to the point that it will only be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Obama suddenly deciding that he’s supportive of gay marriage has no relevance to the issue itself and anyone who was surprised by his sudden show of support yesterday should know that the only reason Obama came out in support is because Romney is firmly against the idea of gay marriage. In other words, to Obama, it’s nothing more than a calculated political move that Obama HOPES will pay off on Election Day by rallying the mostly liberal, LGBT crowd.

We Call This Federalism Instead of Open Cowardice

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

(HT: Yahoo News)

I’m thinking President Obama regrets two of his decisions right about now. He wishes he wasn’t about to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC and he’d rather have Opus The Penguin as a Veep right now instead of Huey “The Kingfish” Biden. As our Commander-In-Chief leans forward, gasps for breath and removes the 9” piece of steaming cutlery Mr. Biden recently sheathed between two of his vertebrae, he attempts to find a new and unique way to straddle the contentious issue of homosexual marriage.

Read More →

We Call This Federalism Instead of Open Cowardice

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

(HT: Yahoo News)

I’m thinking President Obama regrets two of his decisions right about now. He wishes he wasn’t about to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC and he’d rather have Opus The Penguin as a Veep right now instead of Huey “The Kingfish” Biden. As our Commander-In-Chief leans forward, gasps for breath and removes the 9” piece of steaming cutlery Mr. Biden recently sheathed between two of his vertebrae, he attempts to find a new and unique way to straddle the contentious issue of homosexual marriage.

Read More →