When he ran for President in 2008, some of us suggested that Barack Obama lacked the experience to be the Chief Executive of the United States and Commander in Chief of our armed forces.  After all, when you’ve written two autobiographies before you’ve had your first real job, red flags tend to go up.  It didn’t matter.  Hope and change, right?  And so it came to pass that a man devoid of any economic experience, foreign policy experience, indeed, any real-world experience, became our 44th President.  As bad as that was, Obama could have functioned, had he put experienced advisers around him and followed their advice.  He didn’t.  Instead, he exhibited extreme levels of ignorance and arrogance, concluding that he and he alone knows best.

In domestic policy, that didn’t matter much.  As a Marxist, Obama had a ready-made plan to follow.  However, in the field of foreign policy, Obama’s     delusions of adequacy have led him to be so reckless as to refuse to read his daily intelligence briefings.  Obama was involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he had no intention of fighting either one.  Former Defense Secretary Gates has said that Obama’s policy was all about getting out.  A retired General has said that Obama never accepted the advice of the military on the troop levels required.  He never gave the military the number of troops they told him were necessary.  You see, Obama knew better.  And what he knew was that the military is the problem.  A strong military is likely to be used, so as a man of peace, Obama set out to reduce the size and power of the military.  If the military isn’t strong enough to get the job done, then a military solution is off the table.  He wants peace, you see.

Obama decided America would “lead from behind” in the Middle East.  He pulled out of Iraq.  He announced plans to pull out of Afghanistan.  He drew a “red line” in Syria, and when the line was breached, he never mentioned it again.  He let terrorists in Libya kill our Ambassador and three other people without lifting a finger to try to help them, and then lied about it.  He agreed to a plan to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, while at the same time giving Iran $150 billion in frozen assets to fund the development.  He traded five high-level Islamic terrorists for a soldier who has been charged with desertion.   He has released other terrorists from Guantanamo, and now he’s planning to close that prison altogether.  His policy, or lack thereof, helped ISIS to get started and to expand.  We have seen mass beheadings and people burned alive by ISIS.  Then, on Friday morning last, in the wake of the ISIS bombings of a Russian airliner and the killing of 43 people in Beirut, Obama announced that ISIS had been contained.  Almost as if on cue, that same day ISIS terrorists in Paris attacked six locations simultaneously, killing 132 and wounding hundreds more.  This, Obama tells us, was “a setback.”  Some of the Paris terrorists had been admitted into the EU as refugees from Syria.  Indeed, ISIS has announced its intention to imbed terrorists among genuine refugees.  Yet Obama has derided, and says he will veto, any attempt to stop or delay the admission of thousands of Syrians to the U.S. as “un-American.”  This, Obama tells us, “is not who we are.”

Well, I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of Americans have no confusion about “who we are.”  The pertinent question, I submit is, “Who is Obama?”  Sure, he wants peace, but on what terms?  The policy of “peace through strength” has sustained leaders from the Roman Emperor Hadrian to Ronald Reagan.  Obama’s policy is “peace through weakness.”  What else can you call it?  When the French and the Pope are more bellicose than you are, then you are weak.  Obama prefers surrender to conflict.  When you surrender, you get peace, but often, it is the peace of the grave.  And through it all, Obama lectures us that our greatest threat is climate change.  He may have a point.  When the Iranian nukes start landing on their targets, the climate will decidedly change, and global warming finally will be a proven fact.

To wrap this up, we are faced with two and only two possibilities.  Barack Obama either is a delusional neophyte whose policy of deliberate weakness has endangered free people all over the world, or he is actively working for the other side, purposely participating in the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.  So I put it to you – Barack Obama:  weakling or quisling?  Either way we’re in a lot of trouble.