April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
In today’s column I suggested that the State of the Union address would be a good time for Obama to give the Iranian opposition a boost. In the speech, Obama primarily touted diplomatic arms control effort, and said that because of those,
the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.
On the opposition protestors, all he said was that “we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran.” Not the men? It’s good that he mentioned the protestors, but this is pretty weak sauce. Is Obama still buying into the wrongheaded conceit that too much overt American support would be bad for the opposition? Even many liberal analysts have abandoned that view (here’s Spencer Ackerman agreeing with Eli Lake on this point on BloggingHeads last month). This is disappointing.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?