Sunday, July 27, 2014

The Most Interesting Shows on Fox News.

Recently, I read an article on Mediaite detailing their 12 Best Shows on Cable News.  From their journalistic perspectives, it was interesting to see which shows they believe answer the tough questions.  As cited in the article however, the most informative shows on cable news are not necessarily the most watched and well received by the viewer.  Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to review my favorite shows on Fox News from the perspective of the viewer.



10.  The O'Reilly Factor

Monday-Friday 8 PM


While O'Reilly may be the most watched television news host, he and his show have a very old style that doesn't interest me as much as other programs.  I don't particularly care to read along to Bill O'Reilly's teleprompter during his "Talking Points" segment.  Additionally, I don't care about O'Reilly's e-mail or his word of the day.  If you take all this out, you still get a decent show of what is left.  However, his snarky, often narcissistic, and condescending tone to certain guests really makes me want to change the channel, even though he is a good reporter.

9.  Outnumbered

Monday-Friday 12 PM


Just entering the Fox News lineup this year, Outnumbered has exceeded my expectations.  Featuring almost every prominent female figure at Fox News, Harris Faulkner, Andrea Tantaros, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Katie Pavlich, Sandra Smith, Kennedy, and many others, the show is a round coach in which "one lucky guy" is outnumbered by four women.  While the show has done well, it's still trying to find itself.  Some segments are just outright stupid, and others are psychology studies, which back up what people believe.  With that being said, the show has real potential.

8.  Your World with Neil Cavuto

Monday-Friday 4 PM


How can you not love the Fox's economic guru Neil Cavuto?  When you watch, you know you'll be in for your daily dosage of economics.  With that being said, some of the subject matter could go over the audience's head.  At other times, the show can come off as slightly dull.  As a whole however, this is one of Fox's most informative shows that people should be watching if they want to learn something.  You will not walk away without learning helpful economic information that will affect us all.

7.  Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld

Monday-Friday 3 AM, Saturday 11 PM


If you are ever up at 3 AM, or you catch it at an earlier time on the weekend (like 1 AM), Red Eye may become one of your favorite shows on Fox News.  It is an acquired taste though.  People who would most like Red Eye are usually (a) sarcastic, (b) cynical, or (c) drunk.  It's a different way to take in your news, with biting comedy.  You certainly won't feel force-fed the news when watching, and if you enjoy the jokes, you won't even realize you're learning anything.

6.  Shepard Smith Reporting

Monday-Friday 3 PM


There is a reason Shepard Smith covers all breaking news.  He is simply the best natural reporter at Fox News.  If you are looking for a reporter to bring you straight facts, this is your show.  Smith has only one drawback at times: he can come off stiff because he doesn't really show his personality.  Therefore, if you're looking to be entertained, this isn't your news show.  However, if you're looking to get the most news for your scarce amount of time, Shepard Smith Reporting is your show.

5.  Hannity

Monday-Friday 10 PM


If you are a true dark red, Bible loving, flag flying, stereotypical conservative, Hannity is going to be your show.  You're going to love the guests: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, etc.  You're going to love the subject matter, and you're going to love Sean Hannity attacking his liberal guests when they don't give straight answers.  My personal favorite are the shows with the live studio audiences.  There's sure to be controversy, but that's what makes the show so great.

4.  Justice with Judge Jeanine

Saturday 9 PM


Ask any person who watches Justice what their favorite part of the show is, and you will always get the same answer: her opening statements.  They are bold, partisan, and emotional.  But most importantly, they so perfectly summarize what almost every Republican is thinking in just a few perfectly phrased minutes.  There is a reason her opening statements are all over the internet the following day.  Just witness for yourself.



3.  Stossel

Thursday 9 PM on Fox Business Network, Varying on Fox News (Usually Saturday and Sunday)


If you love libertarianism, or you just really want to be left alone by the government, Stossel is the show for you.  What sets Stossel apart from other Fox News shows is that the show takes on a different subject every week and analyzes that topic in detail so that you may be able to make a more informed decision after hearing arguments from both sides.  One week will be gun control; another week will be taxation, and another week will be drug laws.  Whereas John Stossel clearly informs you where he stands on the position, he does not distort the argument from the other side.  Instead, he stems from the opinion that if people are presented the true information, they will arrive at the correct conclusion.

2.  The Kelly File

Monday-Friday 9 PM

In the prime-time lineup, The Kelly File is the hardest hitting of them all.  All guests should beware.  Megyn Kelly is tough on all.  She knows how to ask the important questions people want answered, and she knows how to get results.  Not taking no for an answer, no liberal or conservative will be allowed to tiptoe around an answer.  She doesn't care if it takes all your interview time in order to get to the bottom of one question.  If it is the question Americans want answered, nobody is getting a free pass.  The outstanding journalism, as well as Kelly's personality, make this show the best any one host could do on her own.

1. The Five

Monday-Friday 5 PM

 
The Five is the best show on Fox News.  There is a reason that with my busy college schedule, I always had to see The Five every Friday.  Though not always having the highest ranking overall, The Five often leads all of cable news in the most important demo, 25-54.  So, what makes this show work?
 
Eric Bolling- the conservative, can often get into tense exchanges with Bob Beckel
Bob Beckel- the liberal, often becomes irritated and loses his cool, known for his politically incorrect speech
Dana Perino- worked in the Bush administration as Press Secretary, most well behaved person you'll ever see, she's short
Greg Gutfeld- the libertarian, comedian, outspoken, also short
Kimberly Guilfoyle- the lawyer, she makes fun of Bob Beckel in a flirt-like manner
Andrea Tantaros- Republican party leader (Press Secretary), bold, intelligent, full of one-liners
 
People love this show because they bring together the five of the rotating cast members, whom all have different personalities, and it results in this crazy political show bordering reality television.  While you learn from the news they present, you also become engulfed in their overarching personal stories like reality television.  For example, The Daily Show did a segment on The Five.  From this clip, you not only learn every person's personality, but also, see what makes people enjoy this show so much.
 



Friday, July 25, 2014

Illegal Immigration: Where I Diverge from the Catholic Church.

I got a bone to pick with my fellow Catholics.  As many people know, Catholics seem to have the greatest balance of any religious group between political parties (excluding Hispanics).  According to Pew Research Center in 2008, Catholics leaned Democrat by an 8-point spread.  As of now, Catholics lean Republican by a 7-point spread.  Therefore, our congregation seems very down the middle politically.

 
 

Often, I see leaders of the Catholic Church taking in illegal immigrants, basing their argument on the "love thy neighbor" talking-point.  This is perfectly fine.  We cannot let these people just starve.  However, their blatant disrespect for the law is what I find troubling.  Catholics seem to be taking in illegal immigrants, and then arguing that they shouldn't be sent back because it is inhumane.

There are many arguments I could make here: (1) Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor," not be a sucker.  (2)  If you are going to argue we should take in those who are worse off than Americans, why don't we just take in the entire world?  (3)  What about the American poor?  Shouldn't we be trying to help our own instead of illegals who broke the law?

However, I would like to argue this on religious grounds.  Researching Catholic social teachings on illegal immigration, I have come across some very interesting information.  Yes, it does tell us that we should try to help those less fortunate than us.
"The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241.

However, Catholics seem to have forgotten another social teaching on illegal immigration that has fallen to the wayside.  Catholics also have the obligation to secure the border and enforce the laws for the sake of the common good.

"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241.
Whoops.  Guess we forgot about that one.

During this whole illegal immigration crisis, I've never heard a Catholic figure arguing for the United States to secure the border.  Instead, I've heard them arguing that we should be welcoming these illegals with open arms.

During this whole illegal immigration crisis, I've never heard a Catholic figure arguing for the United States to enforce our laws and send illegal aliens back.  Instead, I've heard them making arguments with their hearts instead of their heads.

I completely understand that Catholics, as a whole, differ politically.  No one denomination is going to align perfectly with what we individually believe.  It's important to find the one you most closely align with.  However, don't be going on national television and arguing the Catholic thing to do would be to offer these people amnesty when that clearly doesn't align with Catholic teaching as a whole.

If you wanted to give a truly Catholic answer, I believe it would go along the lines: "I believe we should grant these people citizenship because we are a wealth nation who has a responsibility to take in those from poorer nations in order to make their lives better.  However, these people should have to abide by our nation's immigration policy because they should be held accountable to US law.  Additionally, the border should be secure in order to defend for the common good."

However, all I hear on television is something along the lines of: "If you would see these little children and their cute faces, how could you possibly tell them no?  Jesus says to love your neighbor, and Jesus was a refuge.  Therefore, turning away these children would be like turning away Jesus.  How could you possibly turn away Jesus?"

Listen, just because half of the boys from these Central American countries are named Jesus doesn't mean we have to grant them citizenship.  Additionally, these comments completely ignore the facts of the situation.  Nearly 90% of illegal immigrants are teenagers.  A majority of those crossing the border are in their late teens.  Of this majority, three-quarters of them are males.  Furthermore, figures show Texas has 100,000 gang members in apprehension, and they are looking to recruit more.  Suddenly the picture of the little three year-old is in fact a 16 year-old male.

I suggest it's time for Catholics to start thinking with their heads, instead of relying on emotion.  We should try to address the root cause of all of this, and all points back to these dictatorial states in Central America.  It's actually very simple.  Where their is economic freedom, there are free markets.  Where there are free markets, there is money to be made.  Where there is money to be made, the people become wealthier and better off.

Our job is not to pay for these people.  There is a distinction between helping and being taken advantage of, and I believe this crosses the line.  Helping these people would be to give them the economic freedom they deserve in order to become wealthier.  Obama should hold all funding to these countries until the market places are opened up.

To those who would argue that it is not right to force another country to be like America, I am not.  The modern success story in economic freedom is China.  Though it is a state-run free market, it has resulted in economic prosperity for those in China.  Millions who would have been starving or dying are now able to enjoy a more prosperous life thanks to the free market. 

That's where I disagree with many Catholic talking-heads on television.  Start respecting every aspect of Catholic social teaching, not just the parts you want to address, and let's start thinking big picture in the world.  We are the wealthiest institution in the world.  We have the ability to do amazing things.  However, we need to think with our heads, not just our hearts.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Obamacare Come Undone.

The train wreck, known as Obamacare, thrown together from scrap parts in a lengthy law nobody had read, may be receiving the ultimate blow to its foreseeable death.  Thrown together with backroom deals, changing Senate rules, and shielding the media from the proposed law, Obamacare has been anything but controversial.  However, in a hurry to pass the law so we could "find out what's in it," lawmakers may have overlooked key wording that may unravel the very fabric of the law.

In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that the administration had violated the Affordable Care Act by stretching the language detailing subsidies.  The law clearly states that the subsidies must go through "an Exchange established by the State."  However, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have state exchanges.  That would mean subsidies through the federal government, healthcare.gov, would violate the law's wording in the other 36 states.

However, the language was clearly intended by the authors of the law.  Believing support for the law would grow, Democrats wanted to pressure governors into setting up their own exchanges.  Expectations would not meet reality.  Therefore, the IRS expanded the definition of a state to mean the federal government in 2012.

On the news tonight, I now hear Democrats are arguing that the wording was meant to encompass the federal government.  It's absurd, but it doesn't surprise me coming from Democrats.

  • Democrats try to change the meaning of the Second Amendment to mean the government's right to bear arms and not the citizen's.
  • Democrats interpret the First Amendment to be within the speech and religious limitations which they want to allow.
  • Democrats, as well as some Republicans, interpret the Forth Amendment to extend to a general warrant when the NSA wants to track its own citizens.
  • Democrats also expand the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy to extend to a right to have an abortion.
  • Democrats also interpret voter identification, even in states that would provide free identification, as a poll tax expressed in the Twenty-Forth Amendment.
  • Democrats, finally, interpret laws that they don't agree with as law that they just will not enforce, such as previous border laws.
Should it really surprise us that what laws say and what actually results from the interpretation under Democrats are two different things?  They are loose constructionists.  Their agenda is to bend and twist the words of the Constitution in order to fit their agenda.  The reason they must do so is because the Founders envisioned a country based upon freedom, not one where you would be forced by the federal government to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

Democrats are worried because they know if this ruling goes against them, Obamacare will come undone.  The healthcare law can only survive if enough young, health, and wealthy people can pay for the elderly, sick, and poor.  It revolves around the redistribution of wealth.  If the federal government cannot redistribute wealth from the federal exchange in these 36 states, the law becomes ineffective because it cannot supply healthcare to those it is supposed to help.

In conclusion, this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court eventually.  The Court will most likely be forced to deliver its own ruling on the case due to the importance of this case.  Let's hope this time John Roberts has his head on straight.  Additionally, let's hope Republicans start physically writing our own healthcare plan, so we can get a real solution to this country's healthcare problems.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Incompetency after Scandal after Lie.

Let's take a quick recap of this year so far in news headlines.

January- We enter the year mocking Obamacare, the biggest scam and tax in the history of America, because the government was to inept to even get a properly functioning healthcare site working in 2013.

February- The employer mandate for Obamacare is extended as the whole system seems to be on the brink of collapse.

March- The Ukraine looks to be in unrest with Putin sending troops into Crimea, and our President is nowhere to be seen on the world stage.

April- The Obama administration finally reacts to the crisis in the Ukraine by imposing weak sanctions on targeted individuals and companies close to Vladimir Putin.

May- The VA Scandal breaks of secret wait lists and veterans dying while waiting for medical care.  Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki resigns later this month.

Bowe Bergdahl is illegally swapped by the Obama administration for the terrorist dream team held in Guantanamo Bay.  The administration cites health concerns, which turn out not to be true.  The administration also tries to claim that the United States did not negotiate with terrorists, which is clearly false.  It is also discovered Bergdahl was a prisoner of war due to his desertion.

June- Iraq is being taken over by terrorist group ISIS.  One of the factors aiding this terrorist organization is the United States pulling out of the region too soon.  It is later discovered Obama was warned against doing so, but he ignored his advisors.

The IRS says all of Lois Lerner's emails, as well as six other IRS official e-mail accounts requested by Congress, have been wiped out.  IT experts say the emails would be recoverable.  However, the government will have none of it, declaring them gone.

The Supreme Court unanimously rules that the Obama administration acted unconstitutionally when the Executive branch bypassed the legislature when appointing recess appointments.  Later, the court rules the Obamacare contraceptive mandate violates religious liberty.  These court cases pile onto the growing list of unconstitutional Executive action.

It becomes apparent that the United States is facing a humanitarian crisis at the border.  Over 90,000 illegal aliens are expected to cross the border this year.  The Obama administration starts shipping illegal immigrants to states that do not have highly contested Senate races this November under the cover of dark and refuse to disclose the illegal immigrants' locations.  While fundraising in Texas, Obama refuses to visit the border because he isn't interested in "photo-ops."  Later, it is discovered the Obama administration knew of this influx of illegal immigrants that would be coming for the past two years and did nothing about it.

July- With Israel facing a threat from Hamas, a State Department recognized terrorist organization, in Gaza, the Obama administration seems to be distancing itself from our only ally in the Middle East and not supporting Israel's right to defend itself from a terrorist organization.



Ouch!  It has definitely been a difficult year for the Obama White House, as most sixth years are for presidents.  However, it seems that every week now, the Obama administration is giving us another major headline story that is either incompetent, scandalous, or a lie.




Lies:  Obamacare does not save the average family $2,500 a year, and it certainly isn't reducing the deficit.  Obamacare, additionally, is not as easy as using Kayak.

Bowe Bergdahl's health was not in danger.  We were also misled by not being told Bergdahl was a deserter , which cost seven other soldiers their lives.  Finally, the administration told us that the United States did not negotiate with terrorists.

The American public is told that Lois Lerner's emails are gone.

Obama tells the American people he is not interested with "photo-ops" at the border.

Scandals: Obamacare, IRS, VA, and let's not forget Benghazi.

Incompetency: The Obamacare website results in utter failure.

Obama refuses to step up on the world stage whether it is the Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, or Israel.

The Obama administration knew about the Veteran Affairs' problems since Obama's inauguration in 2009.

The Obama administration took no action when they knew an influx of illegals were on the way.





There's always a pattern as well.  We go from incompetency to scandal to lie but never reach a resolution in anyplace.  Tell me one area where a major news headline has ever resulted in a resolution.  The Obamacare website and healthcare system still suck.  The Ukraine has transformed into such a war zone that a commercial aircraft was shot down over eastern Ukraine, costing 298 humans their lives.  Veterans hospitals and socialized healthcare are still killing veterans.  We still don't have any real answers on the Bergdahl swap.  Iraq is now the world's first terrorist state.  We still don't have any answers on the IRS illegal targeting.  Illegal immigrants are pouring over our southern border, and the Middle East still has major unrest with Israel invading Gaza.

So much for Obama's "year of action."  He's got his pen and phone, but when it comes to actual issues of importance, Obama is missing in action, a deserter.  He's all about calling gay athletes and using his pen to sign unconstitutional executive orders.  He's all about attending fundraisers and hitting the golf course.  However, when it comes to actual issues, he's never there to make an actual decision.

Still, I think that's exactly what he wants.  He doesn't want to deal with foreign policy, so he feels that all he has to do is ignore it for the problems to go away.  If he ignores the crisis on the border, he thinks he can avoid responsibility while simultaneously changing America's voting demographics in favor of his party.  If he dismisses all scandals as phony, he feels he can avoid all responsibility of incompetency.

Mr. President, you weren't voted into the Oval Office by citizens of the United States in order to avoid all issues you just don't feel like dealing with.  Your job as President of the United States is to make the tough decisions.  However, when America needs you most, you are out fundraising on taxpayer dollar or hitting the golf coarse again.  Mr. President, it's time we got some resolutions to your problems.  It's time for you to man up and deal with messes you have created and messes other nations have created.  That is your job as leader of the free world.  Mr. President, if you didn't want to do the job you were elected for, you shouldn't have run for the office in the first place.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Malaysia Airlines Shot Down in the Ukraine.

This is what happens when two of the biggest news stories of the year collide and form another worldwide crisis.  Earlier in the year, the world became captivated over the Russian invasion of Crimea.  A few weeks later, the world was glued to their televisions, trying to understand the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.  Now, the two stories have seemed to physically collide.

I woke this morning to find Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot out of the sky over Ukrainian airspace.  Traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, the flight was carrying 280 passengers and 15 crewmembers.


However, over eastern Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was shot down near the Ukraine-Russia boarder.


In previous days, this part of eastern Ukraine was prone to flights being shot down because pro-Russian separatist have been targeting Ukrainian military aircraft.  In fact, this is the third aircraft shot down here in four days.  With this information, the pilot decided to fly over this zone, of which he has the authority to change coarse at any time for any reason, and was shot down at 33,000 feet by a surface-to-air missile. 

These surface-to-air missiles are highly sophisticated weapons used to bring down aircraft.  With thermal, optical, laser, and radar used to track incoming aircraft, these weapons have the ability to hit their targets up to 72,000 feet.  As their job is to just to bring aircraft to the ground, that would explain why large chunks of the aircraft remain after the collision.

It is now confirmed a Russian Buk launcher took down this plane.  Whether it was a Russian, Ukrainian, or pro-Russian separatist missile is still under investigation.  However, most speculate it is the pro-Russian separatist's.

However, whether this event was intentional or unintentional is still also under investigation.  If the pro-Russian separatists had been tracking a Ukrainian military aircraft and the commercial flight had also been in the region while using the thermal system, the missile would have tracked the larger commercial flight.  Additionally, they may have thought this flight was a Ukrainian military aircraft.  Furthermore, pro-Russian separatists may have just decided to shoot down any flight that flew within the region.

Now, body parts and plane piece remained scattered across Ukrainian grounds near the boarder.  No one survived.



If the blame does fall on these pro-Russian separatists, it will be interesting to see who the blame falls upon.  Does the world blame the separatists?  Does the world blame the Ukraine because this group is within the country's boarders?  However, if it is true that these weapons that the pro-Russian separatists have are indeed from Russia, will the blame fall on the Russian government, and will Vladimir Putin be seen with the blood of 295 dead individuals, 23 of which are Americans, on his hands?

Update: It was discovered that there were three infants on the flight, so the death toll is actually 298.

Update: An audio clip from the Ukrainian Secret Service captures two Russian intelligence officers and two pro-Russian separatists talking about the plane they shot down.  This clip could directly tie both this pro-Russian separatist group and Russia to this shoot down.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

In Defense of Bob Beckel.

Bet you thought that you'd never be reading this.  However, Bob Beckel needs to be defended no matter his political affiliation.



The Five is one of my favorite television shows, so I actually saw the whole "controversy" as it happened.  While trying to make a point, Beckel became very heated and passionate over his statement, and the term "chinaman" slipped.  To be perfectly honest, I had no idea "chinaman" was even considered a derogatory term.  However, I soon found out when laughter came from both the kitchen of my house and the co-hosts on the show.


Now, California State Senator Ted Lieu, who is also currently running for Congress, is calling for Beckel's resignation after the televised slip of the tongue.  However, this seems nothing more than to stir up his Democratic base in California so that he can win his district's seat.

It's also important to take into account that this is not Beckel's first slip on the air.  In fact, he's had so many that BuzzFeed has constructed a list of his slips, and even this list is incomplete.

However, people like Ted Lieu are too sensitive about words.  A word is just a word, and nothing more.  It is how you personally take the term that makes it offensive or not.

With that being said, there are some terms in society that are completely off limits due to historical context.  An example of this would be the "n" word.  The "n" word carries a history of slavery and white supremacy with it that makes the term foul to everyone in America.  However, the term "chinamen" does not even pale in comparison to the "n" word.

People calling Beckel a "racist" and "xenophobic" are completely overreacting to an unfortunate slip of the tongue on national television.  From what I have gathered, the term is equivalent to an insult.

Although I cannot personally identify with this term, Beckel has also used the term "greaseballs" to refer to Italian-Americans and then apologized by using a Godfather reference.  First of all, I don't even know why he had to issue an apology.  It's true; Italians are greasy.  If you're going to take such offense to a single word, how are you possibly going to get through life?

And that is what this entire debate boils down to: personalized racist words.  With so many words now being deemed "racist" or "demeaning" to certain people, I feel like I need a handbook for the words that might be considered offensive terms.  Get over yourselves.

For all you on the right who are also calling for his resignation so that you can "finally turn it around on the Democrats," shame on you.  You're just as bad as they are.  You don't care about the First Amendment and freedom of speech.  All you care about is controlling other people as well.

Finally, if Bob Beckel didn't get fired from Fox News over dropping the f-bomb on Hannity, I very much doubt he will be going anywhere anytime soon.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Mess That is the Middle East.

America first became attentive to the unrest in the Middle East last year when Syria's civil war became a political issue.  The question at hand: should America become involved in Syria's civil war when Syria's dictator, Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people?  At that time, America responded overwhelmingly with a resounding "No."  However, as I have seen in recent months, maybe we, myself included, made the wrong decision.

To fully understand what has happened in the Middle East, it is important to backtrack to the beginning of the story.  After 9/11, George W. Bush made the decision, with the support and approval of Congress, to invade and overthrow the Iraq regime, controlled by Saddam Hussein.  This decision was probably made in order to finish up George H. W. Bush's business from the Gulf War back in the 1990s.  By 2008 however, Americans had grown tired of war and decided to swing far to the left in electing Barack Obama, a man who campaigned on the promise of pulling the US out of Iraq.

While Obama had slowed down his withdrawal of troops from his initial promise (in fact, even surging in Afghanistan), Obama has still kept his promise of pulling the US out of Iraq, and for the most part, the Middle East.  However, reports broke in 2014 that Obama was following political motives, instead of listening to his generals and intelligence reports.  Obama was warned that leaving the Middle East in his fashion would create a vacuum, but he did it anyway because politics was more important than the safety and security of the Middle East.

Before all of this became extremely apparent to the general public, the Syrian Civil War became the topic of late 2013.  At least a year before, Syrian rebels had become engaged in conflicts with Assad's government.  However, by the time Obama wanted America to become involved because of his red lines, the rebels had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  With a country in civil war, terrorists easily gained a hold in the country, especially in the East which borders Iraq.

However, everything has come crashing down in the past month for the Obama administration.  On May 31, 2014, the Obama administration swapped five high-profile terrorists for our lone captive in Afghanistan, Bowe Bergdahl.  Obama had not followed standard protocol by informing Congress 30 days in advance.  The administration claimed they broke the law due to the health and safety of Bergdahl.  However, even this claim was contradicted when Susan Rice went on talk shows and said Bergdahl's doctors in Germany said he was in good health.

Outrage ensued further as even Dianne Feinstein was angered at the Obama administration.  Then, America discovered Bergdahl deserted his post, and as a result, seven troops died in missions looking for him.  Obama had delivered a terrorist dream team to the Middle East so that he could shut down Guantanamo (another campaign promise), deliver a deserter to US soil, and get the VA Scandal off the front pages of every newspaper.

While all of this outrage ensued at home, the Obama administration knew of the growing power of ISIS in the Middle East, most likely gaining power from the vacuum Obama left behind.  This was a terrorist group so extreme, not even Al Qaeda wanted to be associated with them.  (I didn't know the group that flies planes into the World Trade Center is considered moderate among radical Islamic terrorist groups.)  Obama's only reaction at the time would be to call ISIS "JV" when his intelligence was telling him otherwise.

Now, ISIS is the richest terrorist organization in the history of the world.  They now have their hands on Hussein's previous chemical weapons stock.  The extremist terrorist organization is claiming it has obtained nuclear technology in Iraq.  (You know, the kind we were told Iraq did not have.)  Lastly, Iraq is on the verge of falling, if it is not considered already fallen.  We are witnessing the first terrorist state in the history of the world.

All this comes at a time when we cannot even control our borders at home, threatening the national security of the nation along the southern border.

Finally, Israel, our only ally and democracy in the Middle East, is almost ready to send ground troops in order to fight the State Department recognized terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.  The third day of air strikes between the two is ensuing, as the Palestinian death toll rises to at least 78.

The Middle East is in chaos, and the President of the United States does not look like he even cares.  The man who promised to restore America's leadership around the world seems to have lost all control over foreign affairs.  At least in former administrations leading up to the Reagan Presidency, the presidents adopted the concept of containment, even Jimmy Carter after he got burned.  However, Obama seems to be letting the world run amuck as he is too concerned with attending party fundraisers.

The man who promised to restore American leadership around the world has not restored our leadership role, but continues to disgrace and tarnish any thread of respect still left.  We let the Middle East run amuck, and then the President tells Iraqi leadership to deal with the problem on their own, a problem we made.  America has repeatedly been made the laughingstock on the world stage thanks to Vladimir Putin, shown through, but not limited to, the Syrian civil war situation last year, the Ukraine, and Edward Snowden.  Finally, America has even lost the trust of our allies because of the US Spying Scandal.  This is shown through Chancellor Angela Merkel throwing a top US spy out of her country today.

However, what is to expect when you elect a young senator who frankly doesn't give a damn about foreign policy?  When your president is more concerned about redistributing wealth than battling terrorism in the Middle East, when your president is more concerned with telling women they are victims due to the Hobby Lobby case than maintaining our ties with Israel, and when your president is more concerned with attacking Republicans than maintaining the relationships of the few allies we have left in the world, chaos will ensue.  If the United States does not get its foreign policy act together soon, the turmoil will eventually hit our own shores.  Radical Islam will continue to spread, and dare I say, WWIII could be closer than you think.