START 2010 vs Electoral College 2009: Which made us more unsafe?

Obama unilaterally surrendered on SDI

If a President won’t defend us, we won’t be defended.

Hence my ho hum attitude on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty recently ratified by a Lame Duck Senate. In fact, my main objection to the treaty is that a body made illegitimate for all but emergency measures by the recent tea partier wave election dared to address the matter. Then again, when one considers how irrelevant are the number of Russian nuclear weapons to our national security, I almost leaned toward ratification simply as a gesture to try and shore up a weak Commander in Chief abroad.

As I stated soon after Barack Obama was inaugurated the 44th President of the United States, the Loyal Opposition, whenever possible, should try and support the foreign policy of the United States, as we can have only one at a time. Of course, this president has made that desire almost impossible to maintain, except for his continued diligence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for that, this conservative is thankful.

But when one considers Obama’s bowing and appeasement of Iran; betrayal of allies from Britain to Israel; and especially the abandonment of a commitment to missile defense in Europe, it is impossible to conclude due diligence on the part of the Administration.

However, with respect to START, no treaty can make Obama start to modernize SDI or expand its use unless he chooses. Therefore, this vague treaty doesn’t harm the USA nearly as much as what the 2009 Electoral College did soon after Election Day, 2008.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives