Naive foreign policy

Approximately 50% of all American soldier deaths in Iraq can be traced back to the arming and training of foreign fighters from Iran. Its President denies that the Holocaust ever took place, and regularly threatens to "wipe Israel off the map". It has an aggressive nuclear program that very soon will be weapons grade ready. Syria is a state sponsor of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah whose stated purpose is the elimination of Israel and who are active every day in that pursuit. Syria was in the final stages of a nuclear facility (one they continually denied every even existed) until it was recently bombed by Israel. North Korea was/is the primary nuclear vendor to Syria and has arguably the world's worst human rights record as its people literally starve. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has stated, but rival Hillary Clinton has not, that he would meet with these nations' leaders "without preconditions". This is naive foreign policy. Meeting with these terrorists, and yes they are unabashed terrorists, would only boost their domestic stature and political stability. And exactly what would we be negotiating? That they would reverse their stated goals, stop their targeting of innocent civilians (and the killing of their own suicide terrorists) and live peacefully beside a suddenly recognized Israel? That is Alice in Wonderland thinking and dangerous to its core. It's great sounding domestic rhetoric, but naive foreign policy. Economic sanctions, the withholding of foreign investments, and diplomatic isolation are the best tools to employ against these rogue nations. Negotiating with them without preconditions is unproductive appeasement. On this specific point, President Bush is spot on.

Judicial Activism

The recent underwhelming 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to reinterpret the centuries-old meaning of marriage was a frightening example of judicial activism and callous disregard for the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. This activism could have been applied to any issue, not just marriage, and that's the dangerous precedence. The ruling flew in the face of the most basic premise of the people's right to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves. In my view, the Court overstepped its role in substituting its own social views, contrary to the people's will and age-old global societal norms, by concluding that our Constitution suddenly demanded a redefinition of marriage. How pompous and arrogant that four robed justices, with no accountability at all as to the repercussions of its ruling, could force its will on all of us and invalidate the citizen's standing as the ultimate lawgiver in a free society. This was a shameful abuse of power by a tiny few who thumbed their noses at centuries of established societal order.