...continued from page 2
Get rid of the "Zionists," and Palestine will have all the prosperity of Yemen.
Get rid of American world dominance, and where will India and China sell their goods and services? What will be the market for Taiwanese, South Korean, Chilean and Brazilian products? Even if there are markets eager to buy, how will they safely and cheaply reach those markets?
This election is, in large historical terms, almost entirely about foreign policy, no matter what the electorate is misled to believe.
And in their responses to the attack on our embassy by Egyptian government-sponsored terrorists (and Islamists the incompetent Libyan government could not control), the two candidates have made our choice very clear.
Obama stands for the continued weakening of American influence everywhere. He stands for dismantling the world order of trade and prosperity that we have sustained for 68 years.
If he prevails, it almost doesn't matter what our internal economic policies are. His foreign policy will wreck the world economy, and ours will fall with it.
Romney, on the other hand, not only promises but shows that he will be president, not of the academic/media elite, with their romantic anti-Americanism, but of the United States of America.
Romney will look after our national interest – which, because we have heretofore been shockingly generous, happens to coincide very closely with the prosperity, peace and happiness of more human beings throughout the world than have ever been prosperous, peaceful, and happy in all of human history.
It is true that America can't maintain this all alone – we require the cooperation of other free nations. But the only reason we require their cooperation is that we didn't conquer them when we could have. We left them free and independent, so they could thumb their noses at us. As long as they helped us maintain the world order.
But when thugs, and nations ruled by thugs, blow up our embassies and kill our ambassadors, we must respond with excommunication from the fellowship of nations – or we invite other nations to behave likewise.
That is the choice this November, even if most Americans don't realize it. I just hope that by voting our pocketbooks, we accidentally elect the candidate who will act in America's, and the world's, best interest.
Meanwhile, the academic/media elite are doing their best to support the Obama campaign's attempt to make us focus on how naughty it was for Romney to speak up for American interest.
Guess what: We need Romney's naughtiness the way that Europe needed Winston Churchill's naughtiness in criticizing the appeasement foreign policy of Britain and France in the 1930s which led directly to Hitler's ruinous wars of conquest.
Obama is Neville Chamberlain tripled or quadrupled, because Chamberlain at least thought he was acting for the benefit of the Britain. Obama doesn't even think he's acting to benefit America, because he doesn't think America deserves any benefits.
Obama is running for President Of The Rest Of The World.
Only Romney is running for President of the United States.
Which is why, though I am not a Republican and have no desire to become such, Romney will have my vote. Not just because of jobs. But because America needs to get rid of this whiny apologizer-in-chief and replace him with a commander-in-chief.