Obama's Weak Response 

I have no illusions that Americans are sitting around kitchen tables fretting over U.S. policy toward Egypt. But events in the Middle East can have tremendous implications for the everyday lives of folks on Main Street, U.S.A. And today's headlines once again demonstrate how the White House is making a mess of the Middle East.

There is a lot of irony here given that Obama launched his presidency with a major address in Cairo, Egypt, that sought to re-orient U.S. foreign policy after the Bush years. Now Cairo is gripped by chaos. 

As I reported yesterday, the BBC declared that U.S. foreign policy, as well as our reputation and credibility in the Middle East, was "in tatters." It's not hard to understand why. 

Today there are conflicting reports regarding the status of U.S. aid to Egypt. After the Egyptian military removed radical Islamist Mohamed Morsi from power, the Obama Administration -- and I am not making this up -- decided not to decide whether the intervention constituted a coup. 

Now Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) office is saying that aid to Egypt has been stopped. A Pentagon spokesman denied the report. Has the Obama Administration finally decided? Not exactly. As one administration official explained: 
 

• "The decision was we're going to avoid saying it was a coup, but to stay on the safe side of the law, we are going to act as if the designation has been made for now. By not announcing the decision, it gives the administration the flexibility to reverse it."

Clear as mud, right? 

Whatever Obama is doing, America's influence in the region is clearly waning. The Washington Post reports today that Saudi Arabia has "promised to compensate Egypt for any aid that Western countries might withdraw." 

For decades, going back to the Camp David Accords of the Carter Administration, Egypt has been a pillar of stability in the Middle East. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia, while far from ideal, has generally been one of respect based on shared strategic interests. 

It is difficult to imagine the Saudis so publicly confronting an American administration as they are doing with Obama. Riyadh, rather than Washington, appears to be calling the shots now. 

Here's an interesting thought exercise: Let's say that under Obama's pressure the Egyptian military loses heart and invites the murderous Brotherhood into some sort of coalition government. History teaches us that in such coalitions the most bloodthirsty member will end up with the upper hand. 

What do Obama and Rand Paul (who has been urging that we cut off aid to the Egyptian military) think the Brotherhood will do to every Egyptian -- from the Christian Copts to newspaper editors and moderate Muslims -- if it gets power back? It will exact revenge, and it will not care what Obama, Rand Paul or world opinion says in reaction. 

Politicized Weather 

Watching one of the major news networks last night (I don't remember which one -- they tend to blend together), I was struck when the anchor started a segment by announcing that it has been "a summer of extremes." Well, as the popular Bob Dylan song goes, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." 

First we were told that forest fires, phenomena that happen every summer, are ravaging Western states. Then we were told that torrential rains and flooding are soaking the Southeast. My heart goes out to the folks in the communities affected by these fires and floods. 

But without sounding too cavalier, how did we get to the point where predictable weather is now described in apocalyptic terms rather than part of everyday life? 

In the last couple of years, several Southern states suffered from terrible droughts. Lakes receded. We were told that was the "new normal" due to global warning. Last night's headline could have been "Rain Breaks Drought." 

This has not been a "summer of extremes." If anything, this summer has been blessedly "moderate." There have been record-low temperatures. Here in Washington, in what is usually sweltering August heat, we have seen daytime highs in the 70s and lows in the 60s at night. 

Normally, we would experience about 1,200 tornadoes by this time of the year. So far there have been just over 700. 

In 2012, there were 11 weather disasters causing more than $1 billion in damage. In 2011, there were 14 such disasters. This year there has been just one. 

And while we are not out of the woods yet, predictions of a "hyper-active hurricane season" are being scaled back too. 

The way the weather is reported reflects a news culture that, in searching for sensationalism, has turned normalcy into catastrophe. But it also reflects a liberal political culture that turns every event into an excuse for bigger government, more bureaucracy, higher taxes and less freedom. You don't need to be a weatherman to know the weather has been politicized. 

Christie Knows Best 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in the news for signing legislation banning gay conversion therapy. With Christie's signature, New Jersey becomes only the second state in the union (after California) to prohibit the practice of attempting to reorient someone's sexual desires through counseling and therapy. 

Such overbearing, Big Government-knows-best legislation is not surprising from America's left coast or from the liberals in the New Jersey legislature. But it was surprising that a Republican governor would support it. 

According to Governor Christie, the practice of gay conversion therapy subjects children to "critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts." 

I have written before that our culture appears on the verge of criminalizing the Book of Genesis. The left is intent on equating any opposition to the homosexual political agenda or any defense of normal marriage as the equivalent of racial bigotry. 

If medical efforts to treat homosexuality can be outlawed, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch before the state steps in and denies parents the right to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong or immoral. 

But Christie did more than just add his name to this legislation. When he signed the bill, his office made it a point to issue a press release restating Christie's view that he does not "look at someone who is homosexual as a sinner." 

Signing the bill should have been enough. But Christie evidently felt he had to do more to demonstrate his moderate bona fides and to apologize for his Catholic faith. 

By the way, Governor, we are all sinners. Traditional religious teaching does not condemn individuals. Instead, we are called to resist immoral choices and actions.