N. Korea and other rogue nations see through Obama

North Korea's nuclear and missile tests on Memorial Day weekend has sent shock waves internationally by defying a U.N. Security Council resolution. Now the isolated communist regime conducts more saber rattling by threatening U.S. and S. Korean warships.

And what's the Obama administration's reaction? Nothing but a statement voicing displeasure and resuming the Six-Party Talks. Yes, more talks, more official statements, and more meetings. No doubt more Security Council resolutions may come out, and no doubt that N. Korea would ignore them.

We have known since the presidential campaign days that President Obama is naive about threats from rogue nations, and that he prefers diplomacy above all. In other words, he prefers the talk and not the walk.

The crazy leaders of N. Korea and Iran know this. That's why since President Obama took office, there has been more and more news about missile tests and nuclear weapons development. Countries like Japan, S. Korea, and Israel are increasingly feeling uneasy about the situation. But what does the Obama administration do? Nothing concrete to secure our allies' security. Instead, more international meetings and talk about pressure from the international community.

Heck, it took the White House days to rescue an American from just pirates. What will happen if nations attack our allies?

Memorial Day salute

Thank you -- all of you brave men and women who have served our great country. You're an inspiration to the servicemen today and us grateful citizens!

More evidence of this administration's hate towards military

Evidently earlier this year the FBI launched Operation Vigilant Eagle which searched for white supremacists and local militia groups with a focus on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. This was a few months before the controversial DHS report on "rightwing extremism" was released.

The Democrats have made it widely known that they have no love for the military and its operations. Since 9/11, liberal Democrats have come out with crazy statements about the U.S. military and the War on Terror. Their rhetoric reached its peak during the Iraq War. Elected officials here at home badmouthed our troops, and some even went overseas to trash America and her warriors.

And now the W.H. and federal agencies consider these veterans a threat? These veterans are no more of a threat than terrorist-turned-scholar Bill Ayers and his good friend, our president.

Obama wants private insurers to pay for wounded vets

The economy is bad, but President Obama is heartless to charge for treating wounded veterans, hoping to generate $540 million. Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion comes out of a meeting with the President all ticked off:

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

This is ridiculous and shameful and illustrates how the Obama team views the military. If my taxes are to be raised to fund Obama's crazy spending, one thing I wouldn't mind is paying for the medical treatment of wounded soldiers. Forget Geithner's recovery plan (if any)! At least make my money useful by helping a wounded vet!

How the Marines view W. and O.

This video clip says a lot.

Mideast peace process is elusive

All eyes are on Israel as its air force continues to selectively strike within Gaza to kill Hamas leaders. Yes, there are civilian casualties, but compared to how Hamas indiscriminately aims its missiles specifically at civilian targets, the IDF is doing its best in preventing collateral damage. Even more worrisome is the fact that Hamas' weaponry has seen significant upgrades recently, including Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with greater range. That new firepower threatens Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona, also a site said to contain the country's nuclear warheads.

There are those like Rosa Brooks of L.A. Times who criticizes Israel for trying to "bomb its way to peace." Never mind that Hamas terrorists started the whole provocation by launching rockets into Israeli towns. Although Brooks acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense and its superior military force, she thinks it's the Israeli politicians playing their game at the expense of rousing more Arab anti-Western sentiments:

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with Hamas. Its goal is to annihilate the state of Israel. How can Israel sit at a negotiation table when the other party wishes nothing but its death? Brooks is right in that Israel is in a lose-lose situation, but that doesn't mean it is doing something wrong. Peace in Mideast has been attempted many times but never came to fruition, not because of Israel's unwillingness, but rather because of the Palestinians' undying hostility and self-victimization.

Israel may not be able to bomb its way to peace, but those bombs are a sign that peace can still be achieved, even if through deadly deterrence.