It's common knowledge that Mr. Obama's economic, energy, financial, healthcare, and housing policies have been colossal failures.  Likewise, his foreign policy has been a mishmash of scattershot actions with no overarching long-term strategy.

Obama might call his external vision a foreign policy, but it's all Greek to me.  A foreign policy is supposed to extend and defend the national interest, while building better relations with our allies.  It is supposed to project peace through strength.

However, Mr. Obama has snubbed Canada regarding the Keystone Pipeline, and ignored the growing threat of narcoterrorism in Latin America.  He has also downplayed American exceptionalism and our alliances, while promoting outreach to authoritarian regimes worldwide.

Perhaps he thinks his apology tours and outreach to autocracies will alter the behavior of fascist states.  Unfortunately, nations don't operate according to wishful thinking.  Nations only change if it is in their best interest to do so and it coincides with their overall goals.

One of Obama's major blunders was to withdraw missiles from Eastern Europe and get no concessions in return from Russia.  He has also kow-towed to the Saudi Prince, as well as socialists such as Castro, Hugo Chavez, Hu Jintao, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega.

All of this schmoozing with tyrants begs the question.  Is Obama attempting to change their behavior, or does he share their vision of centralized, coercive rule?  Is he attempting to transform America into a statist society with minimal human liberties?

Just the fact that Obama has had to step back and take U-Turns regarding his actual and potential policies illustrates that he has a tendency toward autocratic governance.  He railed against Pres. Bush for his Afghanistan and Iraq policies, yet he has adhered to Bush's military policies almost to a tee.

Although it's important to utilize drones and special forces to take out a number of terrorists who are high value targets, it's even more crucial to formulate a strategy to neutralize the Islamist ideologies that generate terror.  States that export terror don't need olive branches, they need to feel the pressure from free nations.

When Obama extended a hand in Cairo to the Muslim world (2009), many Muslims believed him.  In due time, the Arab Spring unfolded, but Obama was off on other tangents flitting from one crisis to another like a social butterfly.

Instead of embracing liberty and progress, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen appear headed down the path that Iran traveled in 1979.  In other words, Islamism could make these nations worse than they were under prior dictators.  They lack the institutions that could help forge genuine democracy and the rule of law.  Tunisia might have a chance to escape that tragic destiny.

When Iran's Green Revolution erupted in the summer of 2009, the silence from Obama and the Left was deafening.  It didn't take long for the ayatollahs to crush the dissidents who yearned for liberty, and the status quo was restored.  Does Obama have a freedom agenda, or is it just wildly inconsistent?

Why hasn't Obama pressured China and Russia to rein in Iran, Syria, and their proxies?  Why does he try to appease these nations instead of standing up for Israel, the only democracy and beacon of hope in the Middle East?  He seems to have a short attention spans when it comes to a crafting a cohesive vision of foreign affairs.  Instead of leading proactively, he often reacts to events.  This only emboldens the enemies of liberty, progress, and security, while it frustrates our friends.