With Obama still president, the only person more mindful that Obama still has another seven months of havoc creation time available is Obama himself. Here is Victor Davis Hanson discussing How Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy De-Stabilized the World. But with time running out on Obama, as Hanson notes, this is prime time for troublemaking while Obama is still around:

Aggressors are not sure whether Hillary Clinton, if elected, will govern more like a traditional Democratic president committed to leading the Western alliance. And if Donald Trump were to be elected, no aggressor would know exactly why, when, or how he might strike back at them.

Given those uncertainties, it may seem wise in the waning months of 2016 for aggressors to go for broke against the predictable Obama administration before the game is declared over in 2017. For that reason, the next few months may prove the most dangerous since World War II.

Being published on the same day as we read all of this on Drudge:

CHINA WARNS USA: MILITARY READY ‘IF PROVOKED’
China Ready to Launch Nuke Subs…
NATO finalises military build-up to counter [more unpredictable] Russia
HUNGARY: US WANTS TO FILL EUROPE WITH MUSLIM MIGRANTS
Iran Is Demanding Reparations From US for 63 Years of ‘Spiritual and Material Damage’
EGYPTAIR PLANE DISAPPEARS FROM RADAR…

And what is Obama up to? Here is the latest news from Washington: Guard Charged With Assault After Confronting Transgender Woman Using Women’s Restroom, Police Say.

Those of you in Perth might be interested in seeing David Archibald, who is the author of the book Australia’s Defence (Connor Court), discuss all of this:

Free Public Lecture
Australia’s Defence
By David Archibald
Wednesday 25th May 2016
7:00pm at the Irish Club
61 Townshend Road, Subiaco
(between Hay St and Churchill Avenue)
Doors open at 6:30pm

The lecture includes 126 slides and will take one and a half hours. For a copy of the slide presentation, email him at: davidarchibald@australianliberty.org. I note that David is an ALA candidate in West Australia, but this should not in any way be seen as an endorsement for the ALA.

This is one of the most insightful articles on American politics I have come across in quite a while. The title is “Anti-Americanism is the Foreign Policy of Fools”, but it’s his sub-title that more closely explains the text: Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that the American Left needs. The point is that the left has no foreign policy other than to oppose Republicans. It is simply a vehicle for domestic political advantage. The actual outcomes across the world are of no consequence other than in terms of whether or not it allows Democrats to win elections. But what makes this policy so profoundly striking is that at the centre of the political views of the left, and what gives it whatever consistency it has, is a deep and unabiding anti-Americanism. The article begins with an observation on Ben Rhodes, who by now should need no introduction.

Ben Rhodes knows next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely”. . . .

Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without regard to its relevance.

What has brought Rhodes to prominence is his involvement in selling Obama’s capitulation to Iran.

The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”, the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.

He provides another example from the previous Democrat administration:

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.

The argument is that American foreign policy is, so far as the Democrats are concerned, merely domestic policy. The consistent theme is opposition to traditional American values which means opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us. Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.

Until now, the Democrats could maintain this position without actually damaging America itself although the damage elsewhere has been immense. That is no longer so. Either the policy will have to go or America will. It will be impossible for both to exist long term.