Whenever an old alliance comes apart, our foreign-policy establishment behaves like the spouse who pretends away a partner's ever-more-flagrant infidelities-hoping that patience and indulgence will somehow bring the straying party around. But real life doesn't work that way for lovers or for states. When we look away from shameless betrayals, it only encourages further bad behavior.

And sometimes the situation requires a divorce. With no more support payments.

The worst current case of a supposed ally gone wildly, viciously wrong is, of course, Pakistan, which our government refers to as a "friend" even as the real rulers in Islamabad-the military and the security services-shield the world's most wanted terrorists; support, supply and train insurgents who kill and maim our troops; and cut off our main supply route to Afghanistan (presumably, in thanks for the billions of dollars we send the Pakistanis year after year).

But another, potentially graver case goes largely unremarked, when not willfully misinterpreted: Turkey, a NATO member and long-time ally (at least, on paper), is suffering from increased repression, the step-by-step subversion of its democratic system, and creeping, clawing Islamism.

Wildly inaccurate statements from news commentators, financial analysts, politicians and even administration officials have most people believing that if Congress does not increase the debt limit in March, the U.S. government will default on its debt obligations, thus ending the government's ability to borrow. Nonsense.

The big-government crowd claims huge hardships would result from the mandatory spending reductions. Again, nonsense. Spending would only have to be reduced to roughly the 2006 level to avoid an ongoing deficit.

Another widespread myth is that if the government reduces its spending, that will cost jobs.  The fact is that the percentage of adults in the labor force has fallen to its lowest level in three decades even as the government has grown by a quarter in relative size in the past three years.

The destructive myth persists that if only we could get the rich to cease engaging in tax avoidance, which is legal, and stop tax evasion, which is illegal, government would have adequate revenue. The fact is that rich people already pay most of the taxes.

Violent fanatical movements burn out. Some take longer to fade than others, but none endure. Inevitably, their ever-increasing excesses take the gravest toll among their own kind, alienating the population from which they demand support. 

If "revolutions devour their own," religion-driven insurgencies are the ultimate cannibals: Witness Al Qaeda's wanton butchery of its fellow Moslems, a blood-lust that, along with our successful anti-terrorist strikes, have pushed the last decade's great bogeymen to the far margins of events (al Qaeda's recent announcement of its-unwanted-support of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria is another desperate attempt to remain relevant).

My point? It's time to shift our focus to more-serious Islamist enemies of civilization, freedom and elementary decency: the Saudis. Al Qaeda carried within it the formula for self-destruction, but the Saudis are the kind of threat that lasts: pernicious, perverted and patient.

Today (2/02), Ralph Nader wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the government had ripped off the Fannie/Freddie stockholders, of which he was one. What delicious irony that the man who has been telling us for decades to trust the government instead of private business was abused by the government. I wonder if he has learned anything.

Another no surprise last week was a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office that the budget deficit is even larger (a mere $1.5 trillion larger) than previously forecast and financial doomsday is getting closer.

Again, having learned nothing, President Obama responded in his State of the Union address by proposing more government spending. He seems to be making a real effort to have the collapse occur in his first term.

Meanwhile, more reports surfaced about the fact that many state and local governments have not been disclosing relevant information about their finances to their bondholders. Executives in private firms would be fined or sent to jail for similar lapses, but government officials are largely immune to rules that the rest of us must follow.

Let's get one thing clear: Obama unquestionably ranks among the bottom five presidents in US history.

In terms of sublime awfulness he's right up there with Britain's late and extremely unlamented ex-PM Gordon Brown - which is quite some doing, given that Brown singlehandedly wrought more destruction on his country than the Luftwaffe, Dutch Elm Disease, the South Sea Bubble, the Fire of London and the Black Death combined.

Agreed: the damage President Obama has done to the US economy with everything from Ben Bernanke's insane money-printing program, to his cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, to his ban on deep-water drilling to his crony capitalism hand-outs to disaster zones like Solyndra to his persecution of companies like Gibson is incalculable.

And, of course, if he gets a second term the damage he and his rag-bag of Marxist cronies at organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency manage to inflict on the US small businessman trying to make an honest buck will make his first term look like Calvin Coolidge on steroids.

So why do I think this would be preferable to a presidency under Mitt Romney? Simple. Because I've seen what happens, America, when you elect yet another spineless, yet ruthless, principle-free blow-with-the-wind, big government, crony-capitalist RINO squish. His name is current British PM Dave Cameron - and trust me, the cure is far worse than the disease.