Although even Hillary Clinton, who vowed at the age of four to one day be President, is acting coy about making a run in 2016, I am trying to set a good example for others by announcing that under no circumstances will I be tossing my hat in the ring.

That being said, I don’t understand why so many Republicans who are also not running seem so upset at the prospect of Mitt Romney giving it another try. The notion that just because he failed to defeat John McCain for the nomination in 2008 or Barack Obama in 2012, he shouldn’t run again is just plain goofy. After all, any sane person would acknowledge that we have all lived long enough to rue the results of both those races.

Besides, when I was a kid, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was always being held up as a model of grit, all because between the years of 1832 and 1860, he ran and was defeated in eight elections for the state legislature, the House and the U.S. Senate. So how is it that persistence was a virtue back then, but is deemed wickedly self-indulgent today?

Understand that while I like and admire Gov. Romney, I have a list of Republicans I would enthusiastically support in 2016. I just don’t think it’s improper for Romney to consider waging another campaign. If anything, I give him credit for forgiving us our past mistakes and his willingness to let us make amends.

According to Aaron Goldstein, writing in the American Spectator, during a closed door meeting involving Barack Obama and Senate Democrats, Sen. Robert Menendez (D, New Jersey) pushed Obama to renew sanctions against Iran. He contended that in exchange for removing the original sanctions, Iran has shown no willingness during one year’s worth of negotiations to curtail its nuclear ambitions. In rebuttal, Obama said he was aware of the pressures placed on senators by their donors.

Menendez, who is brighter than the average Democrat, managed to break the code, understanding that by “donors,” Obama meant Jewish donors, Israel being the natural and most convenient target of Iranian nukes.

Sen. Menendez could, in turn, have accused Obama of caving to the pressures of wealthy environmental loons when it came to funding solar panel companies and General Motors with our tax dollars or nixing the Keystone pipeline, but he didn’t, so I will.

Neither did Sen. Menendez question Obama over his open animosity towards America’s only ally in the Middle East, Israel, and her prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, so once again the task falls on my tiny shoulders.

However, these days, even the word “ally” has been sullied through misuse. For instance, even though Saudi money was behind 9/11 and even though Saudi Arabia considers the proper punishment for daring to criticize Islamic clerics to be 50 lashes a week for 20 weeks and that a death sentence is the only way to deal with those who convert to Christianity, our president, like his predecessor, continues to embrace these medieval creeps like long lost brethren.

Speaking of the man who refused to join arms with his fellow national leaders in the “Je Suis Charlie” demonstration in Paris, lest, perhaps, he might have found himself having to link arms with a Jew, Obama doesn’t even try to make a real case for emptying Guantanamo of its Islamic jihadists. Instead, he falls back on the old chestnut about Gitmo being a recruiting tool for our enemies, although to this day he refuses to identify just who those folks happen to be.

My question to him is whether he also favors shutting down San Quentin, Attica, Lewisburg, Leavenworth, Folsom and Sing Sing, because bank robbers, rapists and kidnappers, are using them as recruiting tools.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that we’re the only nation saddled with a limp-wristed appeaser. David Cameron, who perfectly exemplifies the rapid decline of the human race when we consider that England has gone from the highs of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher to the depths of Mr. Cameron in a relatively few decades.

After meeting with Obama, the Prime Minister emerged to report that he agreed that the best way to deal with the madmen of Iran was to bend over and touch his toes. Mr. Churchill would have been aghast, but Mr. Chamberlain would have nodded, winked and said, “That’s my boy.”

While recently watching a documentary about the Nazi blitz of Britain, it occurred to me that one simple way to distinguish between the good guys and the bad ones in any conflict is to see how they treat their children. During World War II when German bombs rained down on London, English parents sent their young ones off to the countryside and to Canada to ensure their safely, knowing that the separation could be for months, years or, worst case scenario, forever. The Germans not only did nothing to safeguard their own kids, they stuck them in oversized uniforms, handed them rifles and told them to defend the Fatherland.

Today, we see the Israelis doing everything in their power to protect their children while the vermin on the other side place their kids in harm’s way so that little mangled bodies are always among the victims when Israel finally retaliates against incessant missile attacks. As we saw recently, when a 10-year-old girl was used successfully as a suicide bomber, there is absolutely no depth to which the Islamists won’t stoop.

Finally, whenever I hear liberals attempt to make the case that the federal government and its legion of bureaucrats and experts know best how the rest of us should live, I recall that G.K. Chesterton’s clerical crime-solver Father Brown once sagely pointed out that the professionals built the Titanic, but it was an amateur who built the Ark.