July 9, 2015
President Obama described himself as "fearless" at this stage of his presidency in a recent interview. I do not believe most of what he says, but I have learned when to pay attention and take him at his word. His claim of being fearless is one such example. Not that I believe that he is really fearless, but, more importantly, he believes he is fearless. I would describe him more as hell-bent on fundamentally changing America and the world no matter who or what stands in his way. And that should put fear into Americans and world Jewry. In this article, I will explain why this is the case from an international perspective. Part II will address Obama's domestic agenda. In both cases, I'm afraid, his radical ideology and "fearlessness" will dangerously coalesce.
I have discussed, debated and written about my belief that Obama is going full throttle to pursue his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology, which includes the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. I have repeatedly been told that I cannot prove my claim. Fair enough. But neither can anyone else prove any other theory that aims to explain the dangerous, odd and irrational behavior of this American president. And based on Obama's own words and actions, plain facts and the utter chaos in the world, I believe that my theory holds up better than the others.
Take for example Obama's obsession to reach a nuclear deal with Iran at any cost. All you hear from experts, analysts, politicians, journalists, etc. is that Obama is pursuing this deal with Iran for his own legacy. But does that really add up? The deal all but assures that Iran will get a nuclear arsenal as it would be permitted to do so legally--by the terms of the deal--over time. Most of the proponents of the legacy theory also believe that Iran would use or threaten to use any nuclear weapons that it is able to procure. Even if Iran does not use the weapons, putting it on the path to legitimately obtain them dramatically shifts the balance of power and will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. What American president would really want that as his or her legacy? Even Obama recently said as much. Advocates of the legacy theory must believe that if the world goes to hell, a legacy won't matter, or if hell means something more benign, the blame will be placed on the then-sitting president. The truth, however, will still be the truth.
It also is inexplicable why Iran has been allowed to negotiate from a position of strength when it is in a position of weakness. Why were economic sanctions, which were working at the time, eased just to get Iran to the negotiating table? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate the terms it wants, continually changing existing terms and adding new terms in the process? Why do we continuously allow for postponement? In other words, Obama could have secured both a good deal and a good legacy.
That, unfortunately, is not where we find ourselves. We are on the clear path to disaster with Iran. A reasonable person would have to expect that a sitting U.S. president would know when to walk away from a bad deal and not let so-called legacy issues interfere. But no matter how bad or preposterous the terms that we hear of are, you just get the sense that, despite his assurances to the contrary, Obama is not going to walk away from this deal. Helping Iran actually build nuclear reactors, as was recently reported as an option, was likely said sarcastically numerous times by outside parties during the course of negotiations. One wonders if our negotiators heard this and took it seriously thinking it would silence their critics. In any event, just how egregious do the terms of the deal have to be before more people conclude that ideology--or fearlessness--drive Obama and legacy does not? At least not the type of legacy that they are contemplating.
The legacy theory also is flawed because it is too narrow. It mistakenly looks at the Iranian nuclear talks in a vacuum. It ignores Iran's other actions and other developments in the Middle East. Looking at the whole picture, again one sees ideology, not legacy.
Fearless to Obama means redefining the landscape of the Middle East. It means ending economic sanctions against Iran, likely very shortly after a deal is reached. Who would want a legacy that is based on funding the largest state-sponsor of terrorism and most belligerent country in the world while giving it the ability to obtain nuclear weapons? Why would we, negotiating from a position of leverage, not attempt to get Iran to stop its terrorist activities and aggression in the Middle East? Instead, we will be supplying it with billions and billions of dollars, which would promote its uncivilized and savage behavior and all but ensure that it will continue. Why would we not pressure Iran to free American prisoners? To curb its human rights violations? The legacy theory just does not add up.
To Obama, being fearless means getting in front of the American people at this stage of the advancement of IS and boldly saying that he has no strategy to combat that terrorist group. It means blatantly lying and telling Americans that he is still waiting for a strategy from the Pentagon. He spreads propaganda that we cannot defeat the terrorists militarily, but instead have to address underlying and root causes. The only mention he makes of Muslims is to claim that what is happening is a distortion of Islam and that most of the victims are Muslim. Just think about how twisted this really is. He refuses to say that the terrorists are Muslims, but portrays the victims as Muslims. He also refuses to acknowledge that Christians and Jews are targets of radical Islamic terrorism despite clear and convincing evidence that they are. So even in these extraordinary circumstances of rampant radical Muslim terrorism, with members of many religions as the true victims, Obama repeatedly singles out Muslims not as the perpetrators but as the victims. He builds off of this to make exaggerated claims about Islamophobia. To deflect away from the dangers of radical Islam, he makes ridiculous comparisons to the Crusades to vilify Christians. Instead of admitting when members of other religions are targeted by radical Islamic terrorists, he makes idiotic statements like the random shooting of some folks in a kosher deli. This too is ideology, not legacy.
Similar to the legacy theory, many people are now saying that Obama just wants to run out the clock on the IS problem and hand it off to the next president. And like the legacy theory, this too does not make any sense. The IS problem has been serious for over a year now and Obama is not leaving office for well over a year. The IS threat, like the overall threat of radical Islam, is rapidly expanding in the U.S. and abroad. It is one thing to ignore the savage acts of IS overseas, but how could an American president ignore such a severe threat to the American people? Why is there an assumption that nothing will happen in America and that it is acceptable for this problem to wait for the next president to address? This line of reasoning is irresponsible and dangerous. Again, facts are facts, and IS has risen and prospered on Obama's watch.
Fearless to Obama also means attacking the one real democracy and America's best ally in the Middle East even though it goes against this country's own interests and the opinion of the majority of its citizens. Slandering Israel with one-sided criticism while choosing to ignore Palestinian and overall Islamic terrorism in an effort to promote a phony peace may be fearless to Obama, but would mean suicide for Israel. This too, however, fits squarely with his ideological beliefs. And it is easy to see the passion and emotion with which he condemns Israel and its Prime Minister, and the lack thereof and empty words he mouths when there is a savage terrorist strike. Of course, when terrorists strike in Israel, there is silence from Obama unless Israel defends itself and then he typically condemns Israel using ridiculous moral equivalency arguments.
If people want to talk about a real Obama legacy, they should focus on the Arab Spring and the resulting escalation of Islamic terrorism and global chaos. Obama supported radical Islamic terrorist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and the ousting of more moderate and secular leaders like Mubarak and Gaddafi. He has shunned the current moderate leader of Egypt, El-Sisi, who himself is trying to combat radical Islamic extremism. He also let the moderate Iranian Green Movement twist in the wind without even a word of encouragement in 2009. The result to date has been Iran and IS competing for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and causing as much bloodshed, death and destruction as they can in the process. This has all happened on Obama's watch. These are facts, not theories, and it remains to be seen how his full, true legacy plays out.
Critics can try to discredit my beliefs all they want. In the end I believe they do not collapse like a house of cards when scrutinized. To me, Obama's pro-Muslim words and actions are quite clear. The global turmoil being caused by radical Islamists makes them all the more obvious. In fact, it would be too hard to believe except that it is really happening. The legacy Obama wants is the one that he is fearlessly pursuing, the one that promotes his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology. Obama's meaning of fearless should be causing fear and sending a chill up the spines of Americans and Jews.
President Obama described himself as "fearless" at this stage of his presidency in a recent interview. I do not believe most of what he says, but I have learned when to pay attention and take him at his word. His claim of being fearless is one such example. Not that I believe that he is really fearless, but, more importantly, he believes he is fearless. I would describe him more as hell-bent on fundamentally changing America and the world no matter who or what stands in his way. And that should put fear into Americans and world Jewry. In this article, I will explain why this is the case from an international perspective. Part II will address Obama's domestic agenda. In both cases, I'm afraid, his radical ideology and "fearlessness" will dangerously coalesce.
I have discussed, debated and written about my belief that Obama is going full throttle to pursue his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology, which includes the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. I have repeatedly been told that I cannot prove my claim. Fair enough. But neither can anyone else prove any other theory that aims to explain the dangerous, odd and irrational behavior of this American president. And based on Obama's own words and actions, plain facts and the utter chaos in the world, I believe that my theory holds up better than the others.
Take for example Obama's obsession to reach a nuclear deal with Iran at any cost. All you hear from experts, analysts, politicians, journalists, etc. is that Obama is pursuing this deal with Iran for his own legacy. But does that really add up? The deal all but assures that Iran will get a nuclear arsenal as it would be permitted to do so legally--by the terms of the deal--over time. Most of the proponents of the legacy theory also believe that Iran would use or threaten to use any nuclear weapons that it is able to procure. Even if Iran does not use the weapons, putting it on the path to legitimately obtain them dramatically shifts the balance of power and will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. What American president would really want that as his or her legacy? Even Obama recently said as much. Advocates of the legacy theory must believe that if the world goes to hell, a legacy won't matter, or if hell means something more benign, the blame will be placed on the then-sitting president. The truth, however, will still be the truth.
It also is inexplicable why Iran has been allowed to negotiate from a position of strength when it is in a position of weakness. Why were economic sanctions, which were working at the time, eased just to get Iran to the negotiating table? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate the terms it wants, continually changing existing terms and adding new terms in the process? Why do we continuously allow for postponement? In other words, Obama could have secured both a good deal and a good legacy.
That, unfortunately, is not where we find ourselves. We are on the clear path to disaster with Iran. A reasonable person would have to expect that a sitting U.S. president would know when to walk away from a bad deal and not let so-called legacy issues interfere. But no matter how bad or preposterous the terms that we hear of are, you just get the sense that, despite his assurances to the contrary, Obama is not going to walk away from this deal. Helping Iran actually build nuclear reactors, as was recently reported as an option, was likely said sarcastically numerous times by outside parties during the course of negotiations. One wonders if our negotiators heard this and took it seriously thinking it would silence their critics. In any event, just how egregious do the terms of the deal have to be before more people conclude that ideology--or fearlessness--drive Obama and legacy does not? At least not the type of legacy that they are contemplating.
The legacy theory also is flawed because it is too narrow. It mistakenly looks at the Iranian nuclear talks in a vacuum. It ignores Iran's other actions and other developments in the Middle East. Looking at the whole picture, again one sees ideology, not legacy.
Fearless to Obama means redefining the landscape of the Middle East. It means ending economic sanctions against Iran, likely very shortly after a deal is reached. Who would want a legacy that is based on funding the largest state-sponsor of terrorism and most belligerent country in the world while giving it the ability to obtain nuclear weapons? Why would we, negotiating from a position of leverage, not attempt to get Iran to stop its terrorist activities and aggression in the Middle East? Instead, we will be supplying it with billions and billions of dollars, which would promote its uncivilized and savage behavior and all but ensure that it will continue. Why would we not pressure Iran to free American prisoners? To curb its human rights violations? The legacy theory just does not add up.
To Obama, being fearless means getting in front of the American people at this stage of the advancement of IS and boldly saying that he has no strategy to combat that terrorist group. It means blatantly lying and telling Americans that he is still waiting for a strategy from the Pentagon. He spreads propaganda that we cannot defeat the terrorists militarily, but instead have to address underlying and root causes. The only mention he makes of Muslims is to claim that what is happening is a distortion of Islam and that most of the victims are Muslim. Just think about how twisted this really is. He refuses to say that the terrorists are Muslims, but portrays the victims as Muslims. He also refuses to acknowledge that Christians and Jews are targets of radical Islamic terrorism despite clear and convincing evidence that they are. So even in these extraordinary circumstances of rampant radical Muslim terrorism, with members of many religions as the true victims, Obama repeatedly singles out Muslims not as the perpetrators but as the victims. He builds off of this to make exaggerated claims about Islamophobia. To deflect away from the dangers of radical Islam, he makes ridiculous comparisons to the Crusades to vilify Christians. Instead of admitting when members of other religions are targeted by radical Islamic terrorists, he makes idiotic statements like the random shooting of some folks in a kosher deli. This too is ideology, not legacy.
Similar to the legacy theory, many people are now saying that Obama just wants to run out the clock on the IS problem and hand it off to the next president. And like the legacy theory, this too does not make any sense. The IS problem has been serious for over a year now and Obama is not leaving office for well over a year. The IS threat, like the overall threat of radical Islam, is rapidly expanding in the U.S. and abroad. It is one thing to ignore the savage acts of IS overseas, but how could an American president ignore such a severe threat to the American people? Why is there an assumption that nothing will happen in America and that it is acceptable for this problem to wait for the next president to address? This line of reasoning is irresponsible and dangerous. Again, facts are facts, and IS has risen and prospered on Obama's watch.
Fearless to Obama also means attacking the one real democracy and America's best ally in the Middle East even though it goes against this country's own interests and the opinion of the majority of its citizens. Slandering Israel with one-sided criticism while choosing to ignore Palestinian and overall Islamic terrorism in an effort to promote a phony peace may be fearless to Obama, but would mean suicide for Israel. This too, however, fits squarely with his ideological beliefs. And it is easy to see the passion and emotion with which he condemns Israel and its Prime Minister, and the lack thereof and empty words he mouths when there is a savage terrorist strike. Of course, when terrorists strike in Israel, there is silence from Obama unless Israel defends itself and then he typically condemns Israel using ridiculous moral equivalency arguments.
If people want to talk about a real Obama legacy, they should focus on the Arab Spring and the resulting escalation of Islamic terrorism and global chaos. Obama supported radical Islamic terrorist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and the ousting of more moderate and secular leaders like Mubarak and Gaddafi. He has shunned the current moderate leader of Egypt, El-Sisi, who himself is trying to combat radical Islamic extremism. He also let the moderate Iranian Green Movement twist in the wind without even a word of encouragement in 2009. The result to date has been Iran and IS competing for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and causing as much bloodshed, death and destruction as they can in the process. This has all happened on Obama's watch. These are facts, not theories, and it remains to be seen how his full, true legacy plays out.
Critics can try to discredit my beliefs all they want. In the end I believe they do not collapse like a house of cards when scrutinized. To me, Obama's pro-Muslim words and actions are quite clear. The global turmoil being caused by radical Islamists makes them all the more obvious. In fact, it would be too hard to believe except that it is really happening. The legacy Obama wants is the one that he is fearlessly pursuing, the one that promotes his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology. Obama's meaning of fearless should be causing fear and sending a chill up the spines of Americans and Jews.
No comments:
Post a Comment