PrintNovember 9, 2009
Obama Stands with Dictators and Muslims
With nearly a year in office, we now know without doubt exactly where our own president stands on vital national security matters. He has a track record and has shown his true colors over and over again.
In Honduras, he picked the side of the dictator-wannabe without hesitation. He has used every diplomatic weapon at his disposal to destroy the constitutional democracy in Honduras, even cutting off financial aid and blocking diplomatic visas. He went the full gamut of meddling there and made no bones about it.
He moved to cancel long-planned missile defense shields for Poland and the Czech Republic, alerting Russia that he is not going to put up a fight to preserve freedom in former Soviet bloc countries. He even made a point of denying Berliners his presence on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our president sends clear signals when it comes to wimping out on the friends of liberty.
With our sister state Israel the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the only non-Islamic country, Barack Obama and our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have been forceful bullies, demanding up-front, dangerous concessions from Israel, while securing no concessions whatsoever from any of its enemies. While Israel fights for her very existence, President Obama deigns to chit-chat with the Iranian Hitler-act-alike. What signal could be clearer?
President Obama doesn't want to be seen as "meddling" in the affairs of another nation if that nation is Muslim. Hence his reticence in any verbal support for the protesters in Iran. Yet he meddles both in public and behind the scenes nonstop against Israel.
Now, we come to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a man wearing the uniform of our own team, and the president does not want to "draw conclusions." What he seems to mean is that he does not want to "draw conclusions" against a Muslim. We now have clear reports that the red flags surrounding Hasan, the Ft Hood terrorist, were so clear that it would take a complete ninny wearing earplugs and blinders not to see them.
The U.K. Telegraph reported yesterday:
In Honduras, he picked the side of the dictator-wannabe without hesitation. He has used every diplomatic weapon at his disposal to destroy the constitutional democracy in Honduras, even cutting off financial aid and blocking diplomatic visas. He went the full gamut of meddling there and made no bones about it.
He moved to cancel long-planned missile defense shields for Poland and the Czech Republic, alerting Russia that he is not going to put up a fight to preserve freedom in former Soviet bloc countries. He even made a point of denying Berliners his presence on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our president sends clear signals when it comes to wimping out on the friends of liberty.
With our sister state Israel the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the only non-Islamic country, Barack Obama and our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have been forceful bullies, demanding up-front, dangerous concessions from Israel, while securing no concessions whatsoever from any of its enemies. While Israel fights for her very existence, President Obama deigns to chit-chat with the Iranian Hitler-act-alike. What signal could be clearer?
President Obama doesn't want to be seen as "meddling" in the affairs of another nation if that nation is Muslim. Hence his reticence in any verbal support for the protesters in Iran. Yet he meddles both in public and behind the scenes nonstop against Israel.
Now, we come to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a man wearing the uniform of our own team, and the president does not want to "draw conclusions." What he seems to mean is that he does not want to "draw conclusions" against a Muslim. We now have clear reports that the red flags surrounding Hasan, the Ft Hood terrorist, were so clear that it would take a complete ninny wearing earplugs and blinders not to see them.
The U.K. Telegraph reported yesterday:
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday.
Do flags get any redder than this? Are our valiant military men and women to be subjected to terror from within because our president and his cabinet do not wish to offend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims?
Apparently. When Barack Obama wrote his book, The Audacity of Hope, he laid out clearly where he would stand in his desire to protect Muslim Americans from any sort of profiling that might make them uncomfortable.
Being ever the stalwart protector of delicate Muslim feelings, Barack Obama wrote this on page 261:
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." (emphasis mine)
To Muslims, President Obama is keeping his promise. He refuses to "draw conclusions" from the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a Muslim American who made no secret of his intentions.
So, how many Americans will die because of President Obama's utterly misplaced loyalties? Are human lives not more important than "feelings" and "sensibilities"? Was the Ft Hood massacre not an act of war carried out by a traitor to the United States of America?
Is President Obama himself betraying his oath to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic?
So, if a school bus driver made the same kinds of threats, would he be allowed to continue driving innocent American children to their classes so as not to offend the feelings of Muslims? If a worker in a federal or state office building talks incessantly of jihad and promises to become a fighter of the infidels, do his or her needs to "feel a sense of security and belonging" trump the colleagues' right to live? From where I'm sitting, it would seem so -- in the morally perverse universe of our president.
The right to self-defense is as fundamentally grounded as any could possibly be. The right to preemptively secure oneself and others from stated threats is solid. Yet, when it comes to these matters, our president is only sure that he must protect the enemy. When it comes to protecting us and our allies, he goes all wobbly at the knees and can't tell where he stands.
There isn't much that makes blood boil faster than seeing brave, upstanding defenders of freedom gunned down by one of their own -- especially when the killer should have been removed and probably dishonorably discharged at the very least, long, long, long before he callously took innocent life in the cause of Allah.
Today, blood is boiling all over America, but apparently not at the White House. Ice water in the president's veins, perhaps? Or passion reserved only for our enemies?
This whole conundrum leaves a sane person speechless.
Is President Obama himself betraying his oath to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic?
So, if a school bus driver made the same kinds of threats, would he be allowed to continue driving innocent American children to their classes so as not to offend the feelings of Muslims? If a worker in a federal or state office building talks incessantly of jihad and promises to become a fighter of the infidels, do his or her needs to "feel a sense of security and belonging" trump the colleagues' right to live? From where I'm sitting, it would seem so -- in the morally perverse universe of our president.
The right to self-defense is as fundamentally grounded as any could possibly be. The right to preemptively secure oneself and others from stated threats is solid. Yet, when it comes to these matters, our president is only sure that he must protect the enemy. When it comes to protecting us and our allies, he goes all wobbly at the knees and can't tell where he stands.
There isn't much that makes blood boil faster than seeing brave, upstanding defenders of freedom gunned down by one of their own -- especially when the killer should have been removed and probably dishonorably discharged at the very least, long, long, long before he callously took innocent life in the cause of Allah.
Today, blood is boiling all over America, but apparently not at the White House. Ice water in the president's veins, perhaps? Or passion reserved only for our enemies?
This whole conundrum leaves a sane person speechless.
