Introduction by Karl Pomeroy
December 20, 2015
Updated December 21, 2015
That acting US President Barack Obama is trying to destroy the United States and replace its secular influence with Islam-dominated extremism has been one of my principle concerns for some time. The US remains one of the most powerful nations on earth, and Obama’s destructive policies have had a far-reaching impact on the stability of the world as a whole, leading us perhaps to the brink of full-scale war. In the commentary presented below, analyst Ken Eliasberg offers the intriguing thesis that Obama’s weak presidency has caused a political vacuum, with dangerous consequences on a global scale.
Of course, the notion of “American Exceptionalism”, which Eliasberg seems to favor, is distinctly absurd in view of the foreign policy blunders made by recent Washington officials. Indeed, the stature of the United States has dropped precipitously since George W. Bush’s infamous War on Terror, an hysterical reaction to the 9/11 tragedy. Instead of striking the perpetrators’ homeland, and perhaps out of childish revenge for Saddam Hussein’s threat on his father’s life, Bush struck instead the innocent nation of Iraq, thereby demolishing a stable secular state in a region rife with Islamic fundamentalist oppression. The tendency to repeat that blunder has only increased with time.
Author Ken Eliasberg’s position on Russia and Ukraine is unfortunately the opposite of the truth; he is apparently unaware that Ukraine was destabilized by a rash and ill-conceived American-intigated coup, against which Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reciprocate strongly enough. Perhaps Eliasberg has been reading exclusively Western sources. In any event, his bold condemnation of Obama’s subversive motives is unsurpassed in today’s political discourse.
Obama — Disengaged, Delusional, or Diabolical?
Guest article by Ken Eliasberg
December 20, 2015
President Obama’s reactions to recent terrorist attacks have been the source of some consternation among many who have been following these attacks. While it is becoming increasingly more difficult to disregard the terrorist nature of these events, Obama has certainly given it the old college try, doing his best to change the subject to gun control or alleged climate difficulties. In a recent TV discussion of Obama’s effort to change the subject in this manner, Charles Krauthammer suggested that Obama was either disengaged or delusional. But in fact, “diabolical” may be the better term. But Obama may have foreseen just such happenings when he informed us that it was his desire to “fundamentally transform” America. No one thought at the time that he might have in mind the weakening of America to the point of our being so vulnerable as to possibly being taken over by an Islamic caliphate that his neglect had made possible. And while this may seem far-fetched, let’s take a closer look at what Barack Obama and his feckless former secretary of state have accomplished in just seven short years.
Shortly after taking office (and not long after his “fundamental transformation” speech) Obama flew to Cairo to deliver an apology and a loving outreach to Islam — going so far as to suggest that Islam has deep roots in the USA. As recent events have made clear, there is no question that they are buried deep in the soil of the Obama administration. One very stark example is the Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all Islamic terrorist organizations; it is banned in Egypt, its birthplace, but welcome in the White House.
Moving right along, Obama has always been desirous of closing Guantanamo Bay, arguing that its existence is a recruiting tool for Islamists — although he never demonstrates why this is so. Are we to assume that throwing these barbarians in American jails — where they can really do some active recruiting — sits better with ISIS? This position is preposterous, but, then again, preposterous is the order of the day when it comes to Obama’s foreign policy — you know, leading from behind, strategic patience, soft imprint, all slogans to cover up for not leading at all. In any event, consistent with his desire to close Gitmo, he has been systematically downsizing the facility by returning the less dangerous barbarians to “safer” places in the Middle East (are there really safer places in the Middle East?). In this regard, his arrangements with respect to the Bowe Bergdahl transaction, the American deserter soon to be court-martialed for desertion — i.e. exchanging 5 extremely dangerous terrorists for one American traitor (a win-win for the enemy) is typical of Obama’s fecklessness.
The greatest American recruiting tool ISIS has is our feckless leader, Obama — because weakness is the greatest recruiting tool an enemy can have, and no group of people is more aware of this than the Arabs, who firmly believe in a “strong horse” approach to violent confrontation. Weakness emboldens one’s enemies, and draws possible recruits to their ranks, and it is hard to imagine a weaker leader than we now have, in the person of Obama. For an excellent elaboration of this point, I strongly recommend a book by Lee Smith, The Strong Horse — Power, Politics, And The Clash of Arab Civilizations.
Throughout his tenure, Obama has made it clear that American exceptionalism is to be denied at all cost; we are no more exceptional than any other country, and our imperialistic and hegemonic tendencies are to be reined in. The only problem with this approach is that America is the preeminent world leader, and when it steps back from its natural leadership role, it creates a vacuum, one that the world’s most dangerous and corrupt elements are only too willing to fill. Witness what has happened in Libya, Egypt immediately after Mubarak was deposed, Syria, Yemen, and, on a larger scale, Russia’s moves on the Crimea and Ukraine, China and the South China Sea, etc. Taking even a sympathetic approach to Obama’s handling of foreign policy, one might not be too wide of the mark in suggesting that what he had in mind re a fundamental transformation was bringing America low, i.e. that contrary to Krauthammer’s more generous assessment of Obama’s actions as “disengaged” or “delusional,” he is doing exactly what he set out to do — destroy America.
Afterword by Kennedy Applebaum
December 21, 2015
To those liberals who share with us the egalitarian ideal, remember that Muslim extremists do not practice egalitarianism. They have departed from the original teachings of Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad ibn Abd Allāh ibn Abd al-Mussalib ibn Hāshim (born 570, Mecca, Arabia — died June 8, 632, Medina), prophet of Islam, whose wife was a businesswoman, and who did not advocate the oppression of women. Not only do Muslim extremists consider women as animals, they also practice religious intolerance, and believe it a noble act to murder Christians.
Thus, to support a complete tolerance of Muslims, some sizeable percentage of which harbor extremist sentiments, is as far from egalitarianism as supporting a tolerance of Nazis.
The United States, under the current acting President, has aided Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to do so, possibly at the behest of the global financial elite, who reap huge profits from both the oil smuggling trade and a general world disarray that promotes the theater of corruption under which they make their money, and who take advantage of a weak American President’s Muslim sympathies.
A disturbing video (with subtitles) on the Muslim invasion of Europe can be found at the following source. I recommend turning the sound off and watching the images silently, to allow your own thoughts to emerge unaffected: Click here.
Egalitarianism is an ideal, to be extended to those who practice it and taught to those who don’t.
‘Diabolical’ Obama Actions Lead to Weakening of America – US Media
December 20, 2015
Obama’s reaction to global threats of terrorism can be considered absurd. As global terror is becoming “more difficult to disregard,” the American leader is focusing on issues including gun control and climate change, a columnist Ken Eliasberg stated.
During a recent TV show, journalist Charles Krauthammer suggested that Obama’s attempts to switch to other issues in the face of an imminent terror threat indicates that the leader is either “disengaged” or “delusional.”
But according to Eliasberg, writing in the online magazine American Thinker, the best word to describe the US president’s policy is “diabolical.”
To justify his use of that satanic adjective, the author has listed several arguments, including the notion that soon after coming to power Obama visited Egypt, and delivered a “loving outreach” to Islam, in a pretence that the religion was relevant to American culture.
Another in Eliasberg’s list is an instance of special treatment for Islam by the Obama administration in welcoming to the White House representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group considered by some to be the mother of all terrorist organizations, despite it’s restriction in Egypt, its birthplace.
Another in the author’s list to ‘prove’ the president is weakening the US is Obama’s intent to shut the Guantanamo Bay prisons, by reason that the facility is an instrument for recruitment by Islamists. But if all Gitmo facilities were closed, Eliasberg argued, authorities would have to throw violators affiliated with Daesh (ISIL/Islamic state) into regular privately owned US jails, where other inmates could be influenced by Islamist propaganda.
“This position is preposterous, but, then again, preposterous is the order of the day when it comes to Obama’s foreign policy — you know, leading from behind, strategic patience, soft imprint, all slogans to cover up for not leading at all,” Eliasberg declared.
The right-wing author suggested that Obama’s “fecklessness” is humiliating to Americans and ultimately encourages worldwide war.