The recent fiasco of President Obama and his administration’s new Middle-East policy provides a perfect insight into the quality of presidency that those who elected him brought on our heads. Although the Secretary of State Clinton and virtually all “liberal” media were quick to blame a videotape posted on YouTube earlier this month for the recent eruption of anti-American violence across the Arab countries, what we see here is a direct consequence of amateurish efforts of the “liberal” government desperately trying to apply their naively fallacious ideology to the real world.
Well, these efforts failed, and their effects were truly disastrous – a good illustration of the conventional wisdom that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
After years of appeasing and apologizing to Muslim populations in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere, in an outburst of spontaneous “gratitude”, Islamists in Libya burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing the American ambassador together with three other Americans. Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and other countries under firm control of the “religion of peace” joined the wave of Libyan enthusiasm. Our aid and tolerance seemed to strengthen their centuries-old resolve to impose their dysfunctional political system, that they call a religion, on the entire world.
I cannot help noticing a striking similarity between the current crisis and a fiasco of former President Carter’s then-new Middle-East policy that turned Iran from American ally onto our sworn enemy. The common denominator of the two failures was the same naive belief that all it takes to make peaceful and productive societies out of rebellious peoples, fixated on inflammatory rhetoric that comes from their religious leaders, is to liberate them from their despotic rulers and teach them how to democratically elect the governments that would strive for implementation of wishes of the majority. The problem with this belief is that if the peoples in question are more interested in fighting, looting, and conquering than in laboriously building their nations’ prosperity in harmony and peace then their democratically elected governments are more likely to resort to intimidation, aggression, and violence than unelected but often more pragmatic rulers were, as the examples of Iran of late 1979 and today’s Libya clearly indicate.
After the recent manifestations of anti-American hostilities in the Middle East, a rational person would expect that the President and his cabinet see that they have been going in a wrong direction and that their friendliness and compassion have been misplaced, but this does not seem the case. As it is typical of true “liberals”, they cling to their fallacious ideology (codified naiveté would be more descriptive phrase here) and are ready to deliver four more years of the same, expecting different results, and no failure or absurdity that they engineer will ever temper their zeal in implementing their global utopia that exists only in a pipe dream of a leftomaniac. This ideological rigidity resembles of a typical statement by a spokesman of one of the falling socialist states of Eastern Europe in the 1970′s who had this to say to masses disappointed with economic misery that socialism brought on their heads: “It is not because of socialism, it is because of not enough of socialism.” And so they are poised to continue with this insanity until they run the country to the ultimate defeat.
But President Obama is just a tip of an iceberg. It is the administration of losers that he installed in Washington, D.C., that inflicts most damage to our Republic. Millions of brainwashed or racially motivated supporters, who lend credibility to that administration’s miserable efforts, make that damage likely to progress all the way back to the dark ages of poverty and oppression (nowadays, under the pretense of “progress” and “social justice”).
In the aftermath of the killing of the U.S. ambassador by Islamic militants, Secretary Clinton, with the gravely serious face that was meant to intimidate those who dare to offend the “religion of peace”, called the video “Innocence of Muslims”, which she blamed for Islamist violence, “disgusting”. Somehow, in other cases of free speech directed against other religions and their symbols, she could not find in her bleeding heart enough outrage to speak up. Apparently, in her mind, it was not because of apologizing but because of not enough apologizing. Somehow, she did not think that this time it is an exercise of one’s First Amendment rights and not the feelings of a few Muslim fanatics who actually saw the video in Libya and other Arab countries that deserve governmental protection. Her misplaced outrage put the killing the ambassador on par with making an “anti-Muslim” movie, while the adequate reaction should have been: “You burned our flag so we are even on the count of offending.”
Now, will she and the Obama administration deem free speech in the U.S. a harmful loophole in the law and submit it to governmental “regulation” in other to not offend our Muslim “friends”?
In the past, the “liberals” engaged in a search for the reasons of prevailing Muslim hostility towards America. “Why do they hate us?”, they asked deceitfully, as if we were to be blamed for attacks on us and our nation. Not surprisingly, they reached a self-incriminatory conclusion suggesting that these were the American values that were one the root causes of growing Islamic anti-American hatred. And President Obama zealously begun following up on this fallacious argument, apologizing to Islamists for accomplishments of our nation, which include our liberties, high living standards, and political strength, as if there was something wrong with our dislike of barbaric terror, violence, and destruction that many Islamic fanatics were notorious for, or with our reluctance to bow to Sharia “law” that suits the needs of primitive tribal societies but is irreconcilable with Western humanism and individual liberties that we cherish in America.
He promised them (the Islamists, that is) a new chapter in relations between our nations that would be based on respect and dignity. They saw his declarations for what they really were – an expression of naive belief that Muslims of the Middle East want no harm to others and will live peacefully ever after within their national borders if left alone and treated as equal. They perceived his reaching out to them as a sign of weakness, and if President Obama’s speeches and the quiet approval of the U.S. administration to overthrowing established regimes in Egypt and Libya that were once (mildly) pro-American accomplished anything, they (the speeches and the inaction) encouraged their dominant radicals to launch more attacks on us rather than calming them down. And this course of events was predictable, taking into account former President Carter’s naive policy towards Iran that resulted in toppling America’s former ally, Shah Pahlavi, and taking hostage 52 Americans captured in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad by Islamic militants.
What is mind boggling here is that there are tens of millions of Americans who, apparently, learned nothing from past experiences with the spectacular failures of “liberalism”, and are ready to elect or re-elect “liberal” governments as if they have not inflicted enough damage to our country. Do they believe that these failures happened not because of “liberalism” but because of not enough of “liberalism”? It must take an idiot, a worshiper of the ideology, or an enemy of the Republic to vote for the party that for decades now have steadily pushed our nation towards societal, political, and economic worsening, or to believe that this sorry regress, only partially offset by new inventions in advanced technology, constitutes a “progress” or a move “forward”, as the “liberals” have claimed deceitfully.
Meanwhile, Cairo’s population passed 10 million people, which in itself is a perfect example of Malthus’ Law: generous handouts to poor nations will temporarily increase their living standards, which – in turn – will spur rapid growth of their populations thus bringing their living standards down to where they were before, the level of subsistence, that is. The overgrown populations, unable to provide for themselves, will demand more handouts and will blame others for the misery they brought upon themselves with their lack of procreational self-restraint. And in the absence of the larger handouts, having the numbers on their side, they will rebel and assault in order to force other, more prosperous but less densely populated nations to involuntarily share the fruits of these nations’ work with the multitudes of rebellious assailants. A paraphrase “We shall overwhelm” of the communist credo is an adequate characterization of their not so sophisticated agenda.
I wished one day the U.S. Congress would pass Amendment Zero to the Constitution of the U.S. and three quarters of States would ratify it. Amendment Zero should declare the freedom from “liberalism” as an inalienable right of We the People. It should build a wall of separation between the “liberals” and the government that would spare us the never-ending series of “liberal” failures, the recent Middle-East fiasco is but a small example of.
Until then, we have one defensive measure still left to our disposal: the November 6 elections. Please do whatever you lawfully can to make sure that the “liberal” failed fallacionist government is ousted. Or just get up and go voting. Our nation will greatly appreciate it.
~ FOOTNOTE ~
I use the descriptor “liberal” with the quotation marks around it while referring to various left-leaning and other collectivist-like individuals, groups, organizations, policies, and phenomena because in traditional sense of the word, liberal meant somebody or something that favored free enterprise and minimal to none governmental intervention into people’s business. As of now, the “liberals” are trying to liberate us, the productive majority of Americans, from our liberties and fruits of our work, and to submit the individual to the omnipotent government. So, calling them liberals (without the quotation marks) would be self-contradictory, if not outright deceitful.
September 17, 2012
~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer since July of 2002.