Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Obama's Missed and Dismissed Opportunities

The specter of a secret allegiance to Islam has hung over Obama since the presidential campaign of 2008. His membership in a church led by a racist and anti-American preacher did little to dismiss the speculation. His pronouncement of his Islamic middle name during his taking of the oath of office seemed like a taunt toward those questioning his affiliation. His Ameriphobic speech in Cairo threw into doubt whether he considered the United States as more of a threat to the world than Islamists whose goal is imposition of a world-wide caliphate, the Mohamadan version of a totalitarian regime. His reaction to uprisings in Islamic countries has further heightened the uncertainty over his true loyalty.

Obama has repeatedly shown his affinity for heavy-handed governmental policies. He and his wife want to dictate how and what people eat and what types of foods are permitted to be sold. He has hinted at suppression of media that have been used to express criticism of governmental officials or historical personalities. His administration has attempted to mandate how and on what Americans spend their money in terms of their own health. Obama and his underlings have committed multiple incidents of overreaching statist commandments while scoffing dismissively at proponents of individual freedom.

Islam manifests itself in similarly collectivist and dictatorial fashion. Islamists demand the banning of consumption of or even the presence of food which its adherents do not eat such as pork. Islamists expect to censor all media that question or criticize their ideology or the megalomaniac who fabricated it. Islamists demand that their cohorts and even non-Mohamadans hand over sums of money in order for redistribution to those deemed worthy by those Islamists in power. Proponents of Islam give its followers license to threaten and kill anyone impeding their seizure of power over societies, dismissing the very concept of freedom of religion, of speech and other inalienable liberties.

Obama has embraced the Egyptian protestors demanding the ousting of an autocratic yet non-Islamist regime. Mubarak would never be confused for a supporter of human rights or representative democracy. However, his government has maintained the bulwark against the tide of complete Islamization which has been overwhelming other areas in the Middle East and starting to infect Europe and North America. The unmistakable presence of the terrorists known as the Mooslum Brotherhood within the demonstrations demands that someone claiming to support democracy should not align himself with those jihadis.

In contrast, Obama refrained from publicly supporting demonstrators against the Islamic theocracy in Iran. Instead of doing anything to exhort those demonstrating against a regime hostile to the Free World, Obama remained mute. He could have fanned the flames of discontent within a hostile state, possibly resulting in the toppling of that totalitarian state. Someone looking out for the vested interests of the United States had an incentive to foment chaos in Iran, if only to disrupt and delay the Iranian program seeking nuclear weapons. The occupant of the White House ignored Rahm Emanual’s credo of “never letting a crisis go to waste” when presented with a chance to sabotage his country’s enemies while distancing himself from any association with Islam.