Obama Submits to Evil

Yesterday, while thousands of Iranians were protesting, and some were being killed by Iran’s ruling tyranny, Obama was interviewed by Harry Smith of CBS News. Here is an excerpt:

Smith: People in this country say you haven’t said enough, that you haven’t been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street — to which you say?

Obama: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’re already seeing. We shouldn’t be playing into that.

In other words, America should not say things bad about bad guys, because those bad guys would then say bad things about America.

In other words, not only must America refrain from taking military action against our enemies, but we must also refrain from speaking ill of them.

This mentality of Obama reveals a perverse motivation behind his praise of Iran and Islam, and his criticism of Israel. Israel, after all, is a moral nation and would never use America as a “foil.”

Throughout Obama’s presidential campaign, Obama and his current Secretary of State said that they would “restore respect for America throughout the world.” (The direct quotation is from Hillary Clinton.) Now we are seeing in concrete terms what they really meant. They seek not respect but approval—through submission to evil.

The literal meaning of the word ‘islam’ is ‘submission’, and a Muslim is ‘one who submits’. In a fundamental sense, Obama is a devout Muslim.

2 thoughts on “Obama Submits to Evil

  1. In a proper government, should the chief executive spend his office time, so to speak, providing news analysis? I doubt it. If I were a donor to a proper government, I would want my agents to do their jobs. The President’s job is to run the executive branch in its function of protecting me from aggression and fraud, particularly from foreign aggression.

    If another country is committing aggression against my country, I would prefer to see the president spending his time presenting to Congress a draft of a declaration of total war — rather than working as news analyst scrutinizing the latest acts of oppression around the world.

    If another country, even a brutally oppressive one, is not committing aggression against my country, but only blustering, then shouldn’t the president publicly ignore that country?

    I ask partly as an exercise in trying to imagine what it would be like to live in a rational culture governed by a rational government.

  2. Regarding foreign policy, the President does need to analyze the news in order to know what actions to take to protect Americans. It is then appropriate for the President to communicate his analysis to the citizenry so that his actions will be understood.

    It is important to monitor oppressive regimes to determine whether they are threats to America. Iran, for instance, certainly is such a threat.

    A question I have is: Under what circumstances and to what extent should America’s government protect the rights of Americans when the Americans are outside of America?

Comments are closed.