On Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Barack Obama an “ignoramus” and threatened to “confront the U.S. empire” if we don’t cease being big fat imperialist meanies. This was in response to Obama’s assertion that Chavez had engaged in exporting terrorism, which, incidentally, is an allegation that happens to be true.
Also over the weekend, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shot down Obama’s overtures toward forging “constructive ties” with the rogue Islamic theocracy. Now, we’ve certainly seen enough fruits of the soft, squishy diplomacy we tend to get from Democratic presidents to have known what to expect. Given Obama’s early upbringing and affinity for America-hating individuals and entities, it ought to be no surprise that he is proceeding with such apparent carelessness.
Brigitte Gabriel, the Lebanese-born former news anchor and expert on the Islamic world and global terrorism, analyzed Obama’s appeal to Iran, applying insights that spoke volumes. The appearance of the Farsi-subtitled video he sent to the ayatollah was bereft of any display of his office. The language he used and the manner in which the video was presented evidenced acquiescence, and contained cues that only one familiar with the nuances of Islamic sensibilities would recognize.
Gabriel noted that in the Islamic world, negotiation is only proposed when a party is prepared to admit defeat, or is stalling in order to regroup. We’ve seen this countless times in the dealings between Palestinian terrorist organizations and Israel. It is unlikely that White House experts on diplomatic protocol were unaware of these facts; when one considers Obama’s unique understanding of the Muslim world, it becomes clear that his comportment and the message of weakness and deference he sent were deliberate.
While Jimmy Carter’s abysmal foreign policy was rooted in an immature view of the world combined with his grandiose self-image, and Bill Clinton’s in an aversion to taking risks, it is all but apparent that Obama’s is geared toward sabotaging American preeminence.
As regards Chavez’s remarks, there’s another factor I’m sure news organizations have no desire to touch: As much as liberal America and the press would like to overlook it, there exists in Latin America a sense of caste that is based on race. As in Mexico, those of predominantly Spanish blood – as opposed to darker-skinned indios – are the ones who typically wind up holding the reins. More often than not, they have the power, money and determine in what direction their nations move – regardless of whether they happen to be democratic or socialist ones. This is even the case in Cuba.
In Chavez’s eyes, Obama is likely perceived as a puppet, an impotent figurehead of imperial America – as well as racially inferior. As much Chavez may have held disdain for President Bush on an ideological basis, at least he was white.
Some, even among conservatives, seem to be having a hard time wrapping their brains around the idea that our president is going to great lengths to ruin us on purpose. Then there are those who would argue that the desire on Obama’s part to compromise the U.S. economy and its standing in the global arena is shared by quite a few power brokers in this country and abroad – including former President Bush – unlikely though that may seem. In this scenario, it has been determined by certain global elites that America’s day as a superpower and an economic leader is done. The time has come for a global government, and “humbling” the United States – weakening us to the point where our populace will be more amenable to joining in such a union – is a step in that direction.
Why, when the U.S. has been the standard for industrial, economic and cultural advancement, as well as a force for security and justice for nearly two centuries, would people – successful Americans among them – opt for such a destructive path?
Vanity. Although many would relegate all this to the “black helicopters” bin, let’s assume for a moment that this is the case. It would be easy to see how vanity on the part of pretentious, capricious gangsters such as those who now hold high office might see themselves as the new founding fathers, mothers and perhaps other perverse designations, of a new world order.
It could be that President Obama, rather than comparing himself to FDR or Lincoln, as others are wont to do, likens himself to George Washington – or perhaps Vladimir Lenin.
And what about the American people? Well, any negative repercussions – abolishment of the Constitution and our freedoms under same, for example – will be for our own good in the long run, like Obama’s proposed 2010 budget. Should these designs ultimately result in a protracted period of worldwide chaos, war, famine, pestilence and the like, well, great undertakings have their price.
Not that you’d understand such things …
