September 20, 2012
What This Election Is Really About
Isn't it funny to watch the Obama administration erupt in outrage (dutifully followed by their media pets) over Romney daring to criticize their astonishingly inept handling of the embassy invasions in Egypt and Libya?
Remember candidate Obama in 2008? Russia invaded the nation of Georgia – once part of its empire – and Obama, far from pursuing a "unified" foreign policy, criticized the Bush administration's handling of the affair.
Said Obama at the time, "This is a matter that should be left to the United Nations."
The press barely mentioned Obama's criticism of Bush's foreign policy. Partly because they were trashing Bush's foreign policy constantly, as were all Democrats, because during Republican administrations nobody talks about a "unified" foreign policy.
But the main reason they didn't make a big deal about Obama's criticism was that it so clearly revealed his complete ignorance of international relations.
Let's see. Russia invaded Georgia. "Let's leave it up to the United Nations." The organ of the UN that handles invasions of one country by another is the Security Council. On the Security Council, Russia has a permanent seat and a veto.
So when Russia invades another country, the UN cannot possibly do anything about it, because Russia will merely veto any proposed action.
The only reason that the UN was able to respond to Communist North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950 was that at the time, Joe Stalin's USSR was boycotting the UN in a fit of pique. So Russia wasn't present to veto UN action.
Russia has remembered ever since, and never misses a meeting.
Apparently in 2008 Obama did not know that the Security Council handles international aggression issues, or he did not know that Russia had veto power, or he knew nothing at all.
If a Republican presidential candidate showed such ignorance of foreign affairs it would be trumpeted for the rest of the campaign (if he lost) or his entire term (if he won). (Can you spell "potatoe"?)
But let's keep one thing straight. Obama may have been president for the past four years, but when it comes to foreign policy, he seems to be unsure what country he is president of.
That is, he is supposed to look after the national interest of the United States. Instead, he constantly sets aside our national interest and apologizes for our having provoked the hatred of so many foreign groups.
But which groups hate us? The ones that take violent action against us are the murderous thugs who, in the name of their religion or their ideology, think they have the right to kill anybody, anywhere, any time, while suppressing all political opposition at home.
Of course they hate us. We are the opposite of them. Worse yet, our ideas work, and theirs don't, and everybody can see that. They either have to become like us – or try to destroy us.
The Libyan invasion of our embassy (which by international law is American soil) was not part of any riot or public disturbance. It was a carefully planned attack that took place in the dead of night.
The Egyptian invasion of our embassy took place in a country where the military or the police could have stepped in at any time to suppress the disturbance. (They prove this whenever two Coptic Christians meet on the street and shake hands, whereupon they are arrested for rioting.)
The rioting at our embassy in Cairo went on for days. This could not happen without the approval of the Egyptian government.
There is zero chance that either event was a spontaneous demonstration by an outraged citizenry. Instead, an obscure movie was used as the pretext for attacking the Great Satan.
Iran has shown everybody that as long as you hate the US and Israel loudly and violently enough, you can stay in power without the slightest attention to good government or the will of the people.
If we had a president who understood or cared about the interests of the United States, the response to a government-sponsored attack on our embassy in Egypt would have been, at the very least, an immediate freeze on all Egyptian and Libyan funds in the United States, the cancellation of all shipments of military and nonmilitary aid to Egypt, the recall of our embassies and consulates from both countries, and the announcement that all Americans were to leave both countries at once.
This is what you do when a foreign government attacks your embassy, whether they pretend it's a "spontaneous" public demonstration or not. This is the minimum.
Anything less is an invitation for other nations to treat our embassies likewise.
Those who say we can't do such things lest we "burn bridges" or "alienate the moderates" in the other country don't understand. The embassy attacks burned all bridges. There are no bridges. And a show of weakness from us weakens the moderates in the other country, for, unable to trust in our strength, they dare not speak.
Instead of strength, the Obama administration responded with an apology for ... for what? For America being a free country where any moron can make any movie he wants to make, and the government can't do anything about it and therefore can't be held responsible for it?
This is not the result of incompetence by the Obama administration. Quite the contrary. That apology was precisely the policy Obama feels is right – because he does not conduct foreign policy as the president of the United States.
Instead, he conducts the foreign policy of the American academic/media elite. Which is nearly identical with the elites of Europe (the only difference being that the American elite has not yet completely embraced the anti-Semitism – no, the open Jew-hating – of the European "intellectual" elite).
If the academic/media elite had their way, there would be no such freedom in the United States. They would love nothing better than to eliminate all dissent from traditional, religious, patriotic and/or conservative Americans. They only support the freedom of expression of people who agree with them.
Remember that the main concern of the academic/media elite of the US after 9/11 was never to identify themselves with the American flag if they could help it, never to rerun the footage of the collapsing towers in order not to "inflame" public opinion, and to regard American actions as the "cause" of the "outrage" of the oppressed people of other nations, who were thus completely justified in hating the US.
These are Obama's people. They're faintly embarrassed to admit they're Americans. Mrs. Obama felt that her husband's election was the first time she could be proud of America – and the academic/media elite completely agreed with her.
These people don't like America. They're ashamed of America. And Obama is their creature.
They hate America's tradition as a Christian nation – because they hate Christianity. (Of course, they love the religions of other nations, in a patronizing pat-on-the-head kind of way, so those must be given lots of coverage in American schools, rather like pictures of kittens; it is only Christianity that must be suppressed.)...continued on page 2