As we watch the Middle East melt down into deeper and ever-more dangerous violence and anarchy, we watch with wonderment and mystification at the actions, or rather the non-actions of Barack Obama and his Administration. “How can they not see?” we wonder aloud. “How can they not understand that both nature and politics abhor a vacuum?”. Is it so difficult for them to internalize that by refusing to take action to topple Bashar Assad or to pro-actively and decisively confront ISIS they are leaving the field wide open for amoral regimes like Russia and China to step in and take control for their own nefarious ends?
These questions seem to have been answered in an excellent blog post I came across on Politically Short, written by Nick Short, a young but talented political analyst and commentator. His post certainly goes a long way to explaining the motivations behind Barack Obama’s words and deeds:
Here are some excerpts from “The Pro-Islamic Policies of Barack Obama“. I do recommend you read it all:
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, noted the following in regards to President Obama’s pro-Islamic policies during the Defeat Jihad Summit sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. The Admiral stated that Obama’s policies are “very simple, and any thinking American should be able to grasp it. It’s anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.” Bold as these comments may seem today, one only needs to look at Obama’s underlying belief that America has played a malign role in the world as our sins have been both of omission and commission.
Thomas Sowell writes “Obama, in his citizen-of-the world conception of himself, thinks that the United States already has too much power and needs to be deflated.” In viewing Obama’s repeated sacrifices of American national interests as deliberate, one can begin to understand the administrations’ anti-American foreign policy. No one defined Obama better than Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama’s view of America is one which we are apart of a “multi-polar world.” This is a world in which, “the American era is over as we become just one power in the great dining table of nations.” Seen through this lens, Obama’s “successes” become just as dangerous, if not more-so, than his failures.
During the Question and Answer session afterword, Obama then went on to explain his view that if America would cut the size of its nuclear arsenal, Iran and North Korea would be convinced to abandon their ambitions. This was a very telling statement for early on in his administration the President had always intended to bring Iran to the negotiation table with the skewed view that if we cut our own nuclear arsenal, then Iran wouldn’t pursue their own. Obama stated that America needed to “take serious steps to actually reduce our nuclear stockpiles” because doing so “would give us greater moral authority to say to Iran, don’t develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don’t proliferate nuclear weapons.” The obstacle to diplomacy for Obama was in fact, and has always been, America’s own strength….
He then provided his perspective on a world order that was not based upon America’s own interest nor our strength as he noted that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership: progress must be shared.”
This “partnership” was exemplified in Egypt with the Obama administrations support of the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood as they overthrew Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak [sic] and put in place a member of the Brotherhood in Mohamed Morsi. It is important to note that Mubarak had upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for over four decades until Obama came into office and supported his overthrow. … To show just how far Obama is willing to support the Brotherhood, on New Years eve of this year Morsi’s successor, former defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, actually stood before the same podium that Obama once did in Cairo and called for an “Islamic reformation” throughout the world in response to the violence committed in the name of Islam. Sisi then went on to attend a Coptic Christmas mass in a symbolic show of unity with the Christian world as he was the first Egyptian leader to ever appear at a Cairo cathedral. Obama’s response to this was silence, the president never even mentioned this monumental breakthrough within the Muslim world for he to this day stands in solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama supported Morsi and didn’t support the people of Egypt when the people themselves wanted to combat the terrorism that Obama himself had help facilitate into a position of leadership. This was also the case in Iran in 2009 when the leaders of the Green Revolution, an uprising by the Iranian people against the rigged election that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back into office, plead for help to the Obama administration.
The eight-page memo described the current regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship”. The memo warns that Iran “with its apocalyptic constitution will never give up the atomic bomb, nor will it give up its terror network, because it needs these instruments to maintain its power and enhance its own economic and financial wealth.” The administration claimed in 2009 that the Green party in Iran did not want American help, a lie that was perpetrated in order to secure the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama officially “secured” last month. The point that cannot be underscored enough in this instance is Obama’s willingness to ignore the opportunity to overthrow the radical Mullah’s in Iran for the sake of securing a nuclear deal with said Mullah’s in the future. [emphasis added – ed]
This finally brings us to the Iranian ally in Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. When chemical weapons were used in Syria by Assad and Obama’s infamous red line was crossed, the president’s response was hollow and empty with a lack of resolve and conviction to back up the claim of holding Assad responsible. Little did we know the reason for this at the time was due to keeping the Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran alive. The repercussions of this also had the effect of opening a new found door for Russia to play conciliator and chief.
… The presidents stupefying walk-back from that red line, as well as his retreat from his earlier statements that Assad must go, “has sent an unmistakable message of American weakness to our foes,” states Melik Kaylan in The Russia-China Axis.
… The vacuum that has been created in not only Syria but also Iraq is precisely due to Obama lacking the conviction and the fortitude to assert American power.
Leon Panetta, the president’s former CIA director and defense secretary, confirmed that due to Obama’s announcement of withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.” …
In fact a recently released Defense Intelligence Agency memo affirms that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset. … report which can be viewed in full by clicking here.
In an interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Flynn … affirmed his belief that the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose. Flynn claimed that he thought “it was a willful decision,” on behalf of the Obama administration to basically create the Islamic State under the auspices of supporting the “Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad.
On the surface this may seem complicating but underneath all the spin what this means is that Obama is indirectly supporting al-Qaeda and the Islamic State by arming and training what he labels “moderate Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad, who is supported by both Russia and Iran. Now that Obama has guaranteed that Iran will retain the ability to create a nuclear weapon while he hands over more than $150 billion in frozen assets, we see that the culmination of his anti-American, pro-Islamic foreign policy has created a tinder box in the Middle East. And unfortunately for us here in the United States, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost as tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” are about to be welcomed and resettled throughout our country.
Short goes on to describe the Obama Administration’s surreal plans to rehabilitate and reintegrate (!) foreign fighters who have been fighting with ISIS and others and have now returned to the States.
As Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Mag writes, “more Muslim refugees mean more terrorist attacks. It is an inescapable fact of history. We would not have Muslim terrorism without Muslim immigration. And the Muslim refugee terror wave of the past is even more likely to be repeated by groups of Muslim migrants coming from a war zone.”
The question that we need to be asking is not will Obama’s pro-Islamic policies kill Americans, but how many will they kill until the American people begin to wake up and realize that our government, our politicians, and our own president represent the greatest threat to our nations very survival?
This is really terrifying reading which would be too hard to swallow if it weren’t for the headlines that we read and watch in the media every day.
Read the whole article.