breitbart
By
Ben Shapiro
On Wednesday, on the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s
speech to the United Nations in which he called for ouster of Syrian
dictator Bashar Assad, Obama attempted to rally support for his
airstrikes against Assad’s terrorist opposition. Taking on issues
ranging from Iran to Russia, from Ukraine to Syria, from global warming
to Ebola, Obama pledged to utilize American might in service to the
United Nations, speaking grandly of the beauty and power of the world’s
least effective and most morally bankrupt international institution.
Obama opened with a Dickensian world of Manichean opposites:
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,
fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads
between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear
and hope.
He then offered delegates a choice between paper and plastic.
Actually, he stated that the world has never been better off,
praising the increase of member states at the UN and the decrease in
poverty (neglecting, of course, that that decrease in poverty is a
direct result of the rise of global capitalism), as well as the iPhone.
“I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best
time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever
before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your
dreams,” Obama said, apparently forgetting the last two decades of human
history.
But, said Obama, there are a few problems with which we have to
contend: Ebola, Russian aggression, “brutality of terrorists” in Syria
and Iraq. And those problems, Obama continued, are “symptoms of a
broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace
with an interconnected world.” Incredibly enough, the rise of disease,
Obama believes, is because we haven’t invested enough in the United
Nations, not because incompetent regimes upheld by the UN have failed
their people. In amazingly hypocritical fashion, Obama – a man elected
on the basis of his undercutting of George W. Bush’s Iraq war, a war
based almost entirely on enforcement of UN resolutions -- said that
terrorism has flourished because “we have failed to enforce
international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so.”
Obama said America chooses “hope over fear.”
According to Obama, that choice entails standing up to Russia –
presumably, by doing nothing. Obama stated that Russia’s worldview was
that “might makes right,” that their vision was of a “world in which one
nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are
not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the
truth that might be revealed.” Obama then contrasted that vision with
America’s:
America stands for something different. We believe that right makes
might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones;
that people should be able to choose their own future.
Right, of course, does not make might. To believe in that vision is
idiotic. Right must build might in order to enforce right. But Obama’s
unceasing belief in the power of his own verbiage means that he thinks
he can simply talk Russia into backing off:
We call upon others to join us on the
right side of history – for while small gains can be won at the barrel
of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support
the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.
Obama went on to suggest that Russia should use “the path of
diplomacy and peace,” citing our signing of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia has been routinely cheating.
“That’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again,” Obama
said.
To which Vladimir Putin has formally responded: “ROFLMAO.”
Obama then turned to Ebola, stating that we’re sending troops to West
Africa; he turned to Iran, where he said that “we can reach a solution
that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program
is peaceful.”
To which the mullahs have formally responded: “LOLWUT.”
Obama next addressed China’s aggression in the South China Sea,
suggesting that America will insist “that all nations abide by the rules
of the road, and resolve their territorial disputes peacefully,
consistent with international law.”
To which China has formally responded: “SMDH.”
Then Obama went on his world-beating rant: he said that America would
help “eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.” Not through capitalism, mind
you: through foreign aid. He said that America would cut our own carbon
emissions. He spouted trite slogans: “On issue after issue, we cannot
rely on a rule-book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes
beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively – we
can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the
post-World War II age.”
Finally, he turned to the
actual pressing issue of the day,
Islamic terrorism. And he proceeded to explain that Islam is a religion
of peace, no different from any other, and defend his reactive foreign
policy as somehow proactive.
I have made it clear that America will
not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we
have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces
– taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely
upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not
and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the
world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when
it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.
He stated that America rejected “any suggestion of a clash of
civilization.” Our opponents have not done the same, of course. But
Obama stated that we could fight those “religiously motivated fanatics” –
fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam, of course, even if they are
universally Muslim – by providing food and water and jobs. Obama’s
Marxist foreign policy has never wavered: he believes that inequality,
not religious conflict, lies at the root of Islamist enmity for the
West.
Obama laid out a four-pronged plan for fighting terrorism.
First, he said that ISIL had to be “degraded, and ultimately
destroyed.” And once again, he emphasized that ISIL was not Islamic, and
once again, he ruled out utilizing American troops.
Second, Obama said that Muslim communities had to “explicitly,
forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL.”
In the process, he praised Islam as part of a family of religions that
“accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world,” and added
that “All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at
some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the
value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would
have done unto you.”
His solution: talking about how ISIL and al Qaeda and Boko Haram are
bad. Obama’s faith in words is absolutely unshakeable, as he made clear:
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it
is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day.”
Hilariously, Obama explained that the UN Security Council would pass a
resolution about combating “violent extremism,” but refused to explain
what steps would actually be taken to do so, instead putting that
discussion off for “next year.”
Third, Obama stated, sectarian conflict must end. How? Obama didn’t
say. But he did pooh-pooh Muslim sectarian conflict as the religious
norm:
There is nothing new about wars within
religions. Christianity endured centuries of vicious sectarian conflict.
Today, it is violence within Muslim communities that has become the
source of so much human misery. It is time to acknowledge the
destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and
Shia across the Middle East. And it is time that political, civic and
religious leaders reject sectarian strife. Let’s be clear: this is a
fight that no one is winning.
Flipping through his trusty rhetorical playbook, Obama neglected any
realistic solution to these sectarian conflicts, but did come up with
this hackneyed chestnut:
Cynics may argue that such an outcome can
never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end –
whether one year from now or ten. Indeed, it’s time for a broader
negotiation in which major powers address their differences directly,
honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than
through gun-wielding proxies. I can promise you America will remain
engaged in the region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.
Fourth, Obama proposed, Arab and Muslim countries had to focus on
“the extraordinary potential of their people – especially the youth.” He
said that young Muslims “come from a great tradition that stands for
education, not ignorance; innovation, not destruction; the dignity of
life, not murder. Those who call you away from this path are betraying
this tradition, not defending it.” That is the same message Obama and
his minions have been braying for years at this point. No one,
apparently, is listening.
And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes
blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried
extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict
in the Middle East:
Leadership
will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up
the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure
anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of
problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a
way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing
the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard
work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and
Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort –
not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so
many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am
President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis,
Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two
states living side by side, in peace and security.
The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,”
but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
disgusting.
As Obama moved toward his conclusion, he finally turned inward, apologizing for America yet again:
I realize that America’s critics will be
quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our
ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This
is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American
city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a
community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic
tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to
reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater
diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
Ferguson? Really? This is just the latest incident in which President
Obama has condemned a private citizen before the world. In 2012, it was
a filmmaker who guilty of provoking Islamic rage; today, it’s Officer
Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, who has provoked America’s racial
conflict. The United Nations has become a wonderful place for President
Obama to convict American citizens.
Obama concluded with his campaign stump speech:
After nearly six years as President, I
believe that this promise can help light the world. Because I’ve seen a
longing for positive change – for peace and freedom and opportunity – in
the eyes of young people I’ve met around the globe. They remind me that
no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like,
or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental
that we all share.
America shares virtually nothing with the other member states at the
UN. But President Obama shares a lot with them: a desire for America to
take a secondary role in the world affairs, a desire for Israel to
surrender in the face of its enemies, a desire for talk rather than
action, a desire to demean the United States on the global stage.
On Wednesday, on the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s
speech to the United Nations in which he called for ouster of Syrian
dictator Bashar Assad, Obama attempted to rally support for his
airstrikes against Assad’s terrorist opposition. Taking on issues
ranging from Iran to Russia, from Ukraine to Syria, from global warming
to Ebola, Obama pledged to utilize American might in service to the
United Nations, speaking grandly of the beauty and power of the world’s
least effective and most morally bankrupt international institution.
Obama opened with a Dickensian world of Manichean opposites:
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,
fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads
between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear
and hope.
He then offered delegates a choice between paper and plastic.
Actually, he stated that the world has never been better off,
praising the increase of member states at the UN and the decrease in
poverty (neglecting, of course, that that decrease in poverty is a
direct result of the rise of global capitalism), as well as the iPhone.
“I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best
time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever
before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your
dreams,” Obama said, apparently forgetting the last two decades of human
history.
But, said Obama, there are a few problems with which we have to
contend: Ebola, Russian aggression, “brutality of terrorists” in Syria
and Iraq. And those problems, Obama continued, are “symptoms of a
broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace
with an interconnected world.” Incredibly enough, the rise of disease,
Obama believes, is because we haven’t invested enough in the United
Nations, not because incompetent regimes upheld by the UN have failed
their people. In amazingly hypocritical fashion, Obama – a man elected
on the basis of his undercutting of George W. Bush’s Iraq war, a war
based almost entirely on enforcement of UN resolutions -- said that
terrorism has flourished because “we have failed to enforce
international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so.”
Obama said America chooses “hope over fear.”
According to Obama, that choice entails standing up to Russia –
presumably, by doing nothing. Obama stated that Russia’s worldview was
that “might makes right,” that their vision was of a “world in which one
nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are
not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the
truth that might be revealed.” Obama then contrasted that vision with
America’s:
America stands for something different. We believe that right makes
might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones;
that people should be able to choose their own future.
Right, of course, does not make might. To believe in that vision is
idiotic. Right must build might in order to enforce right. But Obama’s
unceasing belief in the power of his own verbiage means that he thinks
he can simply talk Russia into backing off:
We call upon others to join us on the
right side of history – for while small gains can be won at the barrel
of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support
the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.
Obama went on to suggest that Russia should use “the path of
diplomacy and peace,” citing our signing of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia has been routinely cheating.
“That’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again,” Obama
said.
To which Vladimir Putin has formally responded: “ROFLMAO.”
Obama then turned to Ebola, stating that we’re sending troops to West
Africa; he turned to Iran, where he said that “we can reach a solution
that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program
is peaceful.”
To which the mullahs have formally responded: “LOLWUT.”
Obama next addressed China’s aggression in the South China Sea,
suggesting that America will insist “that all nations abide by the rules
of the road, and resolve their territorial disputes peacefully,
consistent with international law.”
To which China has formally responded: “SMDH.”
Then Obama went on his world-beating rant: he said that America would
help “eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.” Not through capitalism, mind
you: through foreign aid. He said that America would cut our own carbon
emissions. He spouted trite slogans: “On issue after issue, we cannot
rely on a rule-book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes
beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively – we
can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the
post-World War II age.”
Finally, he turned to the
actual pressing issue of the day,
Islamic terrorism. And he proceeded to explain that Islam is a religion
of peace, no different from any other, and defend his reactive foreign
policy as somehow proactive.
I have made it clear that America will
not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we
have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces
– taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely
upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not
and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the
world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when
it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.
He stated that America rejected “any suggestion of a clash of
civilization.” Our opponents have not done the same, of course. But
Obama stated that we could fight those “religiously motivated fanatics” –
fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam, of course, even if they are
universally Muslim – by providing food and water and jobs. Obama’s
Marxist foreign policy has never wavered: he believes that inequality,
not religious conflict, lies at the root of Islamist enmity for the
West.
Obama laid out a four-pronged plan for fighting terrorism.
First, he said that ISIL had to be “degraded, and ultimately
destroyed.” And once again, he emphasized that ISIL was not Islamic, and
once again, he ruled out utilizing American troops.
Second, Obama said that Muslim communities had to “explicitly,
forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL.”
In the process, he praised Islam as part of a family of religions that
“accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world,” and added
that “All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at
some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the
value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would
have done unto you.”
His solution: talking about how ISIL and al Qaeda and Boko Haram are
bad. Obama’s faith in words is absolutely unshakeable, as he made clear:
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it
is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day.”
Hilariously, Obama explained that the UN Security Council would pass a
resolution about combating “violent extremism,” but refused to explain
what steps would actually be taken to do so, instead putting that
discussion off for “next year.”
Third, Obama stated, sectarian conflict must end. How? Obama didn’t
say. But he did pooh-pooh Muslim sectarian conflict as the religious
norm:
There is nothing new about wars within
religions. Christianity endured centuries of vicious sectarian conflict.
Today, it is violence within Muslim communities that has become the
source of so much human misery. It is time to acknowledge the
destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and
Shia across the Middle East. And it is time that political, civic and
religious leaders reject sectarian strife. Let’s be clear: this is a
fight that no one is winning.
Flipping through his trusty rhetorical playbook, Obama neglected any
realistic solution to these sectarian conflicts, but did come up with
this hackneyed chestnut:
Cynics may argue that such an outcome can
never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end –
whether one year from now or ten. Indeed, it’s time for a broader
negotiation in which major powers address their differences directly,
honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than
through gun-wielding proxies. I can promise you America will remain
engaged in the region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.
Fourth, Obama proposed, Arab and Muslim countries had to focus on
“the extraordinary potential of their people – especially the youth.” He
said that young Muslims “come from a great tradition that stands for
education, not ignorance; innovation, not destruction; the dignity of
life, not murder. Those who call you away from this path are betraying
this tradition, not defending it.” That is the same message Obama and
his minions have been braying for years at this point. No one,
apparently, is listening.
And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes
blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried
extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict
in the Middle East:
Leadership
will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up
the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure
anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of
problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a
way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing
the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard
work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and
Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort –
not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so
many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am
President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis,
Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two
states living side by side, in peace and security.
The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,”
but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
disgusting.
As Obama moved toward his conclusion, he finally turned inward, apologizing for America yet again:
I realize that America’s critics will be
quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our
ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This
is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American
city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a
community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic
tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to
reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater
diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
Ferguson? Really? This is just the latest incident in which President
Obama has condemned a private citizen before the world. In 2012, it was
a filmmaker who guilty of provoking Islamic rage; today, it’s Officer
Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, who has provoked America’s racial
conflict. The United Nations has become a wonderful place for President
Obama to convict American citizens.
Obama concluded with his campaign stump speech:
After nearly six years as President, I
believe that this promise can help light the world. Because I’ve seen a
longing for positive change – for peace and freedom and opportunity – in
the eyes of young people I’ve met around the globe. They remind me that
no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like,
or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental
that we all share.
America shares virtually nothing with the other member states at the
UN. But President Obama shares a lot with them: a desire for America to
take a secondary role in the world affairs, a desire for Israel to
surrender in the face of its enemies, a desire for talk rather than
action, a desire to demean the United States on the global stage.
On Wednesday, on the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s
speech to the United Nations in which he called for ouster of Syrian
dictator Bashar Assad, Obama attempted to rally support for his
airstrikes against Assad’s terrorist opposition. Taking on issues
ranging from Iran to Russia, from Ukraine to Syria, from global warming
to Ebola, Obama pledged to utilize American might in service to the
United Nations, speaking grandly of the beauty and power of the world’s
least effective and most morally bankrupt international institution.
Obama opened with a Dickensian world of Manichean opposites:
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,
fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads
between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear
and hope.
He then offered delegates a choice between paper and plastic.
Actually, he stated that the world has never been better off,
praising the increase of member states at the UN and the decrease in
poverty (neglecting, of course, that that decrease in poverty is a
direct result of the rise of global capitalism), as well as the iPhone.
“I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best
time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever
before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your
dreams,” Obama said, apparently forgetting the last two decades of human
history.
But, said Obama, there are a few problems with which we have to
contend: Ebola, Russian aggression, “brutality of terrorists” in Syria
and Iraq. And those problems, Obama continued, are “symptoms of a
broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace
with an interconnected world.” Incredibly enough, the rise of disease,
Obama believes, is because we haven’t invested enough in the United
Nations, not because incompetent regimes upheld by the UN have failed
their people. In amazingly hypocritical fashion, Obama – a man elected
on the basis of his undercutting of George W. Bush’s Iraq war, a war
based almost entirely on enforcement of UN resolutions -- said that
terrorism has flourished because “we have failed to enforce
international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so.”
Obama said America chooses “hope over fear.”
According to Obama, that choice entails standing up to Russia –
presumably, by doing nothing. Obama stated that Russia’s worldview was
that “might makes right,” that their vision was of a “world in which one
nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are
not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the
truth that might be revealed.” Obama then contrasted that vision with
America’s:
America stands for something different. We believe that right makes
might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones;
that people should be able to choose their own future.
Right, of course, does not make might. To believe in that vision is
idiotic. Right must build might in order to enforce right. But Obama’s
unceasing belief in the power of his own verbiage means that he thinks
he can simply talk Russia into backing off:
We call upon others to join us on the
right side of history – for while small gains can be won at the barrel
of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support
the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.
Obama went on to suggest that Russia should use “the path of
diplomacy and peace,” citing our signing of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia has been routinely cheating.
“That’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again,” Obama
said.
To which Vladimir Putin has formally responded: “ROFLMAO.”
Obama then turned to Ebola, stating that we’re sending troops to West
Africa; he turned to Iran, where he said that “we can reach a solution
that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program
is peaceful.”
To which the mullahs have formally responded: “LOLWUT.”
Obama next addressed China’s aggression in the South China Sea,
suggesting that America will insist “that all nations abide by the rules
of the road, and resolve their territorial disputes peacefully,
consistent with international law.”
To which China has formally responded: “SMDH.”
Then Obama went on his world-beating rant: he said that America would
help “eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.” Not through capitalism, mind
you: through foreign aid. He said that America would cut our own carbon
emissions. He spouted trite slogans: “On issue after issue, we cannot
rely on a rule-book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes
beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively – we
can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the
post-World War II age.”
Finally, he turned to the actual pressing issue of the day,
Islamic terrorism. And he proceeded to explain that Islam is a religion
of peace, no different from any other, and defend his reactive foreign
policy as somehow proactive.
I have made it clear that America will
not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we
have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces
– taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely
upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not
and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the
world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when
it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.
He stated that America rejected “any suggestion of a clash of
civilization.” Our opponents have not done the same, of course. But
Obama stated that we could fight those “religiously motivated fanatics” –
fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam, of course, even if they are
universally Muslim – by providing food and water and jobs. Obama’s
Marxist foreign policy has never wavered: he believes that inequality,
not religious conflict, lies at the root of Islamist enmity for the
West.
Obama laid out a four-pronged plan for fighting terrorism.
First, he said that ISIL had to be “degraded, and ultimately
destroyed.” And once again, he emphasized that ISIL was not Islamic, and
once again, he ruled out utilizing American troops.
Second, Obama said that Muslim communities had to “explicitly,
forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL.”
In the process, he praised Islam as part of a family of religions that
“accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world,” and added
that “All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at
some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the
value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would
have done unto you.”
His solution: talking about how ISIL and al Qaeda and Boko Haram are
bad. Obama’s faith in words is absolutely unshakeable, as he made clear:
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it
is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day.”
Hilariously, Obama explained that the UN Security Council would pass a
resolution about combating “violent extremism,” but refused to explain
what steps would actually be taken to do so, instead putting that
discussion off for “next year.”
Third, Obama stated, sectarian conflict must end. How? Obama didn’t
say. But he did pooh-pooh Muslim sectarian conflict as the religious
norm:
There is nothing new about wars within
religions. Christianity endured centuries of vicious sectarian conflict.
Today, it is violence within Muslim communities that has become the
source of so much human misery. It is time to acknowledge the
destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and
Shia across the Middle East. And it is time that political, civic and
religious leaders reject sectarian strife. Let’s be clear: this is a
fight that no one is winning.
Flipping through his trusty rhetorical playbook, Obama neglected any
realistic solution to these sectarian conflicts, but did come up with
this hackneyed chestnut:
Cynics may argue that such an outcome can
never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end –
whether one year from now or ten. Indeed, it’s time for a broader
negotiation in which major powers address their differences directly,
honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than
through gun-wielding proxies. I can promise you America will remain
engaged in the region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.
Fourth, Obama proposed, Arab and Muslim countries had to focus on
“the extraordinary potential of their people – especially the youth.” He
said that young Muslims “come from a great tradition that stands for
education, not ignorance; innovation, not destruction; the dignity of
life, not murder. Those who call you away from this path are betraying
this tradition, not defending it.” That is the same message Obama and
his minions have been braying for years at this point. No one,
apparently, is listening.
And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes
blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried
extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict
in the Middle East:
Leadership
will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up
the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure
anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of
problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a
way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing
the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard
work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and
Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort –
not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so
many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am
President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis,
Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two
states living side by side, in peace and security.
The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,”
but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
disgusting.
As Obama moved toward his conclusion, he finally turned inward, apologizing for America yet again:
I realize that America’s critics will be
quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our
ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This
is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American
city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a
community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic
tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to
reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater
diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
Ferguson? Really? This is just the latest incident in which President
Obama has condemned a private citizen before the world. In 2012, it was
a filmmaker who guilty of provoking Islamic rage; today, it’s Officer
Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, who has provoked America’s racial
conflict. The United Nations has become a wonderful place for President
Obama to convict American citizens.
Obama concluded with his campaign stump speech:
After nearly six years as President, I
believe that this promise can help light the world. Because I’ve seen a
longing for positive change – for peace and freedom and opportunity – in
the eyes of young people I’ve met around the globe. They remind me that
no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like,
or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental
that we all share.
America shares virtually nothing with the other member states at the
UN. But President Obama shares a lot with them: a desire for America to
take a secondary role in the world affairs, a desire for Israel to
surrender in the face of its enemies, a desire for talk rather than
action, a desire to demean the United States on the global stage.
