The First Casualty of the Arab Spring



Ousted by Obama?

We've been told from the beginning of the campaign and every day since his election that Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant man, perhaps the smartest to occupy the White House in the nations history. Many people believed the hype in part due to the eloquence of the way he read speeches from teleprompters, which allowed for the appearance of extemporaneous speaking.

With transparent screens -- the only transparent aspect of this administration thus far -- the teleprompters allow even live audiences to see his face, and long camera shots seem to miss the darned things. Without ever having to glance down to keep his place with notes, Obama's head swings from side to side -- catching his script effortlessly -- as he delivers heart-racing speeches that make his adoring masses swoon.

With all of that being said, however, I am now more convinced than ever of the man's utter brilliance, however sinister that brilliance may be. No one could have inflicted the damage on such a strong nation that Obama has -- and in such record time -- through simple ineptitude. No one could have accelerated the chaos we see around the globe so masterfully as he without either a keen understanding of the major culprits involved, or without their explicit anticipation.

Many will read what is about to follow and simply roll their eyes and click out of the site. That is exactly the reaction that has allowed Barack Hussein to come as far as he's come, and one I fully expect to continue. If one percent of people continue to read, however, and let the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, I will have done my job.

Briefly, his past was somewhat fuzzy as he rapidly advanced toward the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and those who threw up the flags were ignored. The reason for this was the fact that it looked like America really had a shot at finally electing a Black president, and no one wanted to see that opportunity slip by. (Never mind the obvious racism involved in such a mindset, none of them would ever accept such a notion even if water boarded).

But someone was trying to sound the alarm in 2008, someone who was shooed away and brushed aside. His name is John Drew, and he was a classmate of Barack Obama's at Occidental College. He tried to warn anyone who would listen that Obama was a thoroughly dangerous man, as Charlie Daniels might say. The problem was that no one wanted to hear it; not even our own right-wing watchdogs. What Drew was saying seemed too fantastical to be taken seriously, despite his having been at the college with a young, Marxist Barack. 

By the way, John Drew -- by his own admission -- was himself a "leader of the Marxist students at Occidental". 

The people with whom Obama subsequently associated have been well documented, enjoying the same reception as that of John Drew's story. But the president has gone on to establish his own, very public track record, and one that -- if anyone cared to connect the dots -- points to an extremely nefarious agenda. When his treatment of Israel is considered, the dots appear.

After a series of damning encounters with the Israeli state and its head, Benjamin Netanyahu, it became evident that Obama was no fan of Israel. The community organizer extraordinaire, however, did recognize a perfect venue to further endanger the tiny democracy in the Middle East, and he would ironically use the guise of democracy in Egypt to remove one of the biggest barriers of security for the Jewish people.

Hosni Mubarak may have been a dictator, but he was far from the level of Saddam Hussein in terms of brutality. Mubarak kept order in Egypt and maintained its Northern border with Israel, giving that country a bit of breathing room over the past thirty years that allowed it to counter the relentless attacks from the East and the West (Gaza and the Golan Heights). Egypt was stable and tranquil, and posed no threat to Israel.

So Obama chose Cairo for his first international address abroad.

Not long after Obama signaled the Muslim world that he was with them, Egypt erupted into the dawn of the "Arab Spring", which spawned similar revolts in Yemen and Syria and Libya. These were preceded, however, by an unrelated and impromptu uprising by the people of Iran. The Iranian people were brutally suppressed in that incident with nary a peep of condemnation from the Obama regime. Nor did Obama object to the reactions of the Yemeni or Syrian governments.

He was quick to demand the resignation of Mubarak in Egypt, though, as he now bombs Moammar Ghadaffi in Libya. I would posit that Yemen and Syria were ignored as was Iran because they are already a significant threat to,  and bold enemies of,  Israel while Egypt and Libya were not. Perhaps in Obama's mind, these relatively benign states needed some inspiration. And that inspiration came in the clear demonstration that Obama shared their Muslim populations' disdain for Israel and that he would aid in the ascension of the "rebels" in these states that they may gain sufficient power to amass another front against Israel.

At the same time, Obama works feverishly here in America to weaken the very foundation of our nation while "organizing" a massive rebellious force, using labor unions and their sympathizers, and placing figurative bees in the bonnets of ordinary working, middle class Americans. One may speculate that he seeks an "Anglo Autumn" to complement the Arab version, making a sort of  perfect storm.

It all sounds ominous and portends a bad ending for America. Then again, that's what warnings are all about, and that's what this is; a warning. A wake-up call, if you will. For while my declaration of Obama's diabolical genius stands, such characters usually fail because of a fatal miscalculation of their enemies determination and capabilities. And equally of their collective gullibility.

Many of our fellow citizens have discovered that they've been hoodwinked, many more believe that they have been betrayed. Both groups are correct, and will join the ranks -- albeit reluctantly -- of the true American patriots in the portions of the country considered "fly-over country" by the elites so destined to fail.

Even if they don't, the patriots have always had sufficient numbers to thwart any attempt to hijack America. They've just been asleep for a very long time. The problem with an agenda such as Obama's is that it requires a lot of construction and, therefore, makes a lot of noise.

That will always awaken the sleeping giant. 

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Selective Diplomacy

Manuel Zelaya and Hosni Mubarak



This dictator must stay, that dictator must go. How does one sort through the confounding wishes of the current administration? Here, we'll examine the possible thought processes of Barack Hussein Obama in an attempt to figure out why Manuel Zelaya - in the mind of Obama - was wrongly removed from power while Hosni Mubarak must leave immediately.

Considering the current news emanating from Egypt, it is highly doubtful that anyone reading here will need an acquaintance with Mubarak. Manuel Zelaya, on the other hand, might understandably be a forgotten man, so it might be prudent to recap his influence on the news cycle and why I make the comparison I'm about to make.



In June of 2009, Manuel Zelaya, then president of Honduras, was removed from power at the hands of that countries military, and at the behest of the Honduran Congress, and rather unceremoniously to boot. On a Sunday morning, soldiers entered Zelaya's residence and brusquely escorted him - in his pajamas - out of the country. The reason was that Zelaya had sought to subvert the Honduran Constitution, and the Congress reacted.



Perhaps emboldened by the strides of his Venezuelan counterpart, Zelaya was, in effect, trying to become the Honduran version of Hugo Chavez, but the people's representatives would have none of it. The reactions from the region were predictable, with socialists from Venezuela and Nicaragua - Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega - demanding that the usurper be reinstated immediately. What was astounding was the fact that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined in that chorus, refusing to acknowledge Speaker Roberto Micheletti as the interim leader of Honduras.

To be fair, Zelaya was not yet a dictator, but was positioning himself to become one, and a United States administration should have had as its policy nothing but solid support for the wishes of the people of Honduras as represented by its Constitution in correcting a wrong in progress. It didn't, instead demanding that Zelaya be reinstated. Why?



Perhaps because Zelaya shared the philosophy of our own current regime, one of Socialism and its alleged benefit to the common man. So the rules of Honduras were by default invalid in the judgement of our current administration. Socialism's advance would be protected as best it could.

So when the people of Egypt began protesting the Mubarak regime, one would have expected our own to back him, but that didn't happen. Again, we must ask why. Here's where things get dicey.


Mubarak is not what Americans would consider our type of leader; a dictator with a parliament, but no independent judiciary. It's antithetical to our system. But we made the relationship between our nations work because, under Mubarak, Egypt has ironically been an agent of Middle East peace for three decades, upholding the agreements of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat.



One of the primary reasons for this is that Mubarak's reign has been a secular one, a rule that has prevented the spread of radical Islam from infecting a fragile partnership with Israel and the West. The protests that began there were not even about religion, but were the manifestation of the peoples dissatisfaction with absolute power. But when the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to capitalize on the opportunity, it became complex. And that's when Obama became interested.



Suddenly, our long time ally became an impediment to "peace" in the eyes of Obama, who bluntly called

for Mubarak to step aside quickly, even foolishly and prematurely announcing that he would in mere hours yesterday. The announcement was made to Congress by CIA Director Leon Panetta, but it only exposes the lack of experience in leadership of this administration.




Muslim Brotherhood Founder
Hassan al-Banna and Nazi Troops

 

Another similar miscommunication came from National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who astonishingly claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood was "in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam." Almost immediately, Clapper's PR person, Jamie Smith, was out trying to protect the boss, claiming that Clapper was merely misunderstood.

But I digress...the issue is the choices the president makes in taking sides in foreign disputes. In the case of Zelaya, he clearly favored a would-be dictator over the choice of the people. In the case of Mubarak - who has been in place for the first half of Obama's term with no incident - Obama suddenly declares a desire for the Egyptian people to be heeded. Curiously, this stance came only after the intrusion of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It strongly suggests a pattern by Obama. The real question remains, though, is it a pattern of incompetence or cunning?

Sphere: Related Content