Barack and Mahmoud: Two Peas in a Pod

Barackmadinejad

Were Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad separated at birth? That was my first thought when conceiving this piece, but realizing that they were born nearly five years apart, that would render the theory invalid. However, considering the myriad relatives of Obama that have popped up around the globe since his nomination for president, there is still reason to believe that the two could be brothers, if only ideologically.

While Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamist State of Iran, run in actuality by the "spiritual" leader in the Ayatollah, Obama has been working extra hours in the expansion of Iran's boundaries or, at the very least, an expansion of sister states nearby. (In the Islamist world, I suppose the term "sister states" would, by necessity, be changed to "brother states". Theological misogyny, and all that jazz).

Since his inauguration, Barack Hussein Obama has been campaigning for the rise of Islam in the Middle East and the decline of Western influence. His speech in Cairo in 2009 was an open admission that America had been "arrogant" in the past and must now atone for its insolence, while his foreign policy has been to relegate our dearest friend and ally in the region -- Israel -- to the ash heap.

It is no mistake that the one man who has been instrumental in the relative peace that has lasted for the past 30 years in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, was treated as any of Obama's aides who didn't toe his line. Mubarak and these aides all bear the same tread marks on their torsos as a result of Obama's bus, which they were unceremoniously tossed beneath when they proved an impediment to his agenda. Thus began the so-called "Arab Spring".

Oh, the glee here at home, in our doe-eyed media, as the prospect of a "democratic uprising" began to unfold in Egypt. Why, those poor, oppressed people are finally going to experience freedom once Mubarak is gone! The problem is, no one was complaining about oppression in Egypt for much of those 30 years as they were already free to move about the country and enjoy a somewhat secular lifestyle. Nevertheless, Obama had made his pronouncement: "Mubarak must go!"

OK, so maybe it was a foreign policy blunder on the nubile Obama's part, one that might be excusable, I suppose. After all, Jimmy Carter inadvertently got Anwar Sadat killed, which ushered in the era of Mubarak, so what's one more mistake by an American president? Considering what is poised to fill the void in Egypt this time around, it's a big mistake.

*Special aside: Consider the current angst over the foreign policy experience of a candidate like Herman Cain, who actually loves America and freedom.

Not long before the "Arab Spring", however, there was another uprising in the Middle East, this time by a decidedly more pro-Western contingent; the people of Iran. In June of 2009, Iran held its presidential elections. In the aftermath, the people felt that they had been duped and began protesting the outcome, for which they were promptly and brutally suppressed. The Obama administration's reaction was initially one of condemnation combined with support for the people of Iran, but quickly and "masterfully" withdrew for fear of appearing to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs.

So while the Iranian people were being crushed by a brutal regime, Obama turned his back on them. I still maintain that -- especially now in retrospect -- it was because Iran was already a solidly Islamist State and needed no prodding from this version of Washington, D.C. There was much work to be done, and much "regional organizing" to accomplish.

With Egypt now creeping closer to Shar'ia law under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama doubled down on the unrest in Libya. As he proved with Mubarak, countries such as Egypt and now Libya were fertile grounds for "meddling" and, in the case of Libya, even military intervention. Perceptions of Western meddling were no longer a concern. The march to the Caliphate had begun.

I can't even imagine Jimmy Carter -- a man who bears virtually no resemblance to anyone I admire -- saying that the Muslim call to prayer "is the most beautiful sound I ever heard", as Barack Hussein Obama did. Never could I believe that an American president would express such contempt for the Bible while quoting liberally from the Qur'an. Yet here we stand today with an alleged "leader" who leads nothing at home aside from rapid decline,  but guides the advance of Islam abroad, all but ignoring the country already most firmly ensconced in its tenets.

Indistinguishable

Barack and Mahmoud...two peas in the same religious pod. As Coptics get run out of Egypt by the thousands and Christian churches burn, Obama and our giddy media gleefully anticipate the coming elections in that formerly all Coptic country and mention not the burning churches. The "party" likely to gain the most legislative seats in the new Egyptian government is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sad that such a country, once a peaceful yet strategically critical one in the region, will now fall to the enemies of liberty and peace. Egypt once was all Coptic for two hundred years, from the 4th to the 6th centuries under Roman rule. It wasn't until the 7th century -- and the birth of Islam -- that that all changed.

Perhaps that is yet another similarity between Mahmoud and Barack Hussein; they both cling to 7th century ideology and the rule of Islam.

Of course, this is just a theory.

Sphere: Related Content

First, the Sleeping Dog Growls

The old saying goes, "Let sleeping dogs lie", and it is a moral that suggests that disturbing the sleeping dog may result in a violent reaction from the hound and an unhappy ending for the disturber. Nevertheless, some simply can't resist repeatedly poking the poor slumbering animal and shattering the peace.

In the case of the so-called Mosque at Ground Zero, we are being told that if Imam Rauf is convinced to move its intended location, such a move will inflame and enrage Muslims worldwide into violent acts. This would seem to suggest that merely capitulating to the wishes of the Imam would "save" us from such a reaction.

We're also told that preventing the Pastor from Florida from his planned burning of the Qur'an would likewise head off a violent reaction by Muslims. Never mind that those reactions are already taking place despite the fact that no Qur'ans have yet been harmed. Muslims around the world have frequently proved that a catalyst is rarely needed for the flames of outrage to burn.

Christians and Jews are the figurative sleeping dogs of the world, wishing for nothing more that peaceful slumber and safety. At various times throughout history, such a placid existence has been misconstrued as weakness, and the Muslims have awakened them with sharp and intrusive sticks. The only provocation for such behavior has been those wishes and a reticence to become engaged in conflict. Eventually, however, the dog is sufficiently angered into action, abandons the warning growl, and attacks.

Leading up to the Christian Crusades, Muslims were on a continuous course of conquest, pushing the Christians further and further back into retreat until finally the Christians declared that enough was enough, and pushed back, hard. To blame Christians for some foul deed would be akin to faulting the kid who has been punched in the back of the head ten times by the kid sitting behind him, and who finally strikes back.

Misguided Liberals who attempt to suggest that the actions of the United States are responsible for Muslim anger must be asked specifically which actions those might be. Are Muslims angry at us for saving countless Muslims in Kosovo? Are they infuriated at our audacity for saving the Kuwaiti Muslims from Saddam Hussein? Perhaps our collective charity towards Indonesia after the tsunami was presumptuous and misguided?

These must be the things that prompted the embassy and barracks bombings in Libya. The bombing of the U.S.S.Cole must have been retaliation for our philanthropy. The destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of 3,000 people must be characterized as retribution for our magnanimity and generosity. And of course, our arrogant indignation of those attacks must have triggered the Bible burnings, Church desecration and Crucifix destruction in Gaza in 2007.

Oh, you never heard about that? That is not surprising, since attacks on Christianity seem to be in vogue, and are obviously considered "understandable" by a self-loathing media. But in the summer of 2007, shortly after their victory over the Fatah Party in Gaza two years earlier, Hamas focused their attention on all things Christian, having ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. According to the website Associated Content,

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Yet there was no worldwide outcry over this, not was there any violent reactions from Christians. But we have to be concerned over one pastor who has been poked with the stick enough times to want to burn a few Qur'ans? What if we allow the Mosque to be built right where the Muslims want? What if we stop the Qur'an burning? Will Muslims stop attacking us and come to tea? Highly unlikely.

People of the West are growling on the porch, and it may not be much longer before radical Islamists discover that they have awakened something that will bite. Of course, the rest of the world will blame the dog.

Sphere: Related Content

May I Have Another: A Tale Of Two Ideologies

One of the tenets of Christianity is the practice of turning the other cheek when struck by thine enemy. Often taken literally - and rightly so - it is symbolic of the peaceful resolution of conflict, but its interpretation often ends with the offering of the cheek, leaving much to speculation. Some believe it is a sign of unwillingness to combat evil, preferring instead to allow evil its path unabated with God's own wrath as just reward. I have a different take on the meaning. We'll get to that in a bit.

First, I find it incredibly ironic that those who are so quick to capitulate to evil intent are also the variety who do not subscribe much to Scriptures, fighting every step of the way to rid society of every mention of God and religion. They will march, they will shout, and they will even clash with law enforcement when police attempt to maintain order in the midst of mayhem caused by a concerted demand to cease the violence (read, war). So righteous are these liberal protesters in their insistence on peace that they will fight their own brethren to achieve it, never stopping to consider that their true enemies patiently await the outcome so they can strike us all. Nor do they ever seem to question the violence employed on their behalf in the hopes of stopping...violence.

Folklore and more modern media are rife with examples of righteous Christian vengeance and rage, a point that has been used by the left for the accusation of hypocrisy when violence is used. There was a movie about a priest in a gang-controlled neighborhood who did everything he could to use reason and God's love to put a halt to the brutal acts perpetrated by the gang, reaching out to the gang members, offering the other cheek, only to be rebuked time and time again. The movie climaxed in a scene in which the priest rolled up his sleeves and beat the gang leader like a drum. Problem solved, the gang fled and the priest offered an Act of Contrition.

Anyone who is old enough to remember the old western television show Gunsmoke is no doubt familiar with the concept of limited appeasement. In the show, Marshall Matt Dillon always tried to offer the weekly outlaws a way out with honor, usually involving leaving town alive. Most times, he wound up in a shootout with one of the bad guys, resulting in the regrettable death of said bad guy and a look of sad remorse on Dillon's face.

Those are but two examples of offering the other cheek in hypothetical fashion, rather than the literal interpretation. It is for this reason that I believe that presenting the other cheek is a final attempt at offering redemption for the offender while not making it expressly clear that not accepting the overture will result in a serious beating. Perhaps we should make that point clearer to our enemies, though we still have the violence-prone left demanding nothing short of complete acquiescence.

I often wonder how a group like Not In Our Name or Code Pink would react to Islamofascists in the moments before their brutal deaths. Would they protest physically like they do with the United States Marine Corps? Would they smash camels as though they were police cruisers? Would they hang Muhammed in effigy as they have George W. Bush?

Or in a truly pacifist -while not Christian, Someone forbid - fashion, would they offer the other side of their necks when the blade could not quite get through the spine?

Sphere: Related Content