October 1st, 2012
There he perched, settled comfortably on a stool, the crease in his trousers as sharp as the prow of an icebreaker, making the elites squirm with unbridled excitement. Calm and settled, Obama peered about his surroundings alertly as if searching for, and yet not finding, the tell-tale teleprompters that had defined his, in many ways, extemporaneously flawed regime.
With him on the stage, two Hispanic journalists were holding court. The crowd of nervous attendees was not quite adoring at first, but acceptably awed in presidential parlance, smiling at the thought of being in the same room as "the One," proudly sharing the trace amounts of carbon dioxide being expelled by El Magnifico.
The President did a lightning-fast review, in his mind's eye, on how the initial moments had unfolded. The introduction had gone well, no trips as he had smoothly mounted the stage, his crowd was energized and the President was in his town-hall-styled element, as he once again sequentially recalled the bullet-point outline painstakingly downloaded from his ever-nervous handlers.
Obama, left-aligned wheels wobbly-turning, had already performed numero uno by throwing in a bit of Spanish lingo at the initial phase of this new crop of soon-to-be glamee's. With a flawless flourish after his introduction, the President had expertly gushed "muchas gracias," making the crowd roar with delight, while at the same time establishing a common reference point between both he and his newly found rabano'.
As the onlookers waited expectantly and the hosts settled in, Obama, having already deemed himself victorious in this outing, rather amusingly reviewed which question he might get first from what obviously seemed to be a clearly enamored grouping of similarly pigmented devotees;
Boxers or briefs? Hamburgers or hot-dogs? The secret ingredient of his special White House Brew?
Instead, however, and to his immediate chagrin, he got this one:
We know in Libya, four Americans were killed. We know now that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned about security days before he was killed. Many people want to know whether — if you expected so much anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world? And why wasn’t your administration better prepared with more security at our embassies on September 11?
Rut-Roh! We're not in Kansas anymore Toto...
Taken aback, while quickly regaining his composure, Obama's mind burst into motion as outraged sparks glittered on the outskirts of his awareness; however, the stripped down core of his essay answer would amount to a disingenuous deflection of blame:
There was an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad.
Gee, I wonder if they believed that, Obama must have mused.
The facts, despite a media attempt at inf0-constipation, spoke to something else altogether. The assault was from a militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, it had been planned well in advance, there had been un-acted upon warnings communicated to the US State department. The attack had included, quite possibly, weaponry that had been fronted to the Libyan rebels by the US government during the recent Libyan Revolution.
The sneak attack had even been tactically sound having been carried out in dual stages.
It had absolutely nothing to do with an anti-Muslim video released two months prior as a trailer for a movie that had supposedly been circulated in 2011. But most of these people probably knew nothing about these facts, at least for now, and so the interview would continue unabated by the facts in absence, or at least that's what El Presidente' must have thought until the next question arrived:
Mr. President, I want to ask you something that is known as the “Obama promise,” and you knew that I was going to ask you about that. On May 28th, 2008, we had a conversation in Denver, Colorado, and you told me the following — and I’m going to quote you: “But I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.”
I want to emphasize “the first year.” At the beginning of your governing, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise.
The anger from Obama, at being directly confronted by this insufferable tandem of Hispanic journalists, was almost too much for him to contain. Indeed, the President had known of the questions to be asked in advance, however the insolent tone in which they were being proffered left much to be desired, especially for the most powerful man in the world. His eyebrows furrowed as he wondered, who do these people think they are?
His oblique answer would, once again, be a collection of deflective excuses. Instead of simply admitting his failure, Obama layered the causalities of failure at the feet of virtually everyone and everything but himself, when in fact, Obama had actually done very little on the question of illegal immigration, perhaps due to the fact that far too many other transformative directives were yet to be accomplished.
But Obama's rambling answer, riddled with bullet-point excuses, could be boiled down to this one remark:
What we could not get was a single Republican, including the 20 who had previously voted for comprehensive immigration reform, to step up and say, we will work with you to make this happen.
Obama, unremarkably, left out the fact that these same Republicans had been locked out of the law-making process from day one of his ascension to the bully pulpit. So, what did the President expect from what he had always considered as the evil opposition? Maybe a palm-fronded path for both he and the ass of a party upon which he rode, when he finally did need their help?
A Question with Questionable Tense(s)
But the actively shielded interview would go on; it was, in fact, one of the best and most direct interviews of the President in his entire four years. However, the most telling point within the interview would not occur until very near the end. After a brief explanative surrounding the next question, Obama was hit with this one:
Mr. President, what is your biggest failure?
It was an intelligently, interesting query with a misleadingly singular tense, and one that seemed totally at odds with the traditionally fawning, but lily-white, cheer-leading, media of the inner-beltway, which seemed almost afraid to ask these difficult questions for fear of upsetting El Magnifico. Normally, the legacy Media within the US asks the inverse question, laughably being "What is your greatest success?"
"Success for whom?" Being the standard sardonic response from the Right.
However, this time, Obama's eyebrows shot up and he leaned forward aggressively to answer, his countenance was stern while his voice was a bit sarcastic. He meandered for a bit, rubberly recapping his previous excuses, and then uttered the following:
The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change "it" from the outside.
For a micro-second, you could've heard a pin drop within the cavernous hall.
This because, in many ways, Obama had just uncharacteristically admitted that he had failed in his grandest promise of all, while having been a cog within the interior of the US bureaucratic machine for at least four years, preceded by almost a decade of serving within the interior of state government.
Well, it's according to what the meaning of "IT" is....
From a man who, at the outset, had made promise after promise about how things would change, both domestically and globally, to the point of the oceans even subsiding, Obama now actually has the nerve to tell the American people that things can only be changed only from the outside and only 45 days from his possible re-election. This after he has already set the course for the nation's collective well-being, if not wealth, headed directly toward the treacherous shoals of economic failure and collapse.
Hmm....but what if we take the President's argument and apply it only on a clearly literal basis of logic?
Let's say that one would like to renovate the interior of one's home, representing the interior of the governmental bureaucracy, but only from the outside; so how, quite possibly, might this be accomplished? Can one change the interior color of the paint from the outside? The furnishings? Carpet, hardwoods, wallpaper? Can anything anywhere even be moved about on the inside, from the outside?
The true answer to these questions of change from the outside is a resounding "NO."
Now, perhaps we can add on to the overall structure, a room addition say, from the outside, which is euphemistically what Obama has accomplished by adding newly attached structures for the overseeing of America's increasingly huddled masses, via Obamacare, for one of many examples. We can also stand outside and shout to the top of our lungs, or maybe even fling a rock through a window, hoping that those within will either hear or notice and make the needed interior changes to what they, on the inside, consider to be their abode. But without sending our commissioned artisans inside to meaningfully effect the changes we desire, nothing will probably ever occur.
"You can only change "it" from the outside"
However, if looked at in an entirely different way, perhaps we can decipher Obama's true meaning of change from the outside. You see, there are, indeed, several ways we can deconstructfully change the interior without going inside from the outside, but what might those ways be and how can they be accomplished?
Well, one way is to simply burn the house down, that certainly can be accomplished from the outside, and quite easily, point in fact. Could this be what Obama meant? One could also demolish the interior of the house from the outside with a specially trained team of demolitionists, you know, like the Islamic terrorists from 9/11, or perhaps even Obama's team of cabinet-level collectivists, more affectionately known as Czars.
The interior could also be changed by simply evacuating those within by means of forceful eviction; something those on the far-Right insist is at the center of Obama's often bizarre edicts.
The interior could easily be heavily altered into oblivion, also, by what many might see as a naturally catastrophic event, but in this case, brought on by the storms of destructive change that initially appear as constructive panaceas, at least at first glance. However, the main point in all of this would suggest that the answers to many of the mysteries of the Obama Regime that the Center-Left sees, but fails to question, would seem to lie at the very core of why America is probably, sooner rather than later, doomed to implode due to a failure to act by those whom the American people have placed their trust in, with a special nod to the Fourth Estate, better known as the now corrupted Mainstream Media.
The Audacity of Corruption
Democratic Pollster Pat Caddell, long a mainstay of the Center-Left, is one of only a few universally admired Democrats remaining that the political Right will now listen to and actually learn from, and there is a reason for that. It's because the Democrat Party of today has left Caddell behind and is now dedicated solely to the causes of Socialism and its withering effects on an economy. In a recent and very powerful speech at an "Accuracy In Media" conference, Caddell made the argument that exemplifies the new Conservative Media's reason for being:
Caddell's pwerful message is the very reason why many of us in the Conservative Media have suspended much of the things we formerly enjoyed in order to become citizen journalists and opinionists, ala Brietbart, while also accomplishing the often difficult task of maintaining jobs and even businesses.
This site, Conservative Refocus, was one of the first in a new era of an outraged America, begun back in 2009, and dedicated to simply getting at the unvarnished truth that was systemically missing from the conversation. We were, in effect, being enjoined as a nation by a Largely Socialist Media and One-Party rule, singularly dedicated to the ideology of the clueless Far-Left, and at any horrible cost, which is at the core of a book written by me and edited by fellow author and this site's editor, former academian Kim Stallings.
Some of our Countrymen, it would seem, both at the Center and of the Center-Left, still largely don't quite understand the group with which they are attaching themselves, nor the consequences of their allegiance. It's those we are trying to bring into the fold, while informing the majorities of America who count themselves as ones still beholden to the traditional values of guaranteed success for our offspring and the nation.
You see, at some point in the previous decade, the Mainstream Media at large had gone missing, and we were going to do our part to correct it, while also corralling the wagons around those who stood out, in our number, who were terrifyingly exposed. But corral we did, and in learning the basics, we more often than not excelled at our labor of love if not some bit of desperation.
Reasons for Being
In fact, Pat Caddell's searing message hit home both personally and meaningfully for me when we go all the way back and look at this site's original "About Message" written in 2009, and still there to this day:
The Founders of this nation were grounded in the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We believe that this country, over time, has severely strayed from these principles. The onslaught of our liberties at present is unparalleled, as indicated by the most informed observers of this country's history.
Our work began where the Fourth Estate's original role had been largely abandoned by the traditional media.
So, why me personally and why this site? Not really important, suffice it to say that at age 18, in a desire to both see the world and serve my country, I joined the US Navy as a Destroyer-man and proudly served for six years, while also gaining an understanding of the dangers that exist in other countries that America would still find largely alien to this day.
After the Navy, I had a burning desire to enter the world of business at the tender age of only 24, and only a few years later I went to work for the company I would eventually own. As I learned new lessons and relearned old ones in the business world, I was amazed at how a lot of hard work and just a little bit of luck can produce profound results in a Constitutional Republic dedicated to a free market and the rule of law.
I was, in fact, saturated, early on, in the Liberty of what it means to live in America and to be an American, especially after having temporarily sacrificed that Liberty to serve her.
You see, the remarkable essence about America's Free Market system, at its core, is about service to others with an individual's unique skills, whatever those skills may be. The better you serve others, the better off you will be. The inverse of this rule also holds true: If your service is poor, you will frequently suffer, and yet we are all free in making that particular determination. I have further learned in this Free society that there are those who work hard and there are also those who work smart.
In America, either one of these main ingredients will, more often than not, net one success, regardless of the endeavor. But its when those two things come together is where an individual can find outrageous success, and that outrageous success is always just a little more effort away from most of the people I know. In essence, in the USA you are free to choose whatever route you desire knowing that no one can take that away from you, well, at least for awhile longer, anyway, and that "while longer" is the lurking danger that many of us have now identified as being the direct threat to America's prosperity.
With the attacks on freedom and the free flow of misinformation, and an enfilade attack against our Liberties, as detailed by this site's news section on a daily basis, America is imperiled, more now than perhaps at any other time in its history. This new enemy is not easily seen and almost impossible to detect for many hard-working Americans, and virtually impossible to identify for those hardly working, our valuable Seniors excepted.
It has become beyond obvious at present that, in the traditional Media of today, our Fourth Estate has largely placed an embargo against the truth.
Oh, they will let just enough in, just often enough, to maintain the illusion of functionality, but that small amount of truth tends to be spun in such a way that America, in large part, has no true idea of what is happening nor whom it can actually trust, at any one time.
But if anyone needs reminding, you might consider fishing a coin out of your pocket and taking a close look at what it says, it should still be stamped there, at least for a little while longer.
September 23rd, 2012
If anyone was wondering how much power and respect President Obama and the US now wield in the Arab world, one need only look to the extraordinarily arrogant and semi-despotic Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, and his beyond-ridiculous ramblings with the ever Islamic-fawning NY Times.
Rarely, in the annals of US history, has a supposed ally insulted the leader of the free world, and its free people, as many times as this ridiculous joke of an Islamic leader in Morsi.
An accomplished diplomat, quite obviously, this Muslim Brotherhood product "ain't."
However, all bets are off as to this authoritarian leader's Totalitarian inclinations, which would seem to be brimming over, at this point. But hey, it's what the Egyptian people have apparently always preferred.
Ergo, the US State Department will take meticulous pains to both coddle and appease Mr. Morsi on behalf of the Egyptian people until such time as these same Egyptians realize what a horrendous mistake they have made in setting up a Shariah supported radical leader. At that point, the Egytians will then blame the American people and its government for supporting their despotic self-appointed potentate, while demanding that we stop bankrolling their murderous tyrant. The leader will then be overthrown and the cycle will replicate itself repeatedly over the next century.
Think I'm wrong?
Very well then, below are just a few nuggets of significant insolence, as recently suggested to the US by Morsi while bearing in mind what happened to the Arab Spring in Iran:
- United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world
- US must revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States
- Up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world
- United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture
So, would you also like fries and a Coke with your order, Mister Morsi?
Er...Okay, we'll make that a diet coke with fruit slices. Oh! Dude, how's about a delicious pork McRib sandwich?
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization...
Remember when National Director of Intelligence James Clapper appeared before a US committee in early 2011 and iterated to everyone in attendance that one of the primary players in the Egyptian Revolution, being the Muslim Brotherhood, was a "secular group dedicated to non-violence." At the time, we stated that "this particular utterance would, rather remarkably, be akin to our ridiculously stating that America's 700 Club is an atheist organization dedicated to abortion."
Quite frankly, we were right then, and we are right now.
In fact, if you would really like to both know and understand who Mohammed Morsi is, and what he and the Muslim Brotherhood are actually all about, then listen to these words from his inaugural speech:
Now, after hearing Mohammed Morsi's Egyptian threat to die as martyrs in the destruction of Israel, listen to what our National Terrorism Braniac, James Clapper had to say about 18 months earlier:
Hmm...perhaps Director Clapper is dyslexic and simply read his security reports backwards, but even here, at least he bothers to actually read them, a thing considered quite noble within the Obama Regime, apparently.
But Morsi also addressed his highly questionable political lineage by singularly certifying for himself; how terribly troubling his principles actually are, as if t'were the greatest and most wondrous thing since sliced bread:
- I learned my principles in the Muslim Brotherhood
- I learned how to love my country with the Muslim Brotherhood
- I learned politics with the Brotherhood
- I was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood
Er...so, should we clap or countdown to launch?
According to the NY Times report, Morsi also has some choice words about sexual openness in the US, while completely dismissing the Islamic penchant for the death by a thousand reasons Islamic approach to humanity's imperfections:
Morsi was "dismayed by the West’s looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called “naked restaurants,” like Hooters."
Indeed, Mr. Morsi, the Burqa Hooters unfortunately never caught on in the US, we don't expect the Hijab Hooters to do much better, alas.
However, when we note the recent spate of Egyptian hymen exams given to single women to verify their virginity, or the anal exams given to Egyptian men to certify an exit-only state of readiness, it would seem that privacy in Egypt is a thing that defies any standard of minimalist convention.
Morsi was also "troubled" by "gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles," according to the report, while remaining completely silent about his own country's wide-ranging foray into violence on every street and in every nook and cranny, especially by their own police.
Probably because, hey, that's just different.
On the US way of life, Morsi apparently thinks that what he sees on TV in LA is how the US lives across the country. But maybe that's how it is for a people who are in constant threat from moaning Mummies lurking in every dark corner. But this is what he had to say about American society as a whole:
“I don’t admire that,” he said. “But that is the society. They are living their way.”
Nor do we admire you Mr. Morsi; on that, we are in complete agreement. Especially when you tell us "that neither a woman nor a Christian would be a suitable president," and right after we've just elected a Muslim as President, for Heaven's sake, now that's just not fair.
In concluding his interview with the NY Times, Morsi made a reference to either his southern California liberal college education or the ongoing campaign of Civilization jihad being perpetrated by the Islamic Jihadist in the US by shouting :
But, our countering suggestion to you, Mr. Morsi, from the majority of the American people, would be quite simple:
Just consider your neighbor, our ally Israel, as one really big, and very, very powerful landmine that you dare not step foot on, from border to border.
Then we "should" all get along just peachy.....
September 14th, 2012
Government as God, anyone?
The DNC began with an oddly appropriate, partially collapsed sand image of a soggy El Magnifico making the news on the Sunday preceding the convention. Only to be followed by the discovery that the head of the Democratic Party, that being Obama, by the way, had decided to delete the word "God" from the Democratic Party platform and essentially replace it with the word 'Government,' while Israel would receive pathetically similar treatment.
The Media referred to this mysterious entity monkeying around with the Democratic platform only as 'they,' by the way, while most of us knew better.
We would, not much later, however, be treated to a video proclaiming that "we all belong to government," insidiously completing the misanthropic connections that we all saw being created in the first place by this gaggle of gathering Leftist nincompoops. Not that all of this was surprising, truth be told. We actually saw this coming long, long, ago. In fact, here's proof, from a 2010 Conservative Refocus article, titled Kneeling At The Alter Of Governmentology, no less.
It seems that, if one but tries hard enough, one can read these signs in the Tea Leaves, no pun intended. But the week would be everlastingly long, and the bull would require high-waders as the DNC convention was kicked off in the proverbial backyard of the Conservative Refocus Command Center, of all places. This, even while the shadowy pall of constantly resurgent storms would plague Charlotte throughout the entire week, as the Leftist minions would loudly "Boo" God as many times as Peter denied him, ironically enough, sans the tears, of course. The cock would not crow, rather fittingly, until the final hour of the last night of the proceedings.
But the opening of the DNC, aside from the bizarre carnival aspect of all of this, left most of us nodding in complete disbelief.
Welcome Back, Carter?
In fact, you know things are really getting bad when the Dems kicked off their seminal event with the second worst President of all time, in a consistently race-baiting Statist, Democratic anti-hero, Jimmy Carter, via video, begging the question:
What in the world were they thinking?
But things would only get more comical at the DNC from there. In fact, you know things have gone from really bad to much worse, for the Democrats, when on the second day, the DNC proudly introduced the evening with two guys named "Castro" for God's sake, playing right into the political Right's mantra of extreme Leftism having taken over the Democrat party.
Coincidence? We don't think so.....
The Liberals, with their Castro to Carter enfilade it, would seem, just aren't deploying any true logic at all, which is oddly appropriate based upon the last four years, come to think of it. Day three would prove no different when Sen. John 'not-so-swift-boater' Kerry, as one of the wealthiest Left-Wing Capitalists on the Hill, kicked off prime-time besmearing practically everything he secretly holds so terribly dear.
But what did the American people take away from the Charlotte Convention, aside from those beasty little blood-sucking bedbugs? Not so very much, it would seem, as the dust cleared. However, for the Fourth Estate, being the easiest of lapdogs to leftwardly impress, especially after receiving a tasty Obama nibble treat. They came away from the event as if sojourning down from Mount Ararat, a misty gleam burnishing their finely manicured metrosexual brows. The Kool-Aid was sweet and fruity enough even for the thickest of media pallets, as most of the 'reportage' crowed triumphantly on behalf of their heroically failed Messiah.
The fascinating part was noting that this so-called professional occupation of journalism almost continually dwells on the silliest of premises, these days, while completely ignoring undeniable abuses of power by those truly in power. You point out an absurdity, plain as any elephant standing there patiently, and you receive the characteristic: "What? There's nothing there."
I, personally, have often wondered how forcefully I might react in writing, for instance, if the politicians who are in supposed 'ideological unison' with my beliefs, were to perpetrate extraordinary abuses to the constitutional process in place, on a verifiably continual basis, as in the Obama Regime of today.
I wonder, and yet, I actually already know.
The vehemence against those who I have placed my trust in, for such abuses, would be far more acid and far more scathing than anything I have probably ever written against those who I simply do not believe in, as in the Democratic party of today and its feckless sub-potentates. Yet, when Bush and the Republicans engineered the Patriot Act, before my writing days, my lividity was presented in the form of explicitly voiced outrage to anyone who might listen, while I continually spouted Ben Franklin's alarmed admonition:
"'Those who would sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security are doomed to lose both and deserve neither."
I still believe in this concept of Franklin's to this day, even more so than I did long ago, as years of research have navigated me ever more deeply within the realms of Natural Law and the need to both understand and explain the depths of its truest meaning, while place-holding these laws within the context of now.
However, the Progressives, when you try to explain Franklin's concept on liberty and security, being so brilliant in its simplicity and so deep in true meaning, will more often than not proffer you a slack-jawed, glassy-eyed look before lapsing into Democratic-Liberal talking points tinged with unequaled toxicity. But it's this slack-jawed look, before they lapse into their robotic stage, that tells me the idea almost got through, that the connection was nearly made, and yet ultimately lost in their constant Linus-like need for the euphemistic security blanket.
Perhaps they of the Left-Wing simply miss the cozy womb; who knows?
As in all things in the world, however, the constructs or enablings that our society and political process sets in place will always have ramifications, be they either positive or negative, or perhaps both contemporaneously, as balance will always seek itself out before the final fall or its hairsbreadth correction.
You see, as with all things societal, a more invasive security will necessarily require less privacy and, therefore, more sacrifice of individual liberty. More power to a central government will always result in less power to the local principalities and individuals. The kinetics of Liberty are no less reactionary than the kinetics of physical law, being that in order for the equation to balance, the proper variables must be in place. If imbalance occurs in nature or in man, the systemic energies will always flow wherever they are needed in order to achieve the requisite balance required. If that balance goes uncorrected, then the whithering effects of unnatural absence will take hold, to include all manner of maladies well known to man.
Cause and Effect
This is the exact reason that the far Left, which is in power today, found its countering force in the ideological opposites of the Tea party, which quickly flowed into the political process like a storm surge. The balance was being naturally corrected, the equilibrium narrowly maintained.
But the balance or imbalance doesn't stop there, unfortunately.
More debt assumed by the state means less wealth to utilize for the family or the private citizen. The balance will always seek itself out, no matter how we might try to control where such balance naturally flows. But when we, as a society, excessively meddle within that flow or balance of highly refined energy, is also when that flow can be turned upon itself or even soured into something that ultimately does more damage than good.
We often mistakenly assume that the laws of man were engineered to function outside of the natural laws of the universe, when, point in fact, the laws of man are a natural adjunct to physical law. In other words, when a law as written is fatally flawed, the excesses of such a law can be seen in the permutations that occur surrounding it. For instance, while we all can easily see the Constitutional need for a woman to have full rights as to the dispensation of her body, there is also a natural right for a life apart that might exist within her womb.
It's a question that divides, no doubt about it, but does the right to an abortion hold up in the realm of natural law? According to the highest court in the land, it does, but what about the permutations of that law?
When we look at the idiosyncrasies of the law, it becomes easier to come to a somewhat more valid conclusion. If, indeed, the law frowns on the taking of a life based only upon an arbitrary determinant of fetal age, then we would appear to have faulty logic at play. If the law decides that it is lawful for an individual to take life as long as said individual has a medical degree, then, once again, we have a fault in the law. (Why does the holding of a degree sanction the taking of life?) And finally, when we look at the murder of a pregnant woman-- is not the baby often considered within a second count of murder? A fault in the law, yet again: If a desired child is murdered, as opposed to the undesired child who is snatched from the womb.
You Break It, You Fix It
Indeed, yet another perfect example of imbalance can be seen to be playing out in a Mideast, which now lays effectively in a power vacuum left unfilled, when a misguided US chose to largely exit its leadership role in that region after thunderously pushing its way in. Completely pulling out of a battle hard-won with Iraq's dictatorial regime, and after introducing democracy within the core of the the Mideast, the US chose to hastily exit its role during the severe troop draw down of late 2010. But it was also at about that same time, not coincidentally, that the Arab Spring came into full being in late 2010, as government after government, in the now beleagured Mideast, was besieged with unrest, and a surge of zeal would topple dictatorial regime after dictatorial regime in a domino effect.
But did the US exit from the core of the Mideast inadvertently cause the Arab Spring by virtue of the power vacuum or imbalance left in its self-imposed exile? Iraq, hellish though it was under the rule of Sadam Hussein, was an opposing force that kept the renegade that is Iran, in check. When the US exploded Hussein out from his throne and then flew the coop, the balance that was there had been lost.
The Iranians now seek to largely dominate the region, while the US footprint has become an ant trail in comparison.
The keystone of peace in the Mideast, which formerly held everything together, was the government of Egypt under the soft iron fist of Hosni Mubarek. Under the influence of a powerful US relationship with Egypt, the nation of Israel, a long-time ally of America's with a core of military might, co-existed peacefully with its largely hostile neighbors. Egypt and Israel had achieved a certain balance, and prosperity was the rule of the day for at least a score of years, that is, right up until Mubarek was toppled at the admonition of President Barack Obama and the US State Department.
Flash forward to now, and we can see Egypt being ruled by yet another iron-fisted totalitarian regime, but this time under the auspices of the infidel-despising Islamists. What some thought was a Democracy being gained was actually an adjunct into a new and even worse authoritarian regime, except this one would not be so easily befriended by US leadership. Once again, an imbalance had occurred, as the Islamists are, even now, in liason with 9/11 forces, and Israel, our ally, is besieged on all sides.
In Libya and other Mideast venues, the appearance of a weakened, or at least less assertive, America has caused a pandemic of attacks against most US Embassies, including the actual murder of a US Ambassador. America, an Islamist hated symbol of the western world, is seemingly being punished for its freedom- loving infidels, whose leadership, now, does nothing but apologize for that former leadership, while slowly disarming itself under its Islamist friendly President and State Department. Make no mistake, the anti-Muslim movie that the media, the President and the US State Department keep blaming is nothing but a strawman for the real impetus of punishment, that being 9/11 and a President habitually practicing dhimmitude in favor of the Islamists who live by the law of the desert.
Folks, there are no coincidences.
The balance has been lost in the Mideast, by the Obama regime, as US foreign policy lies in a shambles, euphemistically noted as "change we can believe in," and insistently predicted by this website for the last three years. So, while ideological speaking, a majority in the US have sought to slowly and conservatively bring about positive change in a Mideast world fraught with unseen landmines, while maintaining the balance, there is that other ideological sect that seeks quick progressive change without giving thought to what can flow into the inevitable void that remains. Duly noting a current US leadership, which messianically considers itself well beyond the need for the counsel of experts, in a desert land layered with intricate causalities.
This, in fact, is the mean essence of difference between what it means to be Conservative and what it means to be a Progressive. The world has lost both its economic and its ideological balance as a result of the inexorable vacuums and imbalances, which were brought about by the Liberals in power, and restoring a desired balance is not nearly so simple as fomenting unsound chaos.
But it's not just in the realm of geo-politics that these unsound imbalances have been caused.
You can, in fact, even see these differences in how the Left's world-view encompasses the planet's ecological health. Our opposition, the Liberals, sees the human race more as an artificial infection that must be controlled and ameliorated, rather than nourished and multiplied. The Right sees humanity as a natural part of the environment, and a powerful force of nature in its own right, but far less powerful than the might and the energy that exists within the earth and its atmosphere.
The Right believe that we, as a people, naturally belong wherever we might be, and that Natural Law holds each of us as valuable and worthy unto ourselves.
The Left seems to harbor a veiled sort of contempt for the embarrassing predicament of their being caught human, who will then try all sorts of ridiculous labors and contrivances to correct their natural conundrum of being born a species less desirable.
September 12th, 2012
Obama, who has serially used, and even attacked, the protestant Bible to make a case for his social agenda, seems to have come out in an almost bizarre and continuous defense of Islam, throughout his Presidency.
Even while the President is in the process of being sued by the Catholic Church for ignoring their Constitutional right to freedom from Governmental interference, he has simultaneously praised virtually any and every facet of Islam, to the point of even relanguaging any references to Islamic terrorism, by removing the "Islamic" out of the explanation.
From the Washington Times: The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
So, why such a terrible need to "defend" Mr. President?
We know that Obama sat in reverend Wright's Black Liberation Theology church for over twenty years and even called the radical Leftist Wright "My Mentor."
But then Obama later denied, rather disingenuously, that he had ever listened to Wright's sermons, only after the damaging truth had finally come out about what Black Liberation Theology teaches.
So, why should we believe anything that the President utters, at this point, when it comes to his true and deeply held beliefs?
The final mystery, however, is at the end of the above video, where in a perfect dialect, Obama tells the Turkish people that he is one of them. Indeed, we know that Obama is not Turkish, so then what exactly did he mean?
Watch the video and decide for yourself, however, the issue is not that Obama "may appear" to be a closeted Islamist, due to his incessantly apologizing for the religion profoundly.
The true issue is one of wondering why Obama feels the need to hide his true beliefs from the American people and one particularly alarming question that none appear to want to answer.
So, what else is Barack Obama hiding, and who else, Mr. President, is clinging to religion, now?
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them
~Barack H. Obama
Related Material from Barry Secrest