Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

No Fun Intended

No Fun Intended

The mainstream press is determined to keep pounding the “Arab Spring” fiction the same way its man in Moscow, Walter Duranty, kept insisting Stalin was Socrates.

Duranty had his own pathetic reasons for lying.  Today’s reporters do it to prop up President Obama, because calling spring winter wouldn’t look good for their man in Washington.

Even so, sometimes the truth leaks out inadvertently.  Here’s the lede from an article in yesterday’s New York Times.

President Hosni Mubarak did not even wait for President Obama’s words to be translated before he shot back.

“You don’t understand this part of the world,” the Egyptian leader broke in. “You’re young.”

Mr. Obama, during a tense telephone call the evening of Feb. 1, 2011, had just told Mr. Mubarak that his speech, broadcast to hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo, had not gone far enough. Mr. Mubarak had to step down, the president said.

Minutes later, a grim Mr. Obama appeared before hastily summoned cameras in the Grand Foyer of the White House. The end of Mr. Mubarak’s 30-year rule, Mr. Obama said, “must begin now.” With those words, Mr. Obama upended three decades of American relations with its most stalwart ally in the Arab world, putting the weight of the United States squarely on the side of the Arab street.

It was a risky move by the American president, flying in the face of advice from elders on his staff at the State Department and at the Pentagon, who had spent decades nursing the autocratic — but staunchly pro-American — Egyptian government.

Given the Libyan murders and anti-American riots in 20 countries, it seems clear that our president has zero idea how in over his head he is.  And he’ll do anything to avoid admitting it.

For a variety of social, psychological, and biographical reasons, Barack Obama came to believe in his own inevitability and unerring brilliance.  He never had reason not to believe in them until he reached the White House, when, for the first time, his assumptions politically and about his own infallibility were challenged.

Which explains why he considers his political opponents to be “enemies.”  And also why he can’t stomach the idea that anyone might consider him less than the smartest guy in the biggest room on the planet.

If you’re looking for insights into the president’s psyche, consider his appearance on Jon Stewart’s show just before the historic 2010 shellacking.  Stewart wondered why he hadn’t kept more of his campaign promises and asked about Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers.

“In fairness,” Obama said testily, “he did a heck of a job.”

Stewart remembered President Bush’s defense of FEMA head Michael Brown, who Bush had insisted was doing a “heck of a job” after Hurricane Katrina.

“You don’t want to use that phrase, dude,” Stewart said.  The audience laughed.

But not Obama.  Instead of laughing along at his unintentional echo of a famously stupid moment, he bristled—then lied: “Pun intended,” he insisted.

No, it wasn’t intended. That’s clear. Because if it had been intended, he would’ve been criticizing Summers, not defending him.  (It also wasn’t a pun.)

Obama can’t stand to think that anyone considers him less than perfect.  So he keeps doubling down on mistakes.

From the economy to healthcare to foreign affairs, he doesn’t let facts get in the way of his self regard.  And with the press bolstering him, he has every reason to keep on keeping on.

Hey, you Arabs over there, you just better start having a real spring already, dammit, or the man himself will be coming back to Cairo, reminding you how much you love America now because he’s president.

(UPDATE: Uh-oh: Early in his speech today at the U.N., our president said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”; and, “This is the season of progress.” See?  It’s spring in Obama world.)

UPDATE #2: Here we see the President of the United States in New York, prepping for his speech at the U.N.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Interestly, there is a film from 1950 starring Jimmy Stewart that seems almost precognizant of Obama’s sense of his world:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042546/

Just more magic thinking.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/how-megalomania-explains-obamas-response-to-the-arab-spring.php

It is important to understand that Pres. Bumps is sick.

franciscodanconia | September 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Excellent analysis and take on a grim situation, Joel.

From the Benghazi attack and the brazen attack on the airbase in Ashcanistan, one would think a sitting would be clued into the fact that the Mideast is a tinderbox right now.

President Dhimmi is who we have, right now. I pray for the well being of our troops over there, this situation is only going to get worse.

    “Grim situation” it is. That I know, there are only two ways to deal with someone like BO. One is to remove him from his position, which is what many desire in the Nov election. The other is to marginalize and attempt to limit “the damage”. This can be quite difficult and usually is limited as to results.

    It is so because people like him are convinced of his absolute rightness. Even when presented with reason and logic, or facts, they’ll maintain the correctness of their position. Often, this position is based upon “what’s best for them” or “they really need this, but don’t realize it now” type of nothing. This is tantamount to regardless of the results or outcome such a person is right nevertheless.

    What’s “grim” is that he is who he is and that he still has such support.

    President Dhimmi is who we have, right now

    Dhimmi is a non-muslim that submits to islam….just sayin’.

Frankly, I don’t care to try and understand the psyche of Obama and his delusions of grandeur. The real mystery is why in the hell Americans would vote for a narcissist with no experience in the first place. All of Obama’s deleterious relationships from Frank Marshall David to Ayres and Rev. Wright were documented – yet still half the country pulled the lever for him. We need to understand the psyche of these voters to prevent this from EVER happening again.

    barbara in reply to Lambchop. | September 25, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    No mystery – they wanted to prove to themselves and their buddies that they’re not racists.

    Now they need to prove they’re not IDIOTS and kick his sorry ass to the curb. >:-(

The NY Times once more outdoes itself with its transparent narrative-manufacturing. It tries to link Obama’s disaster in Egypt with his reluctance to intervene in the Iranian Green Revolution, so it can ascribe a “learning process”, as if Obama is a studied and well-intended “great man in the making.” BS. Obama didn’t intervene in the Iranian revolution for the same reason he didn’t intervene for days during the BP oil disaster — because it was in is interests NOT to. He wanted the Green Revolution to fail; he wanted the mullahs to emerge with even more power (which is also why he was so quick to offer his endorsement to their fraudulent elections, and why he wants a nuclearized Iran) in order not simply to keep pressure on Israel but to advance the cause of eradicating Israel, the long-term Leftist dream. That is the REAL goal of the Left. It just must be orchestrated in a way that can be sold by the elites. This is the dark art of Obama, and the NY Times are his Sorceror’s apprentice, one of them anyway.

Obama WANTED to see the Islamics unleashed in Egypt; just as he DID NOT WANT the truly progressive, democratic revolutionaries in Iran to unseat the mullahs. And the NY Times wants to characterize Obama as a complex leader struggling with complex decisions as he “grows in office” (the hoary liberal chestnut they always use to explain away liberal ineptitude) rather than the cheap, thuggish Leftist radical that he is.

(As for the Gulf oil spill, the longer it went on the more chance Obama had to declare regulatory and EO war on the entire oil drilling industry — crisis=opportunity, and all that — which we saw confirmed by the DOI’s report that misrepresented the scientific experts and launched the “permitorium” even in violation of a court ruling.)

    logos in reply to raven. | September 25, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Dinesh D’Souza asks if “A United States of Islam” is what Obama has in mind.

    http://www.dineshdsouza.com/archives/articles/a-united-states-of-islam-in-the-middle-east/#comments

    Glenn Beck saw it coming a year ago: return of The Caliphate, for which he was ridiculed. Looks like Beck was on the right track after all.

      counsel4pay in reply to logos. | September 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm

      HUSSEIN HAS NOW MADE IT CLEAR: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SPEECH ABOUT RELIGION CANNOT BE TOLERATED IN HIS AMERICA.

      “FELLOW AMERICANS…CAN WE TALK”

      You may think this a one-sided conversation,
      But things are changing so FAST in our nation
      And I now “hear you” through your acts and speech
      Perhaps as well or better than if each
      Of you were sitting with me now,
      Striving to be as “friendly” as emotions might allow.
      (So deep those feelings run!–BUT STILL WE CAN TALK!)

      To start, might we agree upon “ONE THING”
      And that is, in America we may sing
      A song of life and love and hope unique
      From all other flesh that we may see or seek.
      Differences in our births or the trials of our lives
      Cannot negate a truth which enemies would disguise.
      (We are, WE AGREE, “Fellow Americans”.)

      Of all the times and lands who’ve gone before,
      There are FEW, IF ANY who have been given more!
      We, thus, are offspring of generations
      Whose labors/sufferings created this great nation.
      If you cannot admit you are such “heir”
      Then I retract my outstretched hand and honest prayer—
      (IF YOU DENY MY FREEDOM, WE CANNOT TALK)

      But if honor compels us to concede WE SHARE A DEBT,
      Then you and I may hold “discussion” yet,
      And seek to find SOME OTHER THING to share,
      If honoring each other’s view is something that we dare.
      I will admit, I don’t possess superior heart or reason,
      To find it easy to offer any “Olive Leaf” this season.
      (I have never seen such turmoil–BUT I DO NOT DESPAIR).

      I strive to dig DEEP within my meager soul,
      To hold back fear and bitterness and to CONTROL
      That savage anger which now so threatens my life
      That, if given free rein, might begin such sorry strife—
      The likes of which were only seen before,
      When forefathers created and kept opened freedom’s door.
      (Is this “ONE MORE THING” we can share?)

      In nations far away which have labored less,
      We see conspiring “leaders” who possess
      Only the arts of fraud, and jealousy, and strife—
      They do not shrink to demand we give our life
      Either as vassals of their own vengeful plans
      Or victims, and “sacrifices” to their commands.
      (Will we submit to this? FOREIGNERS RULE US?)

      IF WE HAVE “COMMON ORIGINS”, then the sound
      Of despots and warlords which are now heard all around
      Should COMPEL US to join JUST AS OUR FOREBEARS did
      To push aside the differences by which they lived,
      AND SEEK, AT LEAST, THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE
      HOW WE, AS AMERICANS, SHOULD LIVE OR DIE!
      (That, fellow Americans is reason to talk!)

      CAN WE TALK?

      WE, PATRIOTIC AMERICANS, WHO STAND BY OUR CONSTITUTION, DECLARE TO HUSSEIN AND ALL THE WORLD, THAT NOW AND FOREVER WE ACT UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. THE USURPER SHALL BE REJECTED AS PRESIDENT AT THE BALLOT BOX!

      I DO NOT DENY ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES OF OUR DAY: “Abortion?–let’s talk”; “Gay marriage–let’s talk”; “Best health care system–let’s talk”. WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE AND MORE, TOO, AT THIS ELECTION. But if we hope to have ANY CHANCE TO ACTUALLY RESOLVE SUCH ISSUES FOR OURSELVES, FREE SPEECH MUST TRUMP “BAN ON 16+ OZ. SUGARY DRINKS”. WE address MYRIAD ISSUES ON NOV. 6; BUT ONE MUST BE FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS–If we aren’t free, what else matters?
      all these things we can TALK ABOUT, BUT ONLY IF OUR RIGHT TO TALK AT ALL HAS BEEN GUARANTEED. All other nations may worship God, whoever they conceive that to be and in whatever manner they choose. BUT HERE, IN MY LAND, WHICH I HAVE SUPPORTED ALL MY LIFE AND WHICH HAS SUPPORTED ME AS WELL, NO NATION CAN TELL ME THAT I NO LONGER HAVE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OR TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS AS TO THEIR BELIEFS–the latter action may not be kind or cordial, BUT I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO IT.
      AMERICANS…WE CAN TALK. At the ballot box, November 6, we will peacefully, but resolutely express ourselves.

Now there’s the type of “yes, of course” analysis I expect, but never seem to get from the malpractitioners of journalism these days.

I don’t know about the “most transparent administration ever” claims by these guys and their media enablers.

But that moment with Jon Stewart was a painfully transparent thin-skinned moment piercing the veil, illuminating the turbid core of Obama.

LukeHandCool (who, speaking of illumination, figures if he had been born to hippy parents, would’ve aptly been named, “Sunshine.”)

Re: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” update:

One could do a lot worse than simply quote (and tweek) the ending lyrics from the Sex Pistols’ “God Save the Queen:”

“God save the King
We mean it man
And there is no future
In Arab Spring dreaming

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future,
No future for me

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future
For you ………….”

LukeHandCool (who admires Johnny Rotten for calling out Elvis Costello on Costello’s boycott of Israel).

(UPDATE: Uh-oh: Early in his speech today at the U.N., our president said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”; and, “This is the season of progress.” See? It’s spring in Obama world.)

Obama used the phrase the future must not belong six times. I quote:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people…

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace…

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people….

Before getting chagrined by your cherry-picking, I took your post at face value.

    What’s the problem with cherry picking? He could’ve had a list of 100 entities that the future shouldn’t belong to, and I might agree with every last one (bullies, for example). But when the POTUS condemns perceived blasphemers, he’s not protecting my free-speech rights or yours; he’s undermining them. That conditional afterthought was depressing. Why do we, as a country, have to condemn religious desecration in order to be “credible”?

      Omitting the other “future-must-not-belong-to” lines does change the context quite a bit. As a stand-alone statement, the business about “slander of the prophet of Islam” would be a lot more outrageous.

      Nevertheless, I tend to agree with your main point, which I think is that Obama created a false moral equivalence between, for example, people who would SLANDER Islam and people who would KILL in the name of Islam. That’s really what he’s doing here. He’s saying, “Making anti-Islam movies is wrong, and killing innocent people in retailiation is wrong, so the future needs to belong to the people in the happy medium between those two extremes.” He’s essentially giving the killers the satisfaction of lumping them in with the “slanderers” in terms of being intolerable extremists.

        1. Conrad, Obama also said this:

        I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

        Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so.

        Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

        True, I don’t like his quoting Gandhi to the effect that intolerance is a form of violence. (For that matter, the more I learn about Gandhi himself, the less I like.)

        So I don’t see the moral equivalence which you see, at least not to the same degree as you.

        2. Joel, you ask What’s the problem with cherry picking? For one of many things, if the cherry picker who gets caught out has impaired his overall credibility.

        3. Wrt Obama’s speech, cf. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address. Glass houses. Stones.

          Conrad in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm

          What is your point about Bush’s second inaugural speech? If you are claiming it contains similar strains of moral equivalencing (for lack of a better term), please identify the relevant passage(s).

          gs in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 5:22 pm

          No, I was alluding to the utopianism.

          To repeat, I do not see overriding evidence of the moral equivalencing you detect in Obama’s speech. In other statements from the administration, yes. In other statements of Obama’s, highly probable. But not in this particular speech.

        I was pointing out that in a speech to the world, the president of the United States violated Jefferson’s separation between church and state—only in this case, mosque and state.

        Imagine if George Bush said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ.” They would’ve been throwing chairs.

        Obama went on to conflate the realm of faith with reality. Sticking a crucifix in urine is protected speech in this country. The future belongs to people who do that sort of thing, because that’s the whole point of the First Amendment; and because Christians, unlike Muslims, don’t riot and behead when they’re offended.

        In the very next clause (same sentence) he skipped to physical violence (churches destroyed), and then came Holocaust denial, which is also protected speech but is a sort of hatred that cannot in any way be compared to saying mean things about a human being who lived 13 centuries ago. He may as well have grouped apples, earphones, and sunrises together.

        It’s entirely irrelevant how many other nice things were in his list, or how he explained that we have a First Amendment that gives us the right to blah blah blah. All of those are irrevocably undermined or rendered moot by his uttering the above.

          1. In the very next clause (same sentence) he skipped to physical violence (churches destroyed), and then came Holocaust denial, which is also protected speech but is a sort of hatred that cannot in any way be compared to saying mean things about a human being who lived 13 centuries ago. He may as well have grouped apples, earphones, and sunrises together.

          It’s entirely irrelevant how many other nice things were in his list, or how he explained that we have a First Amendment that gives us the right to blah blah blah. All of those are irrevocably undermined or rendered moot by his uttering the above.

          But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

          I’d be happier with the sentence with the indicated phrase struck out, but IMO you are overemphasizing the matter to the point of gotcha politics.

          2. Imagine if George Bush said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ.” They would’ve been throwing chairs.

          The equivalent there would be Obama saying something like Allah’s Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Instead he said the prophet of Islam (lower case). Here is the White House text.

          It’s my impression that naming Jesus as Jesus Christ has a religious meaning.

          3. Last but not least:

          Sticking a crucifix in urine is protected speech in this country. The future belongs to people who do that sort of thing, because that’s the whole point of the First Amendment…

          I disagree. The future may belong to those who tolerate that sort of thing because government censorship would have worse consequences than toleration. I say “may” belong because toleration can be a disguise for weakness.

          …and because Christians, unlike Muslims, don’t riot and behead when they’re offended.

          Today’s Christians, that is.

    Browndog in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    New rule: No quoting Obama unless to quote every word he has ever spoken. You know….for “context”.

    gs in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    UPDATE #2: Here we see the President of the United States in New York, prepping for his speech at the U.N.

    Oh, this post is anti-Obama campaign propaganda. Nothing wrong with that. My misunderstanding.

    Squires in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt…

    So, not Egyptian Muslims.

    it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

    So, that tiny percentage of the total population that did not feel all a-flutter when hundreds of thousands stood in Tahrir Square chanting of the army of martyrs come to march on Jerusalem.

    The future must not belong to those who bully women

    So, not Islam.

    The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources —

    So, not Solyndra, or Corzine, or any of the rest of Obama’s friends and fellow travelers. Or Michelle.

    it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people…

    Well, someone does need to create all that wealth promises to bribe voters with, er “spread around”.

    The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

    It ain’t slander if it’s true. He enslaved, he robbed, he stole, he sent murderers out in the night to take the lives of those who spoke critically of him (declaring that they had “hurt Allah”, and such), he lied, he deceived, he made false promises, he broke treaties as soon as it suited him, and yes – he raped, and encouraged his followers to rape. He indeed payed his followers in promises of divinely-sanctioned rape and looting. And as a middle-aged man he made sexual use of a child.

    This – all of this, recorded in Islam’s own most fundamental texts.

    Will Obama stand up on his little podium and publicly state that it was wrong for Muhammad to make sexual use of an eight year-old girl? That it was wrong for him to advise his mercenaries not to “pull-out” when raping women they held hostage for ransom, because, in short “whatever Allah wills, will be.”

    http://tinyurl.com/8boc257

    But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated

    Like requesting that Christian symbols be covered up before they’ll make speeches at a Christian university?

    Or these young heroes of democracy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0b6QZWnsFA

    or churches that are destroyed,

    So, not Islam, according to its own laws – the laws of Muhammad. Thus go they: You won’t submit in humiliation? We’ll smash you. You built your church taller than our mosque? We’ll smash it.

    or the Holocaust that is denied.

    So, not the Islamic world. Certainly not Iran, now trapsing towards their nuclear ambitions. And who is going to stop them, again? With what, exactly?

    Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace…

    So, not the self-styled Palestinians.

    In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people…

    So, not this guy:

    http://gdb.rferl.org/DC6BA77E-B169-4297-89AC-D555B90EB657_mw800_mh600.jpg

    gs in reply to gs. | September 26, 2012 at 1:24 am

    My final remark (probably) about the speech is that it is an attempt to articulate a presentable Mideast policy in place of the former dysfunctional one, which the MSM will shove down the memory hole.

    Instapundit warns that everything Obama says has an expiration date. That includes Obama’s previous Mideast statements, and it includes this one.

Blame Bush? Just imagine the mess Obama (a legend in his own mind)will inherit if he is re-elected.

Obama can’t stand to think that anyone considers him less than perfect. So he keeps doubling down on mistakes.

Exactly so, professor. And that’s also a fairly good explanation of why our Wonderboy President has chosen to farm out the lion’s share of his job responsibilities to that retinue of twenty-odd functional czars that he keeps around himself.

You see, those czars are in place so that Presidente Zero can maintain his specious aura of perfection … when the czars fail, the failure is theirs alone and, as such, it can’t ever be blamed on The Great Obama … who, as we all know “leads from behind” … and thus the “Obama perfection” remains unsullied.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

Maybe so, but it’s not slander if it’s TRUE. And he ain’t a prophet, he’s a murdering pedophile.

Shut up, Bambi – you’re a disgrace to our country.

Soaring rhetoric … Obama at his best.

No face to face meetings, just teleprompter speeches. Then off to play his role as Hollywood superstar, dancing with the stars. Phony Obama at his worst.

Radical Islam is not demanding mutual respect, they are demanding submission. The terrorists don’t consider it blasphemy to murder us shouting Allahu Akbar.

Obama: “The Future Does Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam”

Obama chose his words carefully.

“Slander” is a crime in the United States.

TrooperJohnSmith | September 25, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Just remember: OIIOHH = Obama Is In Over His Head

Say, O-I-I-O-H-H several times, and it starts to sound kind of like this spooky, muttering echo.

More than elsewhere Obama planted his stake in Egypt. Recently it was reported that Obama sent a hand written note to Morsi thanking him for safeguarding our Embassy in Egypt. Watching the Arab “summer/spring/winter/fall” unfold I sense that Morsi owns Obama.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to gracepmc. | September 25, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Obama likely orchestrated all this when he made his first trip to Egypt and met with the MB and ther assorted terrorists. The Caliphate is his contribution to Islamic supremacy. Caliph Obama..

    Browndog in reply to gracepmc. | September 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Morsi gave Obama his option-

    Release the Blind Sheik–or I storm your embassy, and you lost the election.

    One hour phone call on the eve of Friday prayers, after the call, Morsi “cancelled” the “protest” of the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

Then and now, when I hear the term ‘Arab Spring’, I think not of the season, but of traps and triggers.

And, to further prove his flabby tepidity and belief in broadcasting WEAKNESS, his speech at the UN was embarrassing. God, it all just gets worse each day and the MSM-Lapdogs keep their eyes averted as the world burns while Neville Hussein Nero Obama fiddles.

Hideous. Loathsome. Unforgivable.

Mubarak was close to the truth when he spoke to Obama. Where he erred was in blaming Obama’s fecklessness on youth. It is something altogether different and more complex.

There is a fanciful notion among certain self-proclaimed intellectuals that democracy will take hold in the Muslim world if only the current despots are usurped. It is a dangerous fiction. I am not sure if that is Obama’s view; or if he even has a coherent view. But, he pays lip service to it. I cannot think of a single instance in which a democracy or republic has survived in the Muslim world. The only forms of governments that survive are monarchies, military dictatorships and theocracies. Of the the three, there is at least some potential for us to work with the first two. Unfortunately, attractive as it seems in principle, to abolish despotic monarchies or military supported dictatorships in favor of some more democratic entity, the best organized and most ruthless group available to fill any void is invariably the ones promoting an Islamic Theocracy. That faction will never accommodate to the modern world; nor will they acknowledge the legitimacy of the Israeli state.

I am not sure what Obama’s view of the middle-east actually is. I do know that his proclaimed vision and his documented actions are dysfunctional.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend