We should be very concerned about the true core beliefs of Mr. Obama.
Which is more important to him, his image or freedom? Is he a hardcore leftist, or just a typical liberal? Recent actions and inactions of his administration leave some of us with the impression of a President who is far more concerned with his world image than with freedom and thus in line with hard-core, committed ‘leftists.’
It is far too early in his administration to make a final judgment, but the trends to date are disturbing at best. Consider his actions during the Iranian election-
When the student protests first began after the ‘fixed’ election, the Obama Administration played the ‘moral-equivalency card’ by equating the student protesters with the oppressive and corrupt Islamic theocratic government.
As pressure mounted, Obama reluctantly called for restraint on the part of the Iranian government, and subsequently praised the Iranian Mullahs for their use of non lethal measures on the protestors. Translation- “It’s awfully nice of the Mullahs to use clubs and water cannons to disperse the peaceful protestors, rather than actual gunfire!”
At no point did he ever strongly champion the students and their cause for true and open democracy. (Remember Iran is the very den of the Islamic Fascists who have bedeviled us since 1979!) One of the stated goals of the United States Iraqi policy is that young people in Iran may see their Iraqi contemporaries voting and living in a modern and non-theocratic state, thereby compelling them to demand the same of their respective government. Imagine all of the problems that could be solved throughout the Middle East if Iran were to become a modern democratic state? After all of the American ‘blood and treasure’ invested in this Iraqi Policy, Obama simply walks away from the Iranian students and offers them no support what-so-ever.
What is behind this decision? It is my opinion that Obama does not want to upset the Iranian Mullahs and thereby destroy his chances at persuading them to cease their nuclear weapons program. If so, one could surmise that his strategy is to rely more on the powers of his own persuasion than to encourage a potential radical democratic transformation of Iran from within.
I am of the belief that democracy is like an ‘ember’ that needs to burn within the people of Iran, and the Obama administration need only ‘supply a little oxygen to that ember’ so it can burst into flame.’ It is clear from Obama’s chosen strategy that he is willing to risk the collapse of student protests for a mere chance at gaining concessions from the Iranian hardliners, and thereby allowing him to bask in the resulting glory. Thus, it appears that Obama’s potential for glory supersedes the potential radical democratic transformation of Iran.
Consider another measure of Obama’s true core beliefs- Honduras, President Mel Zelaya, a committed leftist and potential ‘Chavez-like’ dictator, had attempted to rewrite the Honduran Constitution on his own through an illegal referendum. He was refuted in his unconstitutional ‘grab’ of power by both the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court.
President Zelaya, accompanied by a mob of supporters, broke into an army compound to obtain the illegal ballots (manufactured by Chavez in Venezuela) for the banned referendum. Since both the Congress and the Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya’s actions were unconstitutional, the military intervened and removed President Zelaya from power, installing the Speaker of the Honduran Congress as President.
Now, imagine if President Obama had attempted to create a nation-wide vote so as to be eligible to run for a third term over the objection of the Supreme Court. Further, imagine if he proceeded to hold an illegal vote before Congress could remove him from office- Would it not be incumbent upon the U.S. Military, or some other specified law-enforcement agency to arrest him for treason and remove him from office in order to restore the United States Constitution? It is this exact scenario that has transpired in Honduras, and yet, Obama decides to back the leftist, treasonous President? Hard core committed leftists in the region such as Castro, Chavez and our old friend Daniel Ortega all support Zelaya’s reinstatement. Why would the President of the United States agree with such leaders?
The WSJ recently reported that Obama said the following about the Giorgio Napolitano, a former Italian Communist Party leader, while visiting Italy-
“He is a man who has the admiration of the Italian people. That admiration stems not just from the 84-year-old’s lifetime of service,” the U.S. President continues, “but because of his integrity. I have heard of the wonderful reputation of President Napolitano, a man who had the admiration of the Italian people, not only for his long-standing service, but also for his integrity, and his graciousness,” Obama said. “And I just want to confirm everything I have heard about him is true.”
Why would the President of the United States go to such lengths to praise the former head of the Italian communist party?
At this point, it is difficult to know what Obama really believes, but from his inactions, and by default, it becomes obvious that he supports the status quo in Iran, over the dreams of real freedom for its people. In Honduras, he supports the ‘unconstitutional’ President, over the rule of law, and as such, is in agreement with the worst type of leftist and communist leaders in the hemisphere.
President Obama reactions to these events beg the question, what in fact are his true core beliefs?
By Richard Garner
July 11, 2009
Categories: Uncategorized . Tags: beliefs, Honduran, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Obama . Author: mylibertyandfreedom . Comments: Leave a Comment