Alan Keyes
What Obama's anti-Americanism has wrought
By Alan Keyes
Just recently, I read a WND article reporting an interview with Clare Lopez, a former CIA operative who now "manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy" (a national security affairs think tank directed by my friend Frank Gaffney, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Ronald Reagan). In the interview, Lopez says bluntly that Barack Obama's actions reveal that he has the same goals for the U.S. as Osama bin Laden and all jihadis:
a. "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands";
b. "enabling the rise of Islam";
c. "empowering the Muslim Brotherhood domestically and abroad";
d. "alienating and distancing ourselves from our friends and allies";
e. "and debilitating the American military."
In the context of these goals, Lopez notes that Obama has taken actions that:
a. seek to empower rather than confront Iran;
b. turn most of the Mideast over to Iran as the U.S. retrenches;
c. accept Iranian nuclear power hegemony "of the entire Persian Gulf region."
When WND asked Lopez if "Obama's plan is to take us back 1,300 years," Lopez clarified her point saying, "Well, not us, but to let the Middle East do that."
Lopez believes that the forces and domineering global ambitions of the Islamic jihadis are now "deeply embedded inside our own national security infrastructure." Noting that "this infiltration took place over multiple administrations," she concludes that this puts the U.S. in much that same position with respect to the jihadis that we were in with respect to the forces and ambitions of international communism "when the communists infiltrated our government." "It's not a partisan thing. It's institutional now."
In an article published some years ago (which I wrote in light of Frank Gaffney's cogent analysis of Obama's vision for disarming the United States), I pointed out that Obama's "words, policies and actions support the conclusion that he is the first anti-American occupant of the White House in U.S. history. Apparently the only power he does not want the federal government to control is the power to defend the nation." I drew this conclusion from my analysis of Obama's personal history, his declared academic predilections, and the pattern of his political career before the prevarication that masked his true character as he came to national attention.
We are now several years into the implementation of his anti-American vision of the world's future, and I guess we can derive some comfort (however well chilled) from the fact that my conclusion has been amply verified by the pattern and results of his actions and policies. I saw an article the other day in which former Vice President (and Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney sounded the alarm, saying that Obama's policies are crippling the U.S. military. Cheney couldn't forbear, however, to let opportunistic partisanship mar his critique, as he proclaimed "They can't blame George Bush anymore."
However, back in June, Cheney's GOP nemesis, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, blamed him and others "who supported the Iraq War" for the ongoing crisis in Iraq. "And what's going on now – I don't blame on President Obama," Paul said. Sen. Paul's approach to U.S. foreign and national security policy has more in common with Obama than with former Vice President Cheney, so I'm sure Paul would reject the notion that his remark was intended to lend credence to Clare Lopez' view that the crisis we now face developed over multiple administrations. But it obviously does so.
It also points to the incoherence of the GOP's response to what Lopez characterizes, in her turn, as "Obama's hesitance in the face of the horrific violence in the current crisis." Of course, if Lopez is right in her analysis of Obama's aims and inclinations, he isn't hesitating on account of the violence. He accepts the violence as the price of achieving his objectives. If he proceeds haltingly it's because he is wary of awakening loyal Americans to the anti-American character of his goals, and the extent to which he is willing to tolerate and even arm, train, and cooperate with grotesque forces of evil in order to achieve those goals.
Obama is a committed ideologue, who has long preferred the company of hard-line leftists, full of admiration for China's Mao Zedong and other paragons of life-destroying communist atrocity. Obama himself supped with and strongly supported Kenya's Raila Odinga, whose partisans went on a rampage of atrocity in Kenya in order to force Odinga's savage ambitions on those who opposed him. Combine knowledge of such a background as this with the consistently destructive, anti-American pattern of his actions, and what combination of self-willed blindness and/or moral cowardice explains the unwillingness of some to see Obama for what he is? What excuse is there for refusing urgently to declare it to the American people, in order to rouse them to do whatever they can to curtail his term of office before he fortifies, beyond all peaceful remedy, his betrayal of the nation's Constitution and security?
There is no excuse. But there may be an explanation, one that takes account of the de facto collusion, across party lines, that is pushing the United States past the point of no return toward irreversible military weakness, institutional dissolution, and demoralizing moral confusion and disintegration. Obama's anti-Americanism is just the most visible manifestation of the reversal of the commitment to liberty and decent self-government made by the prevalent leaders of America's founding generation. The elitist faction that presently controls the leadership of both political parties rejects the founders' acknowledgment of God, God-endowed right, and human equality in respect of right.
As I am more fully examining in an ongoing series on my blog, these American elitists embrace an effectively God-denying, materialistic understanding of the world that has more in common with the ideologies of the enemies against whom Americans fought and so many gave their lives in the 20th century, than with the God-revering principles that have freed Americans in every generation from the mind-shackles of elitist tyranny. Though more veiled and cold-blooded in their ways, the American elitist mindset has more in common with the despotic, violent fanaticism of the Islamic jihadis than with the reasonable piety and self-disciplined common sense that gave rise to and sustained America's constitution of liberty.
Unless we thwart them, they are well on their way to proving that Lincoln was right when he predicted that, as a free people, Americans would "live through all time or die by suicide." As Obama exemplifies, our battle is now, more than ever, against the high betrayers in our midst and in defense of the moral and spiritual identity that consists in so much more than our material strength.
August 19, 2014
Just recently, I read a WND article reporting an interview with Clare Lopez, a former CIA operative who now "manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy" (a national security affairs think tank directed by my friend Frank Gaffney, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Ronald Reagan). In the interview, Lopez says bluntly that Barack Obama's actions reveal that he has the same goals for the U.S. as Osama bin Laden and all jihadis:
a. "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands";
b. "enabling the rise of Islam";
c. "empowering the Muslim Brotherhood domestically and abroad";
d. "alienating and distancing ourselves from our friends and allies";
e. "and debilitating the American military."
In the context of these goals, Lopez notes that Obama has taken actions that:
a. seek to empower rather than confront Iran;
b. turn most of the Mideast over to Iran as the U.S. retrenches;
c. accept Iranian nuclear power hegemony "of the entire Persian Gulf region."
When WND asked Lopez if "Obama's plan is to take us back 1,300 years," Lopez clarified her point saying, "Well, not us, but to let the Middle East do that."
Lopez believes that the forces and domineering global ambitions of the Islamic jihadis are now "deeply embedded inside our own national security infrastructure." Noting that "this infiltration took place over multiple administrations," she concludes that this puts the U.S. in much that same position with respect to the jihadis that we were in with respect to the forces and ambitions of international communism "when the communists infiltrated our government." "It's not a partisan thing. It's institutional now."
In an article published some years ago (which I wrote in light of Frank Gaffney's cogent analysis of Obama's vision for disarming the United States), I pointed out that Obama's "words, policies and actions support the conclusion that he is the first anti-American occupant of the White House in U.S. history. Apparently the only power he does not want the federal government to control is the power to defend the nation." I drew this conclusion from my analysis of Obama's personal history, his declared academic predilections, and the pattern of his political career before the prevarication that masked his true character as he came to national attention.
We are now several years into the implementation of his anti-American vision of the world's future, and I guess we can derive some comfort (however well chilled) from the fact that my conclusion has been amply verified by the pattern and results of his actions and policies. I saw an article the other day in which former Vice President (and Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney sounded the alarm, saying that Obama's policies are crippling the U.S. military. Cheney couldn't forbear, however, to let opportunistic partisanship mar his critique, as he proclaimed "They can't blame George Bush anymore."
However, back in June, Cheney's GOP nemesis, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, blamed him and others "who supported the Iraq War" for the ongoing crisis in Iraq. "And what's going on now – I don't blame on President Obama," Paul said. Sen. Paul's approach to U.S. foreign and national security policy has more in common with Obama than with former Vice President Cheney, so I'm sure Paul would reject the notion that his remark was intended to lend credence to Clare Lopez' view that the crisis we now face developed over multiple administrations. But it obviously does so.
It also points to the incoherence of the GOP's response to what Lopez characterizes, in her turn, as "Obama's hesitance in the face of the horrific violence in the current crisis." Of course, if Lopez is right in her analysis of Obama's aims and inclinations, he isn't hesitating on account of the violence. He accepts the violence as the price of achieving his objectives. If he proceeds haltingly it's because he is wary of awakening loyal Americans to the anti-American character of his goals, and the extent to which he is willing to tolerate and even arm, train, and cooperate with grotesque forces of evil in order to achieve those goals.
Obama is a committed ideologue, who has long preferred the company of hard-line leftists, full of admiration for China's Mao Zedong and other paragons of life-destroying communist atrocity. Obama himself supped with and strongly supported Kenya's Raila Odinga, whose partisans went on a rampage of atrocity in Kenya in order to force Odinga's savage ambitions on those who opposed him. Combine knowledge of such a background as this with the consistently destructive, anti-American pattern of his actions, and what combination of self-willed blindness and/or moral cowardice explains the unwillingness of some to see Obama for what he is? What excuse is there for refusing urgently to declare it to the American people, in order to rouse them to do whatever they can to curtail his term of office before he fortifies, beyond all peaceful remedy, his betrayal of the nation's Constitution and security?
There is no excuse. But there may be an explanation, one that takes account of the de facto collusion, across party lines, that is pushing the United States past the point of no return toward irreversible military weakness, institutional dissolution, and demoralizing moral confusion and disintegration. Obama's anti-Americanism is just the most visible manifestation of the reversal of the commitment to liberty and decent self-government made by the prevalent leaders of America's founding generation. The elitist faction that presently controls the leadership of both political parties rejects the founders' acknowledgment of God, God-endowed right, and human equality in respect of right.
As I am more fully examining in an ongoing series on my blog, these American elitists embrace an effectively God-denying, materialistic understanding of the world that has more in common with the ideologies of the enemies against whom Americans fought and so many gave their lives in the 20th century, than with the God-revering principles that have freed Americans in every generation from the mind-shackles of elitist tyranny. Though more veiled and cold-blooded in their ways, the American elitist mindset has more in common with the despotic, violent fanaticism of the Islamic jihadis than with the reasonable piety and self-disciplined common sense that gave rise to and sustained America's constitution of liberty.
Unless we thwart them, they are well on their way to proving that Lincoln was right when he predicted that, as a free people, Americans would "live through all time or die by suicide." As Obama exemplifies, our battle is now, more than ever, against the high betrayers in our midst and in defense of the moral and spiritual identity that consists in so much more than our material strength.
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
