Jul 2, 2014
Obama and the West
Today we post a remarkable review of Barack Obama’s presidency from William Lafferty, laying out in stunning detail why Obama is such a threat to America, her values, and her future in the world. HINT: It has nothing to do with race. It’s Don’t Miss reading but lengthy, so we added the subtitles and pictures....
Today we post a remarkable review of Barack Obama’s presidency from William Lafferty, laying out in stunning detail why Obama is such a threat to America, her values, and her future in the world. HINT: It has nothing to do with race. It’s Don’t Miss reading but lengthy, so we added the subtitles and pictures. PLEASE SHARE!
By William Lafferty, Friday, June 27, 2014
When Obama was first elected, liberal friends of mine often confided that they were mystified by what they perceived as absolute hatred for Obama on the part of many conservatives.
Nothing I could say made any sense to these folks. But that was in the early stages of the Obama presidency.
What I would say now in answer to their question is this: although there have been a number of periods of reform in the United States, such as the Revolution against Britain, the New Deal, the 60’s, none of them have involved a change in the Core Values traditionally represented by the United States and the West generally.
Now we are at the cusp of a different kind of reform in which the issue is whether the Core Values of American culture are to be preserved or changed to values that have been, at best, on the fringes of American life. Obama represents those competing values.
FROM THE BEGINNING
It was apparent in Obama’s campaign for the presidency that something was wrong. He appeared detached, enigmatic – he seemed to have another frame of reference, to come from another culture.
Nonetheless, he had a mesmerizing effect on his followers. Hundreds of them broke down in tears at his public appearances and many behaved as if they were experiencing a religious awakening.
Maybe they were. Some news anchors behaved the same way.
Beyond that, Obama was secretive. He wouldn’t release his birth certificate and when he finally did release it in the form of a pdf file on the internet, a number of forensic experts declared it a forgery:
“Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed Forgery According to Top Experts”
He spoke of hope and promised to effect a profound change in American life. That promise was not an empty one.
His first important act of office (apart from sending the bust of Winston Churchill back to the British government from its display in the White House) was to mount a blitzkrieg campaign to pass his signature legislation, Obamacare. The promise was that it would save every family $2500, that everyone could keep their doctors, everyone could keep their health plans “Period”, and 30 million uninsured would get insurance.
Of course, none of that was true.
What was true was that the entire scheme was impossible simply by way of the fact that adding 30 million people to an existing medical insurance structure cannot result in cost savings or the same quality service for the insured. And it has not.
The scheme was a lie intended to obscure the fact that Obamacare is a socialized medicine scheme that is resulting in rationed care, death panels, and reduced service.
On top of that, for those interested in the sustainability of government, Obama orchestrated the passage of this bill with unprecedented arm-twisting and deal making with insurance companies, hospitals and drug companies, and he did this under cover of the urgent need to act quickly.
Just as in making his illegal and unconstitutional interim presidential appointments, bypassing the requirement of the advice and consent of the Senate, in pushing Obamacare through, he was saying “I refuse to take no for an answer.”
Obama was right about the need to act quickly. If anyone had paused to think about this bill – a bill that not a single republican voted for – it would have failed because of its obvious shortcomings, not the least of which was that those who voted for it did so without knowing what was in it. Nancy Pelosi, Obama’s chief legislative spokesman famously said that we all would find out what was in the bill after it was passed.
NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF A PRESIDENT
This is not the behavior of a president. It is the behavior of an ideologue run amok. It is precipitous, wrongheaded, dangerous, and, as it has worked out, damaging to the economy and to the people.
Even after Obamacare was rammed through, Obama seemed to be from another place, to have an unfamiliar sense of things, to have little or no respect for American values and traditions. He seemed remote, detached.
He seemed that way because he is that way.
Dinesh DeSouza, who is Obama’s age, who grew up in India as Obama was growing up in Indonesia, who is non-white as Obama is non-white, who attended American ivy league schools, as did Obama, graduating the same year, and who even was married the same year as Obama, sees him as a person profoundly affected by his Indonesian experience and his Kenyan father:
“[I]t is the anti-colonial ideology of his African father that Barack Obama took to heart.
From a very young age and throughout his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s Military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that the free market is a code word for economic plunder.
Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. He began to detest corporations as institutional mechanisms for economic control and exploitation.
In Obama’s worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.”
– D’Souza, The Roots of Obama’s Rage (Washington, D.C, 2011), 34.
The strength of D’Souza’s analysis is that it explains more about Obama than any other theory I have seen.
OBAMA HATES CORE VALUES OF U.S.
Obama hates the Core Values of the United States because he sees the United States as a neocolonial power, like Britain (remember returning the statue of the infamous neocolonialist Winston Churchill).
He views the United States as a plunderer of third world nations and an exploiter of their resources, cheating them and keeping them from realizing their rightful place in the world.
Having been taught to hate Western neocolonialism, Obama’s mission is to destroy the United States and the Core Values that make it work. His ultimate goal is to destroy Western Civilization itself, for it is the West that is the shameless and evil colonizer.
The Core Values of the United States and the other nations, mostly European, that make up Western Civilization have been well described by Samuel Huntington:
“The West differs from other civilizations not in the way it has developed but in the distinctive character of its values and institutions. These include most notably its Christianity, pluralism, individualism, and rule of law, which made it possible for the West to invent modernity, expand throughout the worlds and become the envy of other societies.”
– The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York, 1996), 311.
The Western values of Christianity, pluralism, individualism, and the rule of law, which are unique to Western civilization, explain the cohesiveness of our culture.
A multi-ethnic people with the same culture (Core Values) will work together; a multi-ethnic people without the same Core Values or culture cannot.
If our Core Values are abandoned, their demise will end the United States as a viable political entity and as the foremost exemplar of Western civilization.
To test the idea that Obama hates the West and would destroy its Core Values, resulting in its accelerated destruction, let’s consider how he has behaved with respect to each of the Core Values Huntington mentions.
CORE VALUE: CHRISTIANITY
Christianity. Christian teachings are a “core value” of the United States and a major contribution of Western civilization to the world.
Obama belongs to Jerimiah Wright’s brand of Christianity, the “Goddam America” brand, because he can simultaneously present himself to white folks as a Christian and to blacks as a militant. However, he has claimed to foreign leaders that his entire family is Muslim.
His affinity for Islam is also apparent in his artful bumbling in Syria and Iran, the result of which will be that these two Muslim nations will soon have nuclear weapons.
Beyond that, other nations in the region will purchase their own nuclear arsenal, probably from Iran, creating a situation where the United States, which Obama is now unilaterally disarming, may well be unable to defend itself from nuclear destruction by a combination of rogue Muslim states.
Alireza Forghani, a strategy specialist in the camp of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said “the Islamic world should rise up and shout that a nuclear bomb is our right, and disrupt the dreams of America and Israel.”
Apparently Obama agrees.
Obama’s pro-Islamic posture is also evident in
♦ his insistence on abandoning the GITMO facility, which houses Islamic terrorists who pose a threat to the United States;
♦ his bizarre proposal to try war criminals in civilian courts in New York City,
his unprecedented recent release of five key Taliban fighters in the midst of a war with Taliban-related groups;
♦ his directive that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will now have the primary mission of reaching out to Muslims;
♦ his insistence that the Islamic Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 32 while shouting “Allahu akbar” was engaged in workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.
The significance of Obama’s friendliness to Islam is that Islam is poised to do battle with the West and reduce it to third world status or worse:
“[The]‘reaffirmation of Islam, whatever its specific sectarian form, means the repudiation of European and American influence upon local society, politics, and morals.’
In this sense, the revival of non-western religions is the most powerful manifestation of anti-Westernism in non-Western societies. That revival is not a rejection of modernity; it is a rejection of the West and of the secular, relativistic, degenerate culture associated with the West.
It is a rejection of what has been termed the ‘Westification’ of non-Western societies. It is a declaration of cultural independence from the West, a proud statement that ‘We will be modern but we wont be you.’”
– Id. p. 101, footnotes omitted.
Christianity is useful to Obama only as a political tool, but Islam is a kindred spirit in its hatred of the West.
CORE VALUE: PLURALISM
Pluralism. Although one of Obama’s major goals is diversity, what he means by that is black, Hispanic and Islamic favoritism.
The founders of our country, as Huntington points out, feared diversity.
They created the national motto “e pluribus unum,” (one out of many) because of their concern that racial, sectional, ethnic, economic and cultural diversity would lead to civil war (Id., 305-306). The founders saw diversity as a threat to the stability of the country.
Before “diversity” made its appearance in the United States, many of us grew up thinking of America as a melting pot, a place where people from many backgrounds came together and blended into one people.
Obama appears to prefer the view that Americans are diverse and insular, at each other’s throats, divided and hateful, not one people united and strong. Pluralism is not a value for Obama.
CORE VALUE: INDIVIDUALISM
Individualism. All of the traditional individual rights guaranteed Americans are an anathema to Obama, for they thwart his socialist mentality, which seeks to impose uniform and centralized plans like Obamacare on the entire country.
Thus, it is no surprise that Obama’s NSA eavesdrops on individual Americans without reason or leave of court, that Obama and Holder have worked tirelessly to eliminate individual gun ownership, that Obama’s IRS has targeted groups who have individual political views different from Obama’s, or that individuals are pilloried if they utter words reflecting their individual beliefs but not acceptable to Obama. One might say that individualism is not an Obama priority.
CORE VALUE: RULE OF LAW
The Rule of Law. Even Obama’s supporters will admit that Obama has not been long on obeying the law.
Although Obama personally controls the State Department (responsible for the Benghazi scandal), the NSA (responsible for the snooping scandal) the IRS (responsible for the suppression of contrary views scandal), and the ATF (responsible for the Fast and Furious scandal), he has refused to order any agency to turn over to congressional investigators critical papers from any of these agencies that they have subpoenaed.
On at least 38 occasions, he has ignored and altered statutory mandates in the Obamacare Act: “Is ObamaCare A Law?”
He has allowed his Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress,
♦ he has made public statements in local criminal matters in favor of blacks which have the effect of biasing juries,
♦ he has flooded the United States with tens of thousands of illegal immigrants,
♦ he and his attorney general have refused to prosecute blacks who intimidate whites at voting places, and
♦ he has sponsored a health care act that has wrecked the existing system, affecting nearly 18% of the economy, without constitutional authority.
These lawless acts are so egregious that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has announced that he will sue Obama for his lawlessness.
In sum, Obama has acted and will continue to act to destroy the seminal values of our culture and our civilization, what Huntington calls the “Core Values.”
He has done this because he believes Western nations like the United States are neocolonial powers which have plundered and exploited third world nations like Indonesia and Kenya, dominating their economies and occupying their land.
OBAMA IS DETERMINED TO DESTROY OUR NATION
He correctly believes he can destroy our nation by renouncing our Core Values and substituting the values of “diversity,” Islam, collectivism, and extra-legal conduct in the service of a higher morality. If he is successful at substituting his values for those of the West and the United States, he will, indeed, be successful in his determination to destroy our culture and, thus, our country.
The advent of having a president determined to destroy his own country is bad enough, but it comes also at a time when Western Civilization and its leading proponent, the United States, is entering a period of decline.
This decline is illustrated not only by the difficulty we have had winning a war with a third world nation like Iraq but also by our declining control of the world’s resources:
“To defeat Iraq, the United States deployed in the Persian Gulf 75 percent of its active tactical aircraft, 42 percent of its modern battle tanks, 46 percent of its aircraft carriers, 37 percent of its army personnel, and 46 percent of its marine personnel. With significantly reduced forces in the future, the United States will be hard put to carry out one intervention, much less two…”
“[T]he West will remain the most powerful civilization well into the early decades of the twenty-first century.
Beyond then it will probably continued to have a substantial lead in scientific talent, research and development capabilities, and civilian and military technological innovation.
Control over the other power resources, however, is becoming increasingly dispersed among the core states and leading countries of non-Western civilization. The West’s control of these resources peaked in the 1920s and has since been declining irregularly but significantly.
In the 2020s, a hundred years after that peak, the West will probably control … perhaps 25 percent of manufacturing output (down from a peak of 84 percent, and less than 10 percent of global military manpower (down from 45 percent).
– Id., 90-91.
Novel ideas, like going into debt a trillion dollars a year, unilaterally reducing our military force, and flooding the nation with illegal immigrants (“By the Obama administration’s own estimation, 230,000 unaccompanied alien minors are expected to cross through the Rio Grande Sector by the end of next year.”) float by unnoticed in this time of crisis and are tools of destruction.
The realization of any of these ideas — driving the nation into insolvency, reducing our military defenses to inadequacy, or flooding the nation with illegal immigrants – would be sufficient to destroy the nation.
No other president in our history, no matter what his politics, has posed this level of threat to our Core Values, to the culture, to the country and to Western civilization. And we haven’t even touched on Obama’s willingness to squander 100 million dollars on one Roman-emperor vacation to Africa.
The question we began with was why conservatives have such a strong negative view of Obama.
I admit it’s a puzzle. What’s not to like?
Published with Permission from WilliamLafferty.com