As I explained in chapter 5, Alinsky is known as the father of community organizing, and we have him to thank for our community organizer president’s views on many issues. Both Clinton and our president are Alinsky disciples, and they’ve never forgotten the lessons they learned from the master.
The influence of the radical left doesn’t stop there.
Susan Rice, our ambassador to the United Nations, was mentored by Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. When Albright was recently confronted in an interview by Lesley Stahl about the fact that the U.S. military did not intervene to save the lives of half a million children who died at the hands of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, she replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”8
In other words, the “responsibility to protect” applies to some victims but not all?
Confusing, isn’t it?
I’ve figured out why Hillary changed her tune, too. She remembered how much her husband was pilloried for leaving the poor Rwandans to die in a genocide. A single radio tower in Rwanda broadcast the locations of the people marked for death. If Clinton had bombed that tower, thousands would have been saved. He did nothing and has been criticized ever since. So she was not going to make that mistake again. She immediately began using the magic phrase a “responsibility to protect.”
Once Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice joined Samantha Power in the fight to intervene in Libya, Obama was helpless to object.
He’s no match for three women.
It wasn’t until nine days after he had unconstitutionally committed us to a third Middle Eastern war that Obama bothered to address the nation as he made his own “mission accomplished” speech. He made sure to schedule the speech for 7:30 in the evening, because ABC told the White House it wouldn’t carry the speech if it conflicted with Dancing with the Stars. At least ABC has its priorities right.
In the speech, he insisted that “when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”9
As I’ve told you repeatedly, in reality, we had no national interest in the Libyan conflict.
By “responsibility to act” Obama meant “responsibility to protect.”
It’s the same “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was nowhere to be found when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was murdering civilians in the 2009 Iran uprising, yet it magically appeared, forming the basis of the Obama feminists’ rationale for going to war in Libya.
The doctrine was dreamed up by two leftist intellectuals, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans. Like everyone else Obama listens to, they’re academics with no real-world experience to back up their theories. Thakur was Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations for nearly a decade, and he’s now employed as a professor at the University of Waterloo in Canada. Evans is a politician and academic who currently serves as Chancellor of the Australian National University. He was active for 21 years in Australian politics, serving as a liberal cabinet minister from 1988 to 1996. He’s also been active in the United Nations, and recently released a book titled The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All.
Both Thakur and Evans are cronies of Soros. Evans is a former president of Soros’s International Crisis Group. The ICG describes itself as “the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict.”10 Soros’s partner in the ICG is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a committed Israel hater and former National Security Advisor to another Israel hater, former president Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski supervised the Carter administration conspiracy that resulted, in 1979, in the fall of the Shah of Iran and the implementation of the Islamist dictatorship that currently threatens Israel and the stability of the entire Middle East, and that remains an existential threat to the United States itself.
The true purpose of the ICG is exactly the opposite of its stated purpose. It seeks nothing less than the political downfall of regimes in Muslim countries that maintain friendly relations with the United States, with the ultimate purpose of reducing U.S. power and influence and promoting the power and interests of Islamists.
What happened based on Thakur and Evans’s theory is criminal. First, the United States had made its disguised declaration of war on Libya without congressional approval. Then it sent CIA agents into Libya and committed U.S. warplanes to shut down Ghadafi’s air force.
Although the president had falsely maintained that our “interests” were at stake, Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained that Libya is not “a vital interest” for the United States.11 And where Obama declared that going to war in Libya also depends on our “values”—by which I assume he means our “humanitarian values”—he neglected to point out that we routinely turn our backs when tyrants murder their citizens to keep order.
Only one person, New York congressman Charles Rangel, had the courage to speak out about the fact that Obama’s ordering U.S. involvement in Libya was unconstitutional.12 As they have in so many other matters of concern—from taking real measures toward balancing the federal budget to defunding health care—Congress ignored the constitutionality issue, abdicated its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and ceded unchecked power to the president.
A month after Obama had initially chosen to ignore the conflict in Libya, and based on a suspect policy promoted by all the president’s women that relegates U.S. vital interests to secondary status, the U.S. joined a coalition of NATO nations to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.
About a week after the U.S. had joined the NATO coalition in creating the no-fly zone over Libya, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen announced without warning that the U.S. was pulling its planes out of the operation and handing complete control of the mission over to NATO. The announcement came as Ghadafi’s military completed a fourth straight day of forcing the rebels into retreat and regaining much of the territory that had been lost as a result of the no-fly zone going into effect, despite the best NATO efforts.13
Gates washed his hands of the matter, saying, “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States.” At the same time, the U.S. sent CIA operatives into Libya to assess the situation and determine the feasibility of further action, including arming Libyan rebels. This apparently didn’t count as our having “boots on the ground,” something the Obama administration had repeatedly said would not happen.14
In the meantime, things became so muddled among the leaderless NATO forces that they couldn’t even decide which side they were on. Since they too were committed to the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which says to attack whichever group kills civilians, it wouldn’t be long before NATO had to declare war on itself. It caused “collateral damage” in the form of dozens of civilian deaths at its own hand when it bombed and strafed Ghadafi’s forces as part of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.
U.S. Army General Carter Ham, who initially led NATO forces in the Libya mission, explained, “I cannot be sure that there have been no civilian casualties. What I can be sure of is that we have been very, very precise and discriminate in our targeting.”15
“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Ghadafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”16
Behind the scenes, while all this was going on, Ghadafi sent a letter to our president, in which he addressed Obama, “Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama.” The letter goes on to say, “We have been hurt more morally [than] physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this, you will always rem
ain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne.”17
Obama left the task of responding to the letter to his Secretary of State, who answered mysteriously, “I don’t think there is any mystery about what is expected from Mr. Gadhafi at this time.”
Militant black nationalist and Ghadafi/Nation of Islam sympathizer Louis Farrakhan, Obama’s friend and a longtime supporter of Ghadafi, shed additional light on the situation and on Obama’s loyalties when he said, “I love Moammar Gadhafi, and I love our president. . . . It grieves me to see my brother president set a policy that would remove this man not only from power, but from the earth.”18
Still can’t figure out what the U.S. policy was?
You’re not alone.
The Obama administration continually sent mixed messages about our involvement in Libya. Press Secretary Jay Carney expressed it this way: “Our goal of having Gaddafi step down, take himself out of power or be removed from power, is a non-military goal.”19
The “Responsibility to Protect” Doctrine Helps Islamist Radicals in the Middle East
I’ve found that liberals love the word rebel. To their teenage sensibilities, it conjures up images of 1950s actor James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause.
There’s something romantic about the word.
Rebels are worth fighting for.
Their use of the word is also one more way they show their ignorance.
The problem is that in Libya, the “rebels” were infiltrated by Islamist radicals, members of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who see the conflagrations around the Middle East as prophetic. To Islamist dictators and jihadis, the current uprisings are nothing less than a sign that the coming of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, is imminent.
We’re supposedly fighting a war against these radical Islamic psychos.
While no one in our government is willing to confront this, Islamic radicals are not going away. They have been an integral part of the resistance to the decades-long rule of such dictators as Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Moammar Ghadafi in Libya, and the Saudi royal family, leaders who implemented Western-style military dictatorships or family/tribal repressive monarchies that ran directly counter to the Islamist radical dictatorship in Iran.
As everyone but the leftists in the Obama administration knows, Iran is the center of the Islamist move to destroy Israel and the United States and spread Shariah law around the world. Iran’s purpose is nothing less than total domination of the West. The “responsibility to protect” doctrine and the selective way it’s being applied by the United States is helping to pave the way for a broad takeover of Middle Eastern countries by radical Islamist forces.
If you don’t believe that, take a close look at what’s going on behind the scenes.
You remember Mohammed ElBaradei, right? ElBaradei is the guy who led the inspections of Iran’s nuclear program when he was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 2007, ElBaradei called for everyone to take a “timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue.” He hoped that Iran would suspend its nuclear “enrichment activity” and “go immediately to the negotiating table.”20
As it turned out, ElBaradei was just stalling for time. A year later he gave the Iranian nuclear program a clean bill of health, saying that Iran’s explanations of its suspicious nuclear activities “are consistent with [the IAEA’s] findings [or at least] not inconsistent.”21 The Wall Street Journal described ElBaradei’s agenda in blunt terms: “In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.”22
In the meantime, yet another Iranian facility for the production of centrifuges used in the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium was discovered.23
ElBaradei’s pro-Islamist, anti-Israel agenda has made him a perfect mouthpiece for George Soros and the spread of the “Soros Doctrine” in the Middle East. In fact, he’s on the board of Soros’s International Crisis Group, and he was handpicked by Soros to be his representative in Egypt. On January 18, 2011, before the uprising in Egypt had begun, ElBaradei, in what was a veiled call to action for Islamists, warned that a “Tunisia-style explosion” could occur in Egypt.
Obama wasn’t standing idly by while all this was happening.
The U.S. knew as early as December 2008 that groups opposed to the Mubarak regime were developing a plan to overthrow the Egyptian government. They received the information from a young dissident who the U.S. had sponsored to attend a meeting for international political activists that took place in New York City.24
In addition, according to documents exposed by WikiLeaks, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey was aware of the plans of the Mubarak opposition group. Leaked documents also show that while the United States publicly supported the Mubarak government, U.S. Embassy officials continued to communicate with the activist in question throughout 2008 and 2009.25
After Mubarak left office, ElBaradei emerged as a key figure in a “shadow parliament” that formed in Egypt.26 The shadow parliament consisted of opposition leaders who were trying to develop plans for a transition to a new regime through “free and democratic” elections. Included in the group were representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical terrorist group responsible for the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 and the seed group for other Islamist terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.27 The Muslim Brotherhood seeks nothing less than a government based on Islamist principles, including the implementation of Shariah law and waging jihad against the West.
ElBaradei, given the fact that he looked the other way when inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, is very likely a puppet of the Iranian regime. In April 2009, ElBaradei told the press that “more U.S. engagement with Tehran’s leaders would increase regional security.”28
The list of the people on the board of directors of the ICG along with ElBaradei reads like a Who’s Who of international anti-American, anti-Israel zealots. It includes Javier Solana, one of the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of his Marxist sympathies and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was at one time on the United States’ subversives list. Former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out of the National Archives by hiding them in his clothing, is another board member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command position.
Did you think that the people’s uprisings in the Middle East were being staged by Arabs seeking truly democratic governments?
Do you think that the people of Tunisia and Egypt share the same belief in the effectiveness of nonviolent protest that the wide-eyed innocents in the Obama administration hold?
Let me set you straight.
The U.S. closed its eyes as genocide was committed on a massive scale in the Middle East, as long as it wasn’t committed by an ally of the United States. So it was no surprise that we took the side of the rebels in Libya and against Ghadafi. The Libyan resistance is heavily infiltrated by radical Islamist jihadists.
And if you need proof of the fact that a substantial number of the “rebels” in Libya are al Qaeda affiliates, look no further than the “Sinjar documents.” In 2007, our forces in Iraq seized a computer with biographical records, including the countries of origin, of more than 700 insurgents who came to Iraq to fight against the American “invaders.” While more than 40 percent of the recruits came from Saudi Arabia, nearly 20 percent came from Libya.29 Many of them came back to Libya and joined the fight against Ghadafi.
Within a week of the beginning of NATO and U.S. involvement in the war in Libya, it appeared that things had changed dramatically in the rebels’ favor. Euro and U.S. fighter jets had shut down Ghadafi’s air force, and the balance of power seemed to have shifted to the insurgents.
In other words, by shutting down Ghadafi’s airpower, the “allies” made way for such groups as al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to make advances toward their goal of establishing another radical Islamist government in the Middle East.
Sorobama and the Assassination of Moammar Ghadafi
But maybe the event that best sums up U.S. involvement in the Libyan war is the killing of Moammar Ghadafi.
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and less than two years later we woke up to the realization that he was assassinating people around the globe.
He’s become the Assassin-in-Chief of the United States, violating U.S. and international law, killing whoever stands in the way of the global takeover by Obama and his colleagues. He does it through remote drone attacks, or by sending in Navy SEALs to do his dirty work, or through revolutionary surrogates.
When deposed Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi was assassinated by Libyan rebels, Obama took credit for the killing. Ghadafi’s convoy was attacked by NATO forces as it tried to escape from his hometown of Sirte. He was wounded in the NATO air strike but escaped briefly, hiding in a drainage culvert until rebel forces found him. NATO says, “We didn’t know it was Ghadafi.”
In his comments on Ghadafi’s death, Obama never mentioned that the deposed Libyan dictator was captured alive or that he pleaded for his life to the bloodthirsty vermin who captured him. As he was pulled out of the storm drain where he had been hiding, so-called freedom fighters shouted one of the worst insults you can hurl at a Muslim: “You dog! You dog!” According to eyewitness accounts, Ghadafi tried to reason with his captors. He demanded his right to a trial as he asked them, “Do you know right from wrong?”
Their response was to beat Ghadafi to within an inch of his life before they shot him.30
The world cheers, Obama pats himself on the back, and not a single Republican condemns the brutality.
Ghadafi was a monster, but like every criminal under U.S. and international law, he deserved his day in court.
Trickle Down Tyranny Page 18