The military’s “train the trainer” manual, which nobody disputes is authorized by command, is even worse. Warning military men and women about a “White Male Club,” the manual says,
Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege.18
Forget that white privilege is just another divisive, progressive canard used to sow discord among people who would otherwise unite against them. Ask yourself this: Does subjecting soldiers to this kind of training build unity or divisiveness within the unit? Does it make it more likely or less likely that soldiers of different races or genders will trust each other with their lives, as soldiers are required to do every day in combat? Does it make the military stronger or weaker, and America thereby safer or in greater danger?
I don’t think I have to answer these questions for you.
Supporting Our Enemies
While the war on our military goes on with direct action like purges and divisive policy, it also weakens it indirectly by making our enemies stronger.
It’s become almost routine at this point to see a news story about the administration losing track of weapons that eventually end up in the hands of our enemies. One of the problems seems to be that our Islamophilic president can’t make up his mind whether he is pro-Sunni or pro-Shiite.
All we know is he’s not pro-American. In any of the myriad conflicts the administration has created in the Middle East, you can always depend upon one constant: This administration will do exactly the opposite of what’s in the best interests of the American people.
After some hand-wringing over whether to support Saudi Arabia against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, Obama decided he had to support our longtime ally. But that was only after we learned the Pentagon could not account for over $500 million in weapons previously donated to the Yemeni government by the United States:
“We have to assume it’s completely compromised and gone,” said a legislative aide on Capitol Hill who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.19
“Compromised” means they are in the hands of either the Houthis or al-Qaeda, both of whom are fighting Saudi Arabia in Yemen, presumably with weapons we supplied. At least in this case they’re not shooting at our own soldiers with guns we provided, as they have in other cases where the administration armed our enemies.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time documenting cases of the administration’s bungling resulting in weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other extremist groups we’re supposedly fighting against. There are too many. They all relate back to the root cause of the problem, which was the disastrous Arab Spring engineered by Hillary Clinton’s State Department and supported with U.S. covert and conventional military action. By the time you read this book, there will likely have been many more pictures of head-scarfed terrorists posing in front of crates of U.S. ordnance.
Much more damaging has been the administration’s support of Iran. Of all of the Islamist governments in the region, Iran’s has to be the worst, unless you count ISIS as a legitimate government. Yet it is the ninth-century throwback mullahs who are suddenly the U.S. government’s ally of choice over our traditional Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.
Perhaps that’s one explanation for why Obama refuses to recognize ISIS as Islamist. How can he recognize the truth about the “religion of peace” while he’s negotiating with the mullahs?
Every step he has taken in the Middle East has furthered Iran’s dominance in the region. Progressives are still claiming ISIS wouldn’t exist if George W. Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq. That may or may not be true. I certainly didn’t support Bush’s invasion then or now. Let’s just say George W. Bush wasn’t his father, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, Obama still had choices when he inherited an Iraq with an elected government and relative stability within its borders. After everyone told him to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq to prevent precisely the kind of development ISIS represents, he pulled out of the country completely. That left a vacuum ISIS was only too happy to fill.
Faced with the worst radical Islamist threat since Suleiman, Obama responded weakly, refusing to commit to more than nominally effective airstrikes. This was his answer to barbarians who were annihilating Christian communities that had existed in the Middle East for thousands of years. He allowed ISIS to grow into a force that is now a credible threat to take over Iraq and Syria.
Obama’s eventual solution further elevated Iran. In addition to Iranian-backed Shiite militias, there very well may have been Iranian regulars on the ground in the victory over ISIS in Tikrit.20 That gives Iran a military presence in Iraq, made legitimate by U.S. support of its mission there.
This is something the administration will likely deny or at least try to downplay, but it really amounts to a technicality anyway. Whether the Shiite troops were wearing official Iranian military uniforms or not, it was Iranian assets our U.S. pilots were supporting in a battle our own military could have won even more easily.
The real game changer is the administration’s decision to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Obama all but admitted this while commenting on the preliminary version of his infamous deal with the mullahs. Speaking to the fifteen-year time period the agreement covers, he said,
And at that, at the end of that period, maybe they’ve changed, maybe they haven’t. If they haven’t changed, we still have the options available to me—or available to a future president that I have available to me right now.21
Of course, the pseudo-interviewer Steve Inskeep of National Propaganda Radio didn’t challenge the president on this statement. That’s because NPR is just an arm of the Obama administration. It’s a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party and always has been. So Obama was allowed to tell his fairy tale about how this deal will benefit America, her allies, and world peace. But that’s not what he was really saying. A real journalist would have drawn him out.
Allow me to translate what Obama really said during that interview. He admitted that his deal would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and future presidents would have to deal with it. During this interview he looked like a scared child who got caught lying and admits in a secret meeting with a friend, “Yeah, they’re going to get nukes, but it’s someone else’s problem.”
A real, adversarial media would have called him on the carpet for saying something this incompetent. If we lived in a rational society with a legitimate government, this one statement alone might have led to impeachment. But we don’t. We have a weak anti-American in the White House and a largely nonexistent opposition party that refuses to do what they were elected to do and stop him.
Just to put the icing on the cake, Obama spent the weekend after his Iran deal went from bad to worse making friendly with Cuban president Raul Castro. That’s right, while millions of Cubans suffer in a prison nation, Obama dances with another devil.22 This time, it’s a full-blown communist who continues Fidel Castro’s regime of slavery over the captive island nation.
I go back and forth on this president. Sometimes I think he’s a power-mad dictator. But when I listen to interviews like the one he gave NPR, I think he might just be a pie-in-the-sky, daffy, academic lunatic who has no connection to reality. Then again, he knew the real world well enough to become president.
Still, the man sounds like a typical academic nut. He talks about Iran as if it exists in a vacuum, as if we know nothing about the mullahs. We don’t know they’re bloodthirsty murderers who have killed our own troops, vowed to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsored terrorism and revolution all over the Middle East, including the Houthi revolt in Yemen.
Anyone who gets elected to the White House is an egomaniac by definition. When you combine that with academic obliviousness, a pretty face, and a gift for oratory like Obama’s, you have som
eone very dangerous in your midst. That’s why we have a separation of powers, like the requirement that treaties have the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s supposed to prevent wrongheaded, disastrous, and dangerous deals like this one with the throwbacks in Iran.
Nevertheless, he goes on unopposed promoting the Progressive-Islamist takeover, knowingly or not. He has Libya in flames, Egypt on the verge of civil war, ISIS rampaging in Iraq, Iran gaining influence throughout the Middle East, and Israel in a corner with its back to a wall of Islamic hate.
Alienating Our Allies
As I said, when you understand what is in the best interests of the American people, you can count on this administration to do exactly the opposite. It weakens our military from within and strengthens our enemies. It’s no surprise that it also alienates our allies.
Whether he’s incompetent, crazy, or crazy like a fox, Obama has obviously allied himself with the mullahs in Iran. That he’s fighting their proxies in Yemen at the same time is either the incompetent or crazy side of his policy. But you have to wonder what he meant when he made this statement:
I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries.23
Obviously, he’s talking about the kind of “dissatisfaction” characteristic of the Arab Spring he and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, helped engineer. He specifically addressed these comments to “our friends in the region, our traditional Sunni states.” That means Saudi Arabia, among others. What is he saying? Is this a veiled threat to incite the same kind of revolt in Saudi Arabia or just more pie-in-the-sky, academic naïveté?
Saudi Arabia can’t take it as anything other than a threat, whether intentional or not. It’s as if Obama were saying, “Oppose me in my dealings with Iran and you’ll end up just like Gadhafi.” Of course, he says it all with a smile, in his usual passive-aggressive manner. Just like the racial incitements during his speech at Selma, he pretends he is acting in friendship. But if you were the Saudi king, how would you take it?
Then, just when you think you have this man figured out, he comes out with this in the same interview:
How can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [ISIS] to choose from?24
Now he’s back to the idiotic idea that radical Islam can be defeated by getting the throwbacks jobs or inspiring them to “start a business,” as one of his sorority girls said at a press conference earlier in the year. He’s like a raving lunatic, threatening revolution and regicide in one breath and talking about social programs and reform for the maniacs in the next.
Maybe he’s a Marxist revolutionary suffering from a messianic complex. He clearly wants to turn the world upside down and remake it in his own image. He issued a veiled threat to our ally Saudi Arabia about a possible uprising against their oppression, but when asked why the brutal theocrats in Iran shouldn’t fear the same fate, he says his nuclear deal will encourage “science, technology, and job creation.” Then, in the breath after that, he says his deal won’t necessarily lead to regime change or stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but that’s a future president’s problem!
Whether he’s evil or just unbalanced, this man clearly cannot be trusted by America’s allies. The options are not great in forming alliances with any of the Muslim nations, but the United States has traditionally partnered with more stable Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. Now, Obama has clearly sided with the Shiites in Iran, over the objections of Israel and our other allies.
No one trusts the Iranians. Israel obviously doesn’t trust them, but neither do most of our European allies, whose reaction was lukewarm at best. Most important, the American people do not trust them.
While the progressive Washington Post gleefully reported that a poll taken just before the preliminary deal showed a majority of Americans supported a deal with Iran, it also showed something else. Nearly 60 percent of those polled didn’t believe a deal would prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
Whether that was a reflection of their faith in Obama or mistrust of the Iranians is unclear, but they have little reason to trust either party to these negotiations. One burns our flag literally, while the other does so figuratively with every speech, policy, and executive action.
The American people did not have to wait long to have their suspicions of Iran’s untrustworthiness confirmed. On the same day the preliminary deal was announced, Iran was already backing away from the terms the Obama administration claimed Iran had agreed to.
The administration’s fact sheet said “Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country” (emphasis added). It also claimed, “All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran’s first-generation centrifuge.”25
Immediately after this release, Iran’s defense minister denied that the agreement included inspection of military sites. He then told the Iranian parliament that Iran would begin using its much faster IR-8 centrifuges the day a permanent deal takes effect.26
A few days later, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a speech that ostensibly accused the United States of lying about what the Iranians had agreed to and said that all sanctions on Iran must be lifted immediately upon enactment of a formal agreement. Khamenei also said he neither supports nor opposes the negotiations until the details are spelled out, saying “the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”27
Do you understand what he did? For all intents and purposes, he walked away from the negotiations, just as Netanyahu warned they would. There is no way the United States can agree to lift sanctions immediately upon signing a formal agreement, before Iran has demonstrated its compliance with any of its own responsibilities. Khamenei knows this. He’s just maneuvering for even more concessions out of a deal that already conceded too much to this murderous regime.
Netanyahu told Congress this would happen six weeks before it did. He told Congress on March 3 the Iranians would negotiate just as they do in the Persian rug markets. He advised the U.S. to walk away from them first, because Iran needs the deal more than the U.S. does.
Obama said he didn’t listen to the speech but had read the transcript. Apparently, he didn’t read it very carefully, or he was just too arrogant to take some good advice, because it appears the administration was completely blindsided by this predictable and predicted move by Iran.
At least one of three things is true. Either Iran began reneging on the preliminary deal before the ink was dry, the U.S. government was lying about what terms they really secured, or the U.S. government was just incompetent in negotiations. Maybe all three things are true. It really doesn’t matter; it was a bad deal for America and its allies from the start.
Our best and closest ally in the region is Israel, the only Western democracy there. The United States has strategic alliances with Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, and Egypt, but Israel is the only nation in that region that is built upon values similar to the United States’. Unsurprisingly, it is this nation the Progressive-Islamist alliance attacks the most vehemently.
Obama failed in his attempt to foment a coup d’état in Israel during the last election. He sent hundreds of left-wing agitators to the country in the months leading up to the elections in an attempt to replace Netanyahu with someone who would not oppose the Progressive-Islamist agenda. When that failed, the administration continued its propaganda attacks on the Israeli government.
In an astounding example of misinformation, the White House tweeted a diagram mocking one used by Netanyahu during his historic speech to Congress. The administration’s diagram, a cartoon created by one of Obama’s sorority girls, no doubt, attempted to show that Iran would have a faster path to a nuclear weapon without the infamous n
uclear deal, just one day after it admitted the deal would not actually prevent Iran from getting a nuke.28 It’s not only antagonistic toward Israel, but it insults the intelligence of the American people.
While Obama has alienated allies we already had, his worst strategic blunder may have been in turning a potential ally into an enemy. I’m talking about Russian president Vladimir Putin, whom the administration has constantly gone out of its way to antagonize and demonize.
Postcommunist Russia’s interests don’t always align with the United States’, but Russia would certainly be a better fit than Iran. Russia is a large, powerful, First World nation that faces the same kinds of threats from radical Islam we face, only much closer to home. From an economic and political perspective, it is in the interests of the American people to foster closer ties with Russia.
Unfortunately, Russia and her nationalist, conservative president do not fit in with the Progressive-Islamist agenda. Putin’s domestic policies are not “gay friendly” enough for the progressives. He signed a law in 2013 that made it illegal to promote propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors. It subjects anyone who promotes homosexuality to minors to a fine.
The liberal media went apoplectic. If you believe what they’ve said about it, you’d think Russian police were rounding up homosexuals. The law doesn’t make homosexuality illegal. As Putin himself said, “This should not look as if we intend to persecute people of some non-traditional orientation. One does not preclude the other. I believe that such balanced approach is absolutely the right one.”29
Personally, I would oppose such a law here in the United States, but let’s put things in perspective. If you promote homosexuality to children in Russia, you may be fined. Compare that to what happens to you just for being a homosexual in a radical Islamist country. There, you get thrown off a rooftop and stoned to death. Where is the progressive outrage over that?
Government Zero : No Borders, No Language, No Culture (9781455563517) Page 9