Understanding Obama: His One-World View and Foreign Policy
As always, Obama offered no definition of what "fundamentally transforming" meant. It was a hollow phrase that left it up to the listener to decide. It could be made monumental, spectacular, and worthy. It could be made hateful, disgusting, and evil. We had experienced these words before from Obama -- his entire campaign was predicated on words that said nothing, and left we, the people, to fill in the gaps. "Hope" and "change" are subjective, and the meaning changes from listener to listener, and voter to voter.
From his foreign policy dalliances, "fundamentally transforming" is starting to be understood. Its basis is in every word the president has ever said. His speaking to a local Chicago radio station in 2001 (as state senator from Illinois) about the Constitution, stating that the problem with the Constitution is that it is a grouping of negative charters -- what the government can't do to us -- as opposed to a charter of what government must do for us. His words to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth around. In foreign policy, it is the Great Apology speech in Cairo, as he made no bones about his belief that America is no better, and no worse, than any other nation.
With Obama's multiculturalist view at the heart of his foreign policy (why else would he push the top agenda for NASA to be outreach to the Muslim community to thank them for their contributions to science and math?), it becomes clear that his take on Iran, Egypt, and Libya is not silence. Rather, it is part of a larger belief system that Obama carries with him; that for him far supersedes the oath of office, and well outweighs the realities of the world in front of him.
Obama's world view is based on no one nation being better than any other. If this is the case, as his own words and actions (the historical perspective, as I call it) show, then how could the United States speak up for those in harm's way? How can the U.S. bring forth a coalition of free and thinking nations to help those in Libya? To "fundamentally transform" the nation is not just how it works on the inside, but how it presents itself to the outside. The fundamental transformation is the abdicating of America as the moral center of the world. Obama, also being a statist, believes in big government. How can America, just one of close to two hundred nations, bring about war on another nation, or, more to the point, what justification could America have for imposing its world view on another nation?
Obama wasn't being silent, he was the starting pistol in the race for one-world governance. The broad strokes of "Gaddafi must go!" were not empty words. Obama does not believe in individual action after oratory. He is not a capitalist in any sense of the word. He does not believe in the individual, or in the individual's labor producing an individual's reward that he or she does with as they wish. He does not believe that America's job is to lead, or that the presidency is there to advocate for the best possible position for the United States, which inevitably brings about the best possible position for the free and thinking world.
Only a one-world government can make a decision to make a military move. Only a one-world government can have the communal foresight to advocate for what is best, and who it is best for. An air strike on Libya may not be best for the people of Libya, but the world has spoken, and who can deny that? The UN has proven itself time and again as corrupt and unwarranted in today's society. Its values lean towards despots and dictators and thugs, not those who believe in freedom and liberty. How else can it explain Libya being on the UN Human Rights Council (from which it was recently dismissed as if the latest killings by Gaddafi were the final straw, not Pan Am Flight 103 or the general condition of the Libyan people over the past 40 years)? How else can it explain the constant and continual UN assault on Israel, though its citizens are murdered in their sleep by Palestinian terrorists? How else can it explain the rampant corruption in the Oil for Food scandal in Iraq? How else can it explain President Obama providing the UN a report on the human rights abuses in the U.S.?
That report was the “tell.” Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. America is no better, and no worse, than any other nation. So, in his estimation, why shouldn't America be subject to the same "ruler on the knuckles" punishment as every other nation that abuses its people ... like Libya?
These are the values that Obama holds dear, and they guide his decisions on every front. While pundits and politicos were cackling about his trip to Brazil and South America, Obama kept along with seeing the sights, dancing in Rio, and staying away from press conferences.
For what reason would the president not go on his scheduled
vacation trip? The job of the president of the United States, as he sees it, is to be a willing, bowing cog in the world machine. To be morally unambiguous would be a slight to the ruling world order, the one that only multiculturalism brings.
Obama does not see the presidency, and himself in it, as the leader of the free world. Based upon the historical perspective, it is an impediment to a better world where all are equal. The president believes that America is the impediment to a safer, better world, just as he believes that "settlements" are the impediment to a safer, better Israel.
Everything the president says and does supports the vision. In his recent jaunt to Brazil, he entered into deals that will permit Brazilian drilling in deep sea waters off the coast of the United States. Brazil can drill off our coasts, but the United States can't drill off its own coasts. It well fits into Obama's view of the one-world government. Nothing is ours. Everything belongs to "we," and who are we not to share what is not even ours?
Many have made mention of the two quotes of March 19. The first, made by the President George Bush about the Iraq war in 2003. The second, made by Obama at the start of operations against Libya. Many state that these quotes are near identical; that both quotes show us working with others for freedom and liberty. This is not accurate. These two quotes are miles apart in meaning, and intent.
Bush's quote starts, "American and coalition forces." Obama's quote starts, "Today we are part of a broad coalition." There is a vast valley between these two statements. In Bush, we have the admission of American forces, American might, American strength, American know-how, and American exceptionalism. In Obama, we have the omission of American forces, might, strength, know-how and exceptionalism. In Bush, we have clarity that this mission (in Iraq) is to "free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." In Obama, we have ambiguity -- that "we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world."
Who are the "we," and what are the "interests"? Like "hope," "change," and "fundamentally transforming," the president once again is engaging in wordplay. If you define "we" and define "interests," based on the historical perspective, you will understand Obama.