Yeah.....right. They look like "civilians" to me.
Posted on 03/27/2011 6:48:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
“…Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya, in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians…”
Thus began a press conference with President Barack Obama. It was Saturday March 19th. While traveling in Brazil, he took a few minutes to announce that a military response to the Gaddafi crisis was underway.
Calling the matter “a limited military action in Libya” that would “protect Libyan civilians” was an earnest attempt at a positive spin. But this fact remains: after spending the first two years of his presidency insisting that the values of America and the Muslim world are consistent with one-another, now President Barack Obama was ordering bombs to be dropped on a predominantly Muslim country.
Might this fact suggest that some of President Obama’s philosophical assumptions about the world have been, perhaps, a bit inaccurate?
Over the years, our current President has demonstrated an adherence to three important philosophical schools of thought. For one, he would clearly appear to be a proponent of economic collectivism, the assumption that the overall economic wellbeing of everybody - “the group,” if you will - is more important than the economic rights and liberties of the individual. His push to make healthcare a “basic human right,” his attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy so as to better fund “middle class” programs, and his stated desire to “spread the wealth around” (the goal he famously uttered to the “Joe The Plumber” character in 2008) are all consistent with this philosophy.
President Obama also seems to adhere to “moral relativism.” In general terms, this is the assumption that ideas, values, and cultures are not objectively good or bad in and of themselves, but instead are all very subjective, and relative to one-another. Evidence of the President’s moral relativism is especially apparent in the ways in which he seems to view the tensions that exist between the Muslim world and those of us in the West.
From the earliest days of his presidential campaign in 2007, Barack Obama made it clear that there was nothing objectively bad or wrong about the propensity towards terrorism of the Muslim nations, but rather, Muslim terrorism had to be understood in the context of American “hostility” and President Bush’s aggression. This relativistic view led to some amazing policy pronouncements, in particular, Obama’s declaration that as President he would plan a diplomatic meeting with the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Since the days of the Carter presidency, America has recognized Iran as a nation that sponsors “state terrorism,” and as such, the past five Presidents have refused to engage with Iran’s “leader.” But if there is nothing objectively good or bad about nations, then the U.S. has no reason to ostracize a nation that sponsors terrorism. Thus, candidate Obama proffered a plan for a new, “post-Bush” approach to Iran, and announced that he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
Along with his convictions about collectivism and relativism, President Obama also seems to adhere to “internationalism.” This is the assumption that global wellbeing is more important than the interests of any one, particular nation, and that global good is achieved only when individual nations operate in concert with one another. These three philosophical assumptions likely led to candidate Obama’s promise that the “first thing” he would do as President would be to end the “senseless war” in Iraq.
But running for the presidency is one thing, and actually being President is another. And while the three philosophical platforms of collectivism, relativism and internationalism made for some enticing campaign rhetoric, they have not made for a better world – not for America, and not for anyone else.
The President has found that the war in Iraq is pragmatically impossible to end right now. Iran has responded to our President’s friendliness with taunting, jeering, and insults. And despite the President’s sharp increase in U.S. foreign aid to Hamas and the Palestinians, the Muslim world is as dangerous, and as hostile to the West as it has ever been (an effigy of President Obama was stamped on and beaten in the streets of Tripoli last week).
This flawed worldview has been painfully apparent in the midst of several recent world events. When the Egyptian uprising began earlier this year, President Obama initially urged “calm” while Vice President Biden insisted that Hasni Mubarak was a “good guy.” Yet the people of Egypt, longing for freedom and to have a voice in how they are governed, thought differently from our President and Vice President, and continued to protest until Mubarak was gone.
And now the “broad coalition” of the United Nations has done what President Obama could not: they made the moral judgment that the murderous tyranny of a Muslim dictator named Muammar Gaddafi was objectively wrong, and needed to be stopped. The President’s commitment to internationalism necessitated a military decision that his own moral relativism would have never allowed. Indeed, the Obama worldview has collapsed. But what does this mean for American influence in the future?
Yeah.....right. They look like "civilians" to me.
Relativism works for people who are spineless. Clearly, this describes Obama. Sadly, it most likely describes America as a whole. A respect for objective reality, a respect for Absolutism, requires a spine of steel. We had that once. I think we lost it.
No. Rather, it suggests that Obama has been lying to us about his philosophical assumptions about the world.
Everything Obama does has the purpose of advancing radical Moslem domination of the world by first destroying America and then Western Civilization.
That's Obama's worldview; world Islam. His actions have been totally consistent on this. And it's easy to do. With the first two years of his power being supported by an enabling Congress and a fawning press Obama is well on his way to fulfilling his purpose and realizing his worldview.
Obama outreach to the muslim world has brought greatr fruit to thew world. Just as the nutjobs of the islamic revolution.
They know he is a loser and his spineless approach to controling these animals has achieved what he envisions.
A new Caliphate!
I only hope that this nation will survive until the O is voted OUT. And I only hope he will be voted out after only 1 term. He is like the visiting choir director who stepped up to lead the choir....but not only was he deaf, he couldn’t read music.
How many Libyans do we have to kill to protect the Libyan civilians?
There is a fourth “ism” that must be included here; it would round out the philosophical bent of Obama: “Wussism”. Obama believes that by approaching other world powers with his tail between his legs and his head (up his ass) bowed lower than other heads of states, that he will garner a kind of “sympathy/ forgiveness/ don’t blame me, I’m the first Black President, my people have suffered as much or more than yours under the, heretofore, all White presidents club/ ya, I’m an American President but I’m more like you than I am like them, therefore, don’t blame me”, in the hope of turning back foreign aggression toward the US.
This new “ism” proffers that if we appear much, much weaker, they’ll leave us alone. The fallacy to this way of thinking is that when a tyrant or mob senses weakness, they see a chance to increase their holdings and havoc ensues. The middle east is reaping a weak view of America... thanks to the Commander in Wuss.
link didn’t work this one did.
http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2011/03/austin-hill-collapse-of-obama-worldview.html
I hate when this happens. It is the correct link though. The fault lies with Townhall.com
I just watched “The Book of Eli” last night, and this photo really caught my attention. It looks like a scene right out of that “post-apocalyptic” movie.
(The movie was OK, but just barely. Hollywood trying to incorporate anything about God into a movie is usually pretty conflicted, and this one was.)
Unless I missed one, that was Sri Lanka:
Sometimes you have to destroy a country in order to save it. Inside every Libyan is an American dying to get out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.