Obama's Fateful Decision
Reader comment on: Obama Attempts To Delay Iranian Sanctions Bill
Submitted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg (Israel), Oct 13, 2009 10:46
President Barack Obama's seeming unwillingness to pull the trigger on an Iran sanctions package that is already locked and loaded may be explained in terms of the following report which I delivered on
To clarify Obama's policy, I will cite a report published on October 9 by Hillsdale College Professor Paul Rahe. Rahe extracts the key points of an extensive essay written by Charles Krauthammer in the Weekly Standard. So important is that essay that the editors made it available online before the journal was published. I'll merely inject some clarifying remarks.
onday, October 12 on Israel National Radio. Here is what I said in part::
The title of the essay is " Decline is a Choice: The New Liberalism and the End of American Ascendancy."
Krauthammer's point is simple and unassailable. There is, he argues, an intimate connection between the foreign policy of the Obama administration and his domestic policy. The work undertaken in the domestic sphere will put a stop to the pattern of dynamic economic growth that made it possible for the United States to defeat Japan, contribute decisively to the defeat of Nazi Germany, contain communism, and ultimately defeat and prepare the way for the dismemberment of the Soviet Union.
Obama's policy will produce economic stagnation of the sort that the Europeans have suffered from for decades, and it will eventuate in a collapse of the American dollar. Obama and his minions understand this, and this is what they want: the elimination of the foundations for American hegemony and the crippling of this country. [In other words, Obama and his minions are pursuing intertwined domestic and foreign policies whose goal is to terminate America's dominance in international affairs.]
They regard the role America has thus far played in the world as shameful; they are intent on dismembering the alliances that gave America its heft in the world; and they are not only appeasing America's sworn enemies but openly, publicly embracing them and their agenda.
Obama's decision to effectuate America's decline explains the praise showered on him by Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. This is the meaning of Obama's recent betrayal of Polandâ€”on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of that countryâ€”when he cancelled the project of providing Poland with a defensive nuclear shield.
It explains why Obama initially responded to the open theft of an election in Iran by professing his confidence in the Iranian government, It is why the State Department recently cut off funds for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centerâ€¦which was collecting information on the imprisonment, torture, and murder of those in Iran who protested against the theft of that election.
It explains the deliberate insults [Obama] cast at Gordon Brown of Great Britain and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. And, of course, this explains the speeches given abroad again and again by President Obama, apologizing for American behavior in the past and signaling a radical shift in American policy. It is for this change of posture that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now let us go back in time to the very outset of the 2008 presidential election campaign and Obama's mantra of CHANGE. To those aware of his scornful references to the American Declaration of Independence, it was obvious that by "change" Obama meant regime change. In other words, Obama rejected America's founding principles.
Obama is a product of the New Left that gained prominence in academia during the 1960s. As I pointed out during presidential primaries, the philosopher of the New Left was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse propagated an amalgam of ideas drawn from Marx, Sartre, and Freudâ€”who denied timeless and universal moral ideas and saw them as relative to diverse historical epochs, diverse cultures, or diverse individual preferences. To those of us who saw the influence of Marcuse on college students, it was obvious Obama was a relativistâ€”but no one exposed him as such during the presidential campaign.
To those of us who had studied America's Founding Fathers, it was obvious that Obama rejected the immutable and universal truths or "natural rights" doctrine of the American Declaration of Independenceâ€”a document that stands for individual liberty and limited governmentâ€”but no exposed him or put him to the test of his loyalty to America.
John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, described Obama as our first post-American president. I would put it more strongly: Obama our first anti-American president! This conforms to the teachings of his guru, the Rev. Jeremiah, Wright, who for many years has been preaching, "Don't say God bless America; say God damn America."
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. This site reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item