Pages: 1 2 3

Barack Obama is often compared to Jimmy Carter in regards to weakness on the world’s stage (Carter’s signature event of course being the Iran Hostage Crisis.) Obama has literally bowed to Arab leaders and abjectly went around the world apologizing for America, with his apology to Hamid Karzai for the accidental Koran burnings being the height of groveling. Not only was it unseemly in the light of U.S. troops being murdered by Afghan rioters, but it has led to the United States being perceived as weak as well as stoking Arab hatred.

In some ways, we are thankful for Obama’s weakness. In most cases, it has wreaked havoc. When Obama unilaterally demanded Israel return to its 1967 borders, creating an indefensible position, Netanyahu lectured Obama in front of the world. Obama looked on sheepishly as Netanyahu detailed why a return to the 1967 borders would be suicide for Israel. Days before, Obama had vaunted himself before Congress, shocking the world at his demands of the 1967 borders while Netanyahu was en route to the United States. Netanyahu’s scolding exemplified Obama’s weakness, but in this case conservatives cheered as it would have been like signing a death warrant for Israel.

Advertisement-content continues below

When civil war erupted in Libya and Obama called for Gaddafi’s removal, instead of showing himself to be a strong leader and requesting of Congress approval to engage in a bombing campaign, he sought approval from the UN and even put U.S. forces under NATO rule, implying that the United States was subservient to world bodies.

When huge crowds in Egypt called for Mubarak’s head, Obama was the first to jump on the bandwagon for his removal, even though what it amounted to was mob rule. As many pointed out at the time when Obama stated that “the people have spoken” in regards to the huge crowds in Tahir Square, although the crowd may have been as high one million people, this consisted of 1% of the population. Therefore, it was ludicrous to consider this a public mandate.

Obama’s weakness in regard to throwing Mubarak under the bus, with Mubarak having been a friend to Israel and the United States for decades, has resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood winning the presidential election. The Muslim Brotherhood makes no secret of their desire to annihilate Israel, and Obama, along with the rest of the media, were tone deaf to conservatives’ siren song that Mubarak’s departure could precipitate a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Muhammed Musri hasn’t even been sworn in, and the Muslim Brotherhood has already attacked Israel. What will happen once they take power?

But we find ourselves in an odd situation, in which the Egyptian military has dissolved parliament- in which the Muslim Brotherhood had won majorities-and are postponing naming Musri the winner of the presidential election. Let’s set aside the fact that the grassroots Arab Spring “revolution” was, like our Occupy movement, orchestrated by radicals. Putting aside the fact that we will probably find massive voter fraud, we have to ask ourselves an important question. Is a democratically elected body that literally wants to annihilate Israel and all those who support her preferable to what we had before (a dictatorship that is friendly to both the United States and Israel)? For all of those who are not part of the radical Left-who put ideology above everything else, including possible annihilation-a dictatorship is preferable, which is probably why Obama has kept his mouth shut after the Egyptian military has taken a high hand with the Muslim Brotherhood. If we could have seen what Hitler had planned, even as he was elected democratically, would we have preferred a dictatorship that didn’t want to annihilate every Jewish man, woman, and child on Earth? All but the insane and the radical Left would answer in the affirmative.

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook