Calling it Treason
We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in, except that we have a president who purposefully keeps us there by suppressing our own development of energy resources and embroiling us in their internecine warfare. We could have walked away from the Middle East already and left them to their own savagery, but the president insists that we remain inextricably tied to their historical need to kill each other so that we can overpay for oil, both monetarily and with American lives. Thus, as technology enables us to break free of dependence upon Middle East oil, our president bends over backwards to ensure that never happens. What sort of leader purposefully compels his country and its people to participate in practices and policies that are detrimental to their safety and survival?
Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration's shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such "tolerance" is a top-down phenomenon.
Who doubts that what Hasan did was terrorism? Of course, for the terrorist, what he does is soldiering for his cause. It is eternal war for the supremacy of Islam, not terrorism as such, and in the eyes of the jihadist, the enemy always has it coming. To the jihadist, it is no more terrorism than if a U.S. Marine fires on the enemy in battle. But why does the administration not see what Hasan did as terrorism? They had to call it something for public consumption, and since the president does not see a premeditated attack on his own unarmed service men and women in the global advancement of Islam as terrorism, it defaulted to "workplace violence". Apparently terrorism is defined not by ideology or method, but by location. Still, to so blatantly lie about something so obvious, without the slightest concern over pushback by those who see the lie for what it is, or who suffer its ill effects, is passive aggression on steroids against America.
When the president picks who he will support and who he will condemn on the international stage, he consistently sides with those who hate the United States and the Judeo-Christian principles upon which it was founded. President Obama has willfully enabled Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program entirely without resistance, other than UN sanctions, which have failed. In Egypt, Mubarak's faults were well documented, but so too were his assets in terms of peace and stability in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the president purposefully aided his overthrow in order to replace him with members of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with the Nazis and which has, at its core, goals and objectives that are antithetical to the security and safety of the United States.
Similarly, Libya had taken no overt aggressive action against the United States, but a band of Islamic terrorists expressed their desire to obtain control over another territory in North Africa, so the president did what he could to help. Had they been Americans in need, he would have given them the comfort of a stirring, rehashed speech, but when a decisive commitment is needed by a gang of armed jihadis that would as soon kill Americans as look at them, he's Johnny-On-The-Spot.
And now there is Syria. Any objective actor, seeing the ratio of success-to-failure of his past decisions, might step back and engage in a bit of introspection. No one person has done more to destabilize the Middle East than "Peace Prize Obama". The death and repression in foreign lands attributable to the decisions of this one man is shocking. Societies are literally transformed for the worse by what he says and does, both at home and abroad. But President Obama either doesn't do introspection, or has no need for it because he is doing exactly what he has set out to do. He is not failing. He is succeeding. He is enabling those with whom he sympathizes, or with whom he shares a common enemy, to achieve spectacular success.
We have no place whatsoever in the Syrian civil war. It is not for the United States to put its military weight behind which gang of Muslim murderers wins control. But there was no role we needed to play in Egypt, either, on the same reasoning. Likewise, we had no reason to go in and destabilize Libya. But faced with the choice of stability and predictability versus creating a vacuum into which our enemies would step to seize yet more power, the president purposefully chose to assist our enemies. It's what he does.
Having abetted Iran, and having successfully ruined Egypt and Libya in aid of our enemies, President Obama is now willing to "go it alone" to achieve.... another power grab by those who would happily kill us once we have enabled them to seize control of another government, its military, and its stockpiles of weapons, both conventional and otherwise. Of course, he has no legal authority to go it alone, but publicly states his willingness to take an action that would be in direct violation of the Constitution and the limits on his powers. What could possibly be so important to this president that he would create for himself grounds for impeachment by misusing our military to support yet another band of Muslim fanatics?
There have been reports that the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 were a direct consequence of an illegal weapons smuggling operation to aid the Syrian rebels. Since the administration is engaged in wholesale coverup to prevent the truth from ever emerging, and no other plausible explanation has been offered, there are reasons to believe that theory may be true, and that the details of this president's support for our enemies would be catastrophic if revealed. Even without the facts, we can see for ourselves that for the first time in our history, we have a president who is actively, purposefully aiding and arming enemies whose ideology, goals and success directly threaten our safety.
Oddly, our president's only successes have come on behalf of our enemies. In every respect, the United States is in decline domestically, internationally, culturally, and economically, as a direct result of this president's policies and actions. It is not that there are no other solutions, but that he refuses to implement those that would arrest the descent and reverse course. As President Obama succeeds in advancing our enemies and destroying us, we cannot help but notice that this has been happening for 5 years and shows no sign of slowing. Nothing so prolonged, requiring so many purposeful choices, is an accident. For President Obama, success has meant making our enemies stronger and better equipped to challenge us, with our ultimate submission as their stated objective. With each of Obama's successes, they obtain control of increasing levels of weaponry they can use to advance militant, radical Islam throughout the world. They make no secret of their plans for non-Muslims. Just ask the Copts and other Christians in Muslim-controlled countries everywhere. In case the churches have been destroyed, you can find them in the jails.
Regardless of party affiliation, what do we call that brand of overt, shameless betrayal of an entire nation, or the complicity of those citizens who vote for it or remain silent in the face of it?