Alexander's Column

Patriots v. Appeasers

The High Price of "Hope and Change"

Unfortunately, the American people have been duped into electing a president who clearly is not Patriot grade.

Mark Alexander · Feb. 25, 2015

“[Warn] against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” –George Washington (1796)

When I contemplate the American presidents who have earned the status and rank of “American Patriot,” there are some who stand out. George Washington and, more recently, Ronald Reagan come to mind.

They are among a distinguished group of presidents who fully demonstrated their selfless and sacrificial love of our country, and their undying devotion to Liberty and the Rights of all Mankind.

Unfortunately, from time to time, the American people have been duped into electing presidents who were clearly not Patriot grade.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned that we should guard against “the impostures of pretended patriotism,” in order to “prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.”

And Patrick Henry, in his “Liberty or Death” speech, said, “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.”

The words of Washington and Henry bear enduring truths.

Indeed, when we are lured by the promise of “hope,” whether by a candidate who claims to have been born in Hope, Arkansas, or by one whose mantra is “hope and change,” failing to distinguish between Patriots and pretenders is perilous.

And given the Leftmedia’s sycophantic admiration of such charlatans, even raising the issue of pretended patriotism can be perilous.

When former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was asked recently if he thought Barack Obama loves America, his answer ignited fits of apoplectic shock among Obama’s Leftmedia lemmings and his Leftist base, who couldn’t fathom that anyone would dare question the patriotism of their dear leader.

Giuliani simply said what every American with any sense of genuine Patriotism already knew: “I do not believe that the president loves America.” He added, “You can be a patriotic American and be a critic,” but added the understated conclusion, “he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter.”

While the Leftmedia trumpeted displeasure with Giuliani’s comment, I think America’s Mayor was much too kind.

Not only is Obama not a Patriot, he is a pathological narcissist, which is to say his devotion does not extend to anybody or anything beyond himself and his compressed and distorted perception of reality. And that reality has been shaped, first and foremost, by a long list of Marxist mentors and self-anointed prophets of hate.

Obama is, in fact, the antithesis of a Patriot.

He is a master of deception and an accomplished impostor of “pretended patriotism” whose domestic policies have failed, while on the foreign front he’s setting a post-Cold War stage for a global conflict characterized by both symmetric and asymmetric threats to Liberty. Of course, the global beacon of Liberty, the USA, is the primary target of these threats.

I would argue that Obama’s greatest offense against Liberty and Rule of Law is his appeasement of our most threatening adversaries, both historic – standing by for a resurgence of Russian tyranny – and contemporary – turning a blind eye to the metastasizing orthodoxy of Islamic extremism that seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate while exterminating all those who refuse to embrace Islam.

However strident this assessment might seem, I would also argue that such willful appeasement approaches the test of treason.

Yes, I know such words are deeply offensive to all those Beltway politicos and pontificators who are bound by “gentleman’s rules,” but, out here among grassroots defenders of Liberty, we call it what it is. No one should feign shock at such words, given that Obama’s ticket to national office was punched by former Senator (and now Secretary of State) John Kerry, who should himself be indicted for treason under Article III, Section 3, for providing “aid and comfort” to the North Vietnamese in time of war.

In the same week that 21 “Egyptian citizens” were beheaded by Islamists while Obama golfed, his appeasement was on full display at a faux Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.

Obama set the tone for the affair with his tired and tedious proclamation, “We are not at war with Islam.”

“Around the world, and here in the United States,” he said, “inexcusable acts of violence have been committed against people of different faiths by people of different faiths – which is, of course, a betrayal of all our faiths. It’s not unique to one group, or to one geography, or one period of time. … The terrorists … no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism.”

Political commentator Dennis Prager responded to that appalling whitewash by asking, “What is he talking about? In America are Christians killing Jews? Jews killing Muslims? Buddhists killing Mormons? Mormons killing Hindus? ‘Not unique to one group?’ Other than Muslims murdering Christians, Jews, Yazidis and other Muslims, who in the world today is murdering in the name of their religion?”

Obama also trotted out this canard once again: “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Today, about one half of one percent of Americans identify as Muslim, and the vast majority of them are peaceful neighbors. However, not one of them has Islamic heritage “woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Sounding like a “community organizer,” Obama claimed, “If we’re going to prevent people from being susceptible to the false promises of extremism … countries have to truly invest in the education and skills and job training that our extraordinary young people need. … We need to build and bolster bridges of communication and trust. … [L]et’s share the truth of our faiths with each other.”

It is apparent to all observers but Obama that Islamist extremists have been sharing “the truth of their faith” for many generations.

Indeed, this month The Atlantic magazine featured a comprehensive exposition on the absurdity of claiming that Islamic terrorism is not Islamic.

Researcher Graeme Wood notes, “Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, ‘embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion’ that neglects ‘what their religion has historically and legally required.’ Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an ‘interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.’”

Share

Wood continues, “[Obama’s misstatements about ISIL] reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors,” and “pretending it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combated, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.”

He makes clear, “We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change … that it considers itself a harbinger of – and headline player in – the imminent end of the world. … The Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. … The religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. [It is] a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bring about the apocalypse.”

Wood concludes that those who are advocating a recommitment of tens of thousand of U.S. troops “should not be dismissed too quickly.”

Of course, a re-commitment of troops to stop this menace would fully expose Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign charade, when, amid the cascading failure of his domestic economic and social policies, he pivoted to his “foreign policy successes” crafted around the mantras, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. I did,” and, “al-Qa'ida is on the run.”

That “success” left a vacuum for ISIL to fill, and Obama’s objective now is to leave the cleanup of this hazardous waste to his successor.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson compares Obama’s appeasement of Islam with the “isolationism of the 1930s, which gave rise to Hitler and the most destructive war in history.”

To that end, while we are assured by Obama that fewer than 10 percent of Muslims subscribe to the doctrines of hatred prescribed in the Q'uran, I remind you that, in 1940, fewer than 10 percent of Germans were members of the NAZIs (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) – how did that turn out?

Add a few crude portable nuclear weapons into ISIL’s arsenal and you begin to really get the picture.

Fortunately, there are a substantial number of Republicans who now hold majority authority and are calling Islamic terrorists what they are. My friend Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said plainly this week: “They are Islamic; there’s no question.”

And we look forward to hearing from a genuine Middle Eastern ally and leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, next week. However, we note that, according to former administration Senior Advisor David Axelrod, Obama is now “very much unrestrained” in his contempt for Jews, and is doing what he can to undermine Netanyahu’s influence.

Despite our pretend patriot president’s suggestion that jobs and schools will stop the Islamic threat, in reality, the only way to contain this metastasizing menace is the prejudicial termination of its adherents everywhere they pop up. The Long War strategy had been correct from the onset of hostilities, until Obama suspended it. John McCain was correct in 2008 when, in answer to a question about how long we should stay in Iraq, he said, “One hundred years.”

And, regarding Obama’s attempt last week to pivot from the threat of a global Jihad caliphate to “climate change,” I assure you that the real “global warming” threat we face today is an apocalyptic trigger on an evermore accessible fission weapon that can be detonated in an American urban center.

But never fear: On the heels of the Obama’s terrorism summit, DHS issued a report noting that the most pressing domestic terrorist threat is “right-wing extremist groups”!

That was news to FBI Director James Comey. After the arrest of three ISIL sympathizers in New York this week, Comey announced, “We have investigations of people in various stages of radicalization, in all 50 states. … This isn’t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon, this is all 50 states… [Radicalization prospects] exist in every state. I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state.” Meanwhile, John Kerry assured Congress, “There is actually less threat and less probability of people dying in some sort of violent conflict today than at any time in human history.”

Our nation has already paid a heavy price for electing and re-electing a national security neophyte with a “hope and change” bumper sticker. That cost is going to rise much higher.

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Click here to show comments

Subscribe! It's Right. It's Free.