Calling it Treason

American Thinker

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 phenomena.

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?

Read more: Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

4 thoughts on “Calling it Treason

  1. Yet, he is still sitting there!

    • And Congress is still complicit.

      • They most certainly are!
        This was one of the newly elected blasting the old guys. Watch the faces of the “old ones” as this man stands up for all of us: This was at the time of voting on the NDAA.
        ​​Video: I​​llinois Rep Explodes..Cannot Give This Much Power to One Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s