Gene Schwimmer, in a blog post about Obama’s latest move of appeasement, this time of Syria, reminds us:
In 2002, George W. Bush went to New Jersey, stood before an audience of his fellow Americans and declared that “we will not allow the world’s worst leaders to threaten us with the world’s worst weapons.
In 2009, Obama went to Cairo, stood before an audience of foreigners and assured those very same leaders that “[n]o single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”
The Obama Doctrine, if you want to call it that, is more revolutionary than most people think. Up until Obama, it had been US policy that we have a right to stop our enemies from getting nuclear weapons. Most people would not consider this policy at all controversial.
Not Obama. Although he does not specify the US, “no single nation” would apply to all nations, America included. For America to tell its enemies not to hold nuclear weapons is too much national self-assertion for Obama. In the name of altruism, America must sacrifice even its national security to the rest of the world.
Many commentators call Obama naive. He’s not naive, he’s an ideological leftist. Everything Obama does is an expression of leftist ideas. Even his first reaction to the Gates incident was to blame the police. The guy is a walking, talking personification of every left-wing cliche you’ve heard over the last 40 years. Obama’s anti-Americanism does not come from naivete, but from the ideas he has believed and never questioned since his youth. It takes a better mind than Obama’s to question the dominant bromides of the culture.
The long term dangers of Obama’s anti-Americanism are great. 10 or 15 years from now nuclear arms will have proliferated to a lot of dictatorships around the world. Nothing good can come from this.
In a world of collapsing freedom, economic instability and war, a nuclear explosion in a free country — say a blast on Wall Street or Paris or London — would be catastrophic. In addition to the economic damage and the subsequent loss of freedom, the psychological and moral effects would be profound. It could be an event on a world historical level, like the Black Death of the 14th century or the sacking of Rome in 410 a.d. Such an event would accelerate our descent into dictatorship driven by nihilist modern philosophy.
In sacrificing America’s interests to the rest of the world, Obama might be sacrificing the future of the west and of the world. And he knows what he is doing. To Obama, with his radical Alinskyist ideas, a world wide crisis would be a superb opportunity to expand state power and destroy capitalism. Why would he not want that?