Obama Plays The Chicken To King Abdullah's Lion

John Nantz
|
Posted: Feb 08, 2015 12:01 AM
Obama Plays The Chicken To King Abdullah's Lion

Mortifying. The only word that can be conjured to describe President Obama’s mechanistic, inhuman response on Tuesday to Lieutenant Moaz al-Kasabeh’s murder by immolation. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists set Lt. Kasabeh, a U.S. allied pilot, afire inside a steel cage and watched him roast. Apparently, murdering people by sawing through their necks has become mundane. Judging by Obama’s response to date, ISIS may be right.

Obama’s latest quip in response to ISIS's act of Satanic barbarity was characteristically academic: “…its just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And it I think will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, its bankrupt. Were here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction.

From this lackluster recitation, one would imagine that Obama was chiding a Fortune 500 company for forecasting a reduction in dividends instead of responding to an act of prehistoric, bestial barbarity—a direct, immanent, and existential threat to our national security from Islamist terrorism.

Obama struggles to ascribe to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria a mystery philosophy, only meekly hinting at “whatever ideology they are operating off of…”At the risk of seeming obvious, one might proffer that it’s Islam since Islam forms the first “I”in “ISIS.”The Obama administration twists itself into pretzels to avoid implicating Islam until an Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorist is captured then they are afforded every necessity and convenience required by a practicing Muslim to include copies of the Quran and halal meals. But, Obama will only carefully suggest that ISIS is an “organization”like IBM, the Moose Lodge, or a junior varsity team. He routinely displays a disconnection that belies a meanness of spirit where passion is reserved only for concerns that fall within the minuscule realm of personal interest.

During Obama’s last State of the Union Address, he displayed a rare moment of passion triggered by what he perceived to be an affront to his prestige. When the Republican’s taunted Obama by clapping at his statement, “I’ve run my last campaign,”Obama responded reflexively and impertinently, with a degree of passion remarkable for him: “I know because I won both of them.”In his speech, Obama bloviated about bigger nations not pushing around smaller nations and dealing with the issues in the Middle East by building coalitions and not being dragged into another ground war. All of which reveals Obama’s underlying assumptions about America. Specifically, that our influence internationally is a net negative. That America is and continues to be an imperial influence globally.

Obama doesn’t believe in America, therefore, he feels no outrage when America is challenged by her enemies. For him, foreign policy is merely a matter of a sterile political calculus that is only satisfied when America and its influence are diminished. His passion is the undoing of our Republic and the humiliation of Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy. Obama uses terms like “degrade”because any substantive American presence in the Middle East is presumptively imperial and immoral. America has no right to wage war since, being the biggest kid on the block, we’ve been bullying the little guys in the region for long enough. This sounds like an oversimplification, but Obama really isn’t very complex. He’s a radical left-wing dogmatist and responds accordingly. Last August, Obama’s aloofness and moral ambivalence were demonstrated in a profound and obvious way when he scampered off to the golf course only minutes after making a bland statement regarding the beheading of American journalist James Foley by ISIS barbarians.

Obama’s manic adherence to referring to The Islamic State (IS, or ISIS) as The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is incredibly disturbing. It is commonly understood that the Levant describes a somewhat amorphous region that definitively includes the state of Israel. Regardless of mutterings to the contrary by State Department hack Jen Psaki, the Obama administration lends credence to the legitimacy of Islamo-nazi claims to Israel by perpetuating the use of the acronym ISIL. If the Obama administration were truly serious about “degrading”ISIS then the administration would seek to reduce the effectiveness of ISIS propaganda efforts and would define the Islamo-terrorists without reference to its’antisemitic and wildly expansionist moniker.

And, to add insult to injury, Obama boldly and recklessly smeared all of Christendom at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast. He reverently accommodates any sensitivity of Islam but cudgel’s Christians with reckless abandon. In Obama’s fanciful world, the Crusades were just another white, european campaign of imperialist aggression. Apparently, some things never change. The facts of history are that the Crusades were in response to Islam’s ageless modus operandi—conquest, pillage, and evangelism by force of arms. Collectivists like Obama always have trouble with history since facts so often conflict with political narrative. Thinking, serious people can only stand agog at Obama’s colossus of unabashed ignorance and strange sympathies for a tribe of murderous barbarians. It’s almost enough to make one wonder, whose side is this guy really on?

In stark contrast to Obama’s simpering response to Lt. Kasabeh’s murder, King Abdullah II of Jordan responded with the passion indicative of one who feels the conviction of a just cause. While Obama opines about “degrading”an “organization,”King Abdullah rolls heads in the street. So far, two ISIS operatives have been hung by the neck until dead, with more sure to come. Abdullah’s passion is derived from conviction which is naturally expressed by direct and unequivocal action. Abdullah identifies with Clint Eastwood’s film Unforgiven and resembles the character William Munny who is described in the film as “cold as the snow”and having “no weak nerve nor fear.”Because Abdullah is patriotic he responds logically but with real emotion, promising “retribution like ISIS hasn’t seen.”Even a Jordanian monarch has better sense than to refer to ISIS as ISIL. Abdullah’s justice has been swift and will continue to be direct. Reportedly, Abdullah referenced Eastwood’s William Munny directly who responded to the murder of his friend with: “Any man I see out there, I'm gonna kill him. Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only going to kill him, I'm going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down.”Well, that just speaks for itself.

King Abdullah reminds us that at the root of heroic action is a love of something outside ourselves. Love of country and comrade impel men and nations to extraordinary action. Obama is only capable of producing awkward contrivances because he disdains the idea of exeptionalism and sees America as just one more nation among many. There is little of love in him. It’s easy to spot marriages of convenience where no abiding love exists. The Clinton’s are the archetypical examples of a marriage of convenience, extant only because of a sterile political expedience. Obama is in a similar relationship with the nation he purportedly leads. He painfully feigns patriotism in a half-hearted attempt to convince us that he’s truly wed to our national interests. If you’re paying even a little attention, his ambivalence speaks volumes and emboldens ISIS who recognize his complaisance as weakness and opportunity. Obama is only in love with himself and with a dusty, worn, and failed progressivism whose corpse is warmed and animated only by racism’s hate. How sad for us and for our children that there is more of an admirable manliness in a King than in the President of a free Republic.