Self-Determination, Obama Style

Barack Obama says that it’s up to the Egyptian people to decide what form of government they want.

But what if the Egyptian people wanted a Hitler? Or apartheid, the racist government that once controlled South Africa? Is something right and moral just because a majority want it? This is what Obama implies.

But Obama clearly doesn’t mean it himself. While speaking out of one side of his mouth, and saying it’s up to the Egyptian people, he has been openly friendly to the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt. Egypt is one of America’s few allies in the oil-rich part of the world upon which Western civilization as we know it depends. It’s fine to get rid of Mubarak in favor of an advocate of individual rights, but that assumes the people in Egypt want or even know what individual rights are. I see no evidence, from what I’ve been reading, that this is the case. For radical, violent Islamic fanatics seeking another country to take over, Egypt is ripe for the picking — and America’s current President apparently has no problem with this fact.

Columnist and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris writes, “The Muslim Brotherhood is allied closely with [the terrorist group] Hamas. To the extent that it masquerades as a peaceful body, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any coalition with the Brotherhood is as likely to remain secular as Hitler’s early coalition with von Hindenberg in Germany was likely to stay non-Nazi.”

It’s amazing how under a liberal U.S. administration national self-determination is the ‘right’ principle, especially when that national self-determination leads to an anti-American, anti-Western, completely anti-freedom form of government. No, Mubarak’s authoritarian government was not an example of freedom. But how does this justify going from bad to worse — going from an authoritarian regime that harms its people to a totalitarian, religiously fanatical dictatorship that will ally itself with Iran, brutally terrorize its own citizens, and quite likely destroy life as we know it?

Oil and fuel matter; oil and fuel come primarily from the part of the world where Iran and now possibly Egypt seek to literally return mankind to the Dark Ages. If you don’t want your Internet to function, your cell phones to work, to have heat or air conditioning to guard against the elements, to have easy access to groceries and clean water, or to enjoy all of the comforts of life as you know it — then fine, be indifferent to what happens in the Middle East. But actions have consequences. Obama’s incompetence regarding Egypt, just as Jimmy Carter’s incompetence a generation earlier regarding Iran, will lead to problems that haunt us for decades to come.

Where are America’s liberals? They claim to hate religious fundamentalism. The Muslim Brotherhood, whom Obama reportedly supports, is way, way more religiously fundamentalist than any member of the Christian right in the United States. Why is it intolerable for American Christians to oppose gay marriage, while it’s tolerable for Muslims in the Middle East to force women to live as second-class citizens, to stone people to death for homosexuality or any sex outside of marriage, and obliterate any remote distinction between church and state? There can only be one of two answers. Either America’s liberals — Obama’s core constituency — don’t care; or they actually support religious fundamentalists so long as they’re opposed to America.

Self-hatred of this magnitude, of liberals toward their own country and way of life, is too hideous to contemplate.

Conspiracy theorists claim that Obama is a secret destroyer who was ‘put’ into office to end America’s freedom and way of life. Such theories are nonsense. The truth is much worse than that. Obama’s policies, now coming to further fruition in the Egyptian crisis, are the result of what Americans knowingly and willingly voted into office, and very well may vote into office a second time next year. Obama is not our destroyer. Americans — the majority of them, at least — are their own destroyer. Obama’s foreign policy consists of national suicide, not homicide.