The Girly Man and the Sheriff


The day that Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, Islamist revolutionary kidnappers released prisoners that they’d held for over 444 days in the US embassy in Iran. Although it has not yet been verified through documentation, in a private conversation with a Reagan speech writer I was told that Reagan warned the Ayatollah Khomeini that he would nuke Mecca if the captives were not released the day he took office.

Fast-forward to 2012, and America’s Girly Man President, as he demonstrates empathic understanding and dhimmitude toward Islamic revolutionaries, and our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff members die. In the week leading up to the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was reported that President Barack Obama was skipping out on intelligence briefings, and that there was no enhancement of security at US embassies. So, let us see if we have this likely chain of events down right: The intelligence community signals that they have information that a hit squad is being prepared to attack our ambassador in Libya and our embassy in Cairo, Egypt will fall under siege. Obama refuses to hear the information, although others in the White House are aware of its existence. With plausible deniability firmly established, the events are allowed to unfold.

---

With first news of the assault, the President laments what might have driven the Islamists to attack. Obama, his surrogates, and far left islamosympathetic talking heads in America all follow the same lead in their commentary and reportage on these acts of war:

• Refuse to condemn terrorism and acts of war on the part of said Islamist revolutionaries.
• Criticize and harass private citizens in the U.S. whose constitutionally-protected actions are being used as a pretext for the atrocities of said Islamist revolutionaries.
• Rationalize terrorism and acts of war on the part of said Islamist revolutionaries, and make specious comparisons to wholly irrelevant past and hypothetical events.
• Condemn opposition presidential candidate for definitively condemning terrorism and acts of war on the part of said Islamist revolutionaries

Thanks to the establishment pro-Obama liberal-socialist press, of course most Americans are not aware that there would have been no “Arab Spring” without Obama, who sent agitators to key Middle East countries in 2009, and politically supported anti-Mubarak and anti-Qaddafi revolutionaries. Then, Obama provided material aid to them in a more overt manner (lets all say cash, kiddies) after the governments in question had been toppled. Add to this Obama having made his anti-American sentiments known globally with his 2009-10 World Apology Tour, and you’re practically begging for attacks on your foreign service facilities and personnel. Now Obama wants to sound tough with his claim “Justice will be served.” Whose understanding of Justice does he intend to apply, and “justice” for what? Is revenge justice? Is retaliation justice? Is the appearance of action versus action justice? Is tough talk about justice, justice? When the President speaks of justice he has no understanding of the concept. America’s Founding Fathers understood it well, however. Their response would have been quick and final: Goodbye Mecca, goodbye Tripoli, goodbye Cairo – parking lots one and all… But this talk of justice and hastily-constructed parking facilities doesn’t address how Obama will tend to the practical problem of his image (all of this making him look terribly weak) and Americans who are enraged that our embassies are being attacked and foreign service personnel murdered. As you might imagine, we have a potential scenario to offer… As he has done so many times in the past, Obama will deflect the blame. While the American left at large believes that America itself is the root of all evil, Obama knows that this probably won’t play very well right now. It would also be self-defeating to blame those who are actually responsible – the Islamist revolutionaries – since he is aligned with them in a practical and ideological sense. Who might be a convenient party to throw under the bus in this instance? It would be helpful if it was someone in the region… Of course! Israel. Although the probability is high that Obama knew beforehand of these attacks, we know that Islamist aggression against the US is essentially by proxy, since their real hatred is reserved for Israel. Had we not shielded and aided Israel for decades, instead allowing its retrograde neighbors to destroy the fledgling nation when it was young and weak, why, they wouldn’t be angry at us at all! It’s Israel, with its recent threats to act against Iran in its pursuit of a “peaceful nuclear energy solution,” that has Muslims up-in-arms. The revolutionaries in Egypt and Libya simply lashed out against us because we are Israel’s ally, we were close by, and the signals have already been telegraphed: The sheriff has been gone for many a year, and the Muslim limp wrist in the White House is no one to be feared. Blame Israel, and Americans can redirect their anger against her; it might even serve to alienate some who currently support that nation! It may sound somewhat weak, and it is – but this situation is a no-winner for the President. He catalyzed it; now, he’s not in a position to control it, so there will be no eleventh-hour suave, ambassadorial remediation with Obama as the hero, emerging from this diplomatic septic tank smelling like a rose. Thus, the international community is getting a true picture of the weakness and indecision of the leader of the formerly Free World. Because of the lack of an appropriate verbal response that would clearly signal the strength and resolve regarding this Act of War against the USA, Obama has now set up a situation where folks who are not our friends will continue to push the envelope. Get ready for a fairly quick response from China, with either Taiwan, Africa or Tibet as the recipient of its muscle flexing. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in sharp contrast to Obama, had an appropriate and strongly-worded response to the events of the last two days. Romney’s statement is reminiscent of the strength and clarity of Ronald Reagan, who understood that mutually guaranteed destruction was one way to keep an enemy on its toes and off our backs; the message sent to the Ayatollah in 1980 got the expected results in a timely manner. Which brings us back to the events in Libya and Egypt. An act of war against the United States has resulted in the death of someone who in international convention is guaranteed safety and security as an almost sacred promise. In February 2012, when China wanted desperately to safeguard what it thought might be State secrets that had been delivered to the American Consulate in Chengdu by the conscience-driven former thug for Bo Xilai, they merely surrounded the Consulate, but did not breach that inviolate promise of international sanctuary. They knew that embassies and consulates are tantamount to the very land of a sovereign nation. They did not cross this symbolic US border because it is just not done. Civility and the rule of law demanded abeyance and even the Chinese adhere to this. Not so concerning Muslim primitives who turn into mindless troupes of baboons on psychoactive drugs whenever even a rumor suggests that a religious line has been crossed. What is needed here is the resolve of a Reagan, who was recognized as a man of his word. He suggested the ultimate and final insult to a group of thugs and guess who blinked. Not Reagan. Sadly, the Muslims of that day understood who they were dealing with as much as the Muslims of today understand who they are dealing with now. The leadership of yesterday would provide a great study for Obama, because he would understand why responses of yesteryear were effective – because they would be quick and final. The US draws the line in the sand; cross it and your nation becomes a parking lot. Nations can only be terrorized when they are willing to capitulate to terrorists, and in a complex world, some solutions truly are simple.