Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is one of appeasement but it also reflects his social justice worldview – we only need to bring equal justice to eradicate evil.
Complicating matters is his indifferent attitude towards the pogrom against Christians. It’s the same attitude he displays towards Israel. He seems to believe that if Muslims had been treated fairly, their problems wouldn’t exist.
His handling of Nigeria and Boko Haram is representative of his foreign policy.
Politico took exception to former congressman Allan West’s recent blog post in which he wondered why Mr. Obama has suddenly shown an interest in Boko Haram. Lt. Col. West believes it’s a wag the dog moment and a chance to deflect from the Benghazi investigation. Politico, a mouthpiece for Barack Obama, called his suppositions conspiratorial. Others called him a tea party lunatic.
They must dislike Dan Greenfield’s views even more. Greenfield, writing for frontpage magazine, presents some strong evidence to support the premise that Mr. Obama wants to unseat the Christian President, Jonathan Goodluck, and install a more passive, appeasement-oriented leadership in Nigeria.
It’s a reasonable assumption because it is what Obama did in Egypt and is trying to do in Israel as Greenfield points out.
Greenfield believes that Obama sympathizes with the Muslims in Nigeria and believes thinks that the government has been unfair to them.
Greenfield points to this fact: “Across the bloody years of Boko Haram terror, the State Department matched empty condemnations of Boko Haram’s killing sprees with condemnations of the Nigerian authorities for violating Muslim rights.”
Greenfield wrote, “State Department officials responded to Boko Haram attacks over the years with the same litany of statistics about unemployment in the Muslim north and the 92 percent of children there who do not attend school. When Hillary Clinton was asked about the kidnappings by ABC News, she blamed Nigeria for not ‘ensuring that every child has the right and opportunity to go to school.’”
“Clinton acted as if she were unaware that Boko Haram opposes Muslim children going to school or that it would take the very same measures that her State Department has repeatedly opposed to make it possible for them to go to school. This is a familiar Catch 22 in which the authorities are blamed for not fixing the socioeconomic problems in terrorist regions that are impossible to fix without defeating the terrorists and blamed for violating the human rights of the terrorists when they try to defeat them,” Greenfield wrote.
“Last year, Secretary of State John Kerry , after a pro forma condemnation of Boko Haram terror, warned, ‘We are also deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism,’” Greenfield stated further.
Greenfield failed to mention Kerry’s more recent comment about Boko Haram: “I will tell you, my friends, I have seen this scourge of terror across the planet, and so have you,” he continued. “They don’t offer anything except violence. They don’t offer a health care plan, they don’t offer schools. They don’t tell you how to build a nation, they don’t talk about how they will provide jobs. They just tell people, ‘You have to behave the way we tell you to,’ and they will punish you if you don’t.'”
Kerry’s delusional view of the world is dangerous. It fails to understand evil for what it is. Kerry, Obama, Clinton are always looking for the causes and the excuses that justify the violence. If only they can intervene and solve the social injustices, none of this would happen.
Why can’t Boko Haram just offer healthcare?
Rush Limbaugh has similar views to Dan Greenfield’s and has mocked the ridiculous twitter-hastag war that has made Obama look “impotent and pathetic.”
Limbaugh said, “The hashtag politics isn’t aimed at the terrorists, it’s aimed at helping them. The regime, Hillary, Michelle Obama, sympathize with Boko Haram. They’re blaming the Nigerian, the Christian Nigerian government, for creating Boko Haram.”
Politico posed their view of a more benign motivation on the part of the administration. They believe that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, chose not to label Boko Haram a terrorist group for a few reasons: because there is no evidence of a connection to al-Qaida; Obama wanted to get off the “perpetual wartime footing’; and ” we must define the nature and scope of this struggle or else it will define us…Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.”
Politico’s nonsense about Boko Haram not being connected to al-Qaida is irrelevant. Not labeling them a terrorist group when they are murdering thousands of people, mostly Christians – and some Muslims who get in the way – should be done separate and apart from their affiliations.
All of these radical Islamic terrorists are the same people. They are united in one common cause – Sharia and the distorted version of Islam. Many Muslims are being recruited by extremists in the Middle East and Africa. It’s millions of people.
Mr. Obama’s policy has largely been to vote “present” as he did when he served in the state senate and the US senate. He thinks if he doesn’t recognize the problem, he can define it as non-existent.
If Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had only gone to the Encyclopedia Britannica, they would have found the real name of Boko Haram is: Jamāʿat Ahl al-Sunna lil-Daʿawah wa al-Jihād or in Arabic: “Association of the People of the Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad”. That might have given them a hint as to what this group is about.
A point made by Greenfield is that Obama is a sincere social justice adherent. He looks to the causes of terrorism and seeks to excuse it. Boko Haram exists because of injustices by the government.
Always late to the party, it took three weeks for Mr. Obama to make his first statements about the kidnapping.
“In the short term our goal is obviously is to help the international community, and the Nigerian government, as a team to do everything we can to recover these young ladies,” Obama said in an interview with NBC’s Today, in some of his first public comments on what he said was a “terrible situation” in the West African nation.
“But we’re also going to have to deal with the broader problem of organizations like this that … can cause such havoc in people’s day-to-day lives,” Obama said of Boko Haram.
The broader problems are the social injustices.
Mrs. Obama joined the hashtag war only five days ago. Like her husband, she never felt the urgency. When she did join the hashtag war, she never mentioned the fact that it was caused by radical Islam and that the victims were predominately Christians.
In February, Boko Haram attacked another school. After boarding up every exit, its men seized 59 boys and gunned them down or cut their throats with machetes. Some buildings were locked up and the children inside were burned alive. The girls were ordered to go home, abandon their ‘wicked’ schooling and seek husbands. All the victims were boys.
There were no hashtags for them. So why now?
Mr. Greenfield has a possible answer – they want to unseat the Nigerian Christian President. The government could very well be toppled over this. The government is seen as ineffective. If that is Mr. Obama’s goal, this reaction helps stir sentiments against the Nigerian government.
Mr. Greenfield cited a report that expresses the administration’s views:
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom, three of whose members had been appointed by Obama and one by Nancy Pelosi, issued a report blaming Nigeria for Boko Haram’s murderous Jihad.
The report’s findings claimed that the Nigerian government’s “violations of religious freedom” had led to “sectarian violence.” It echoed the propaganda of the Islamic terrorist group, stating that, “Boko Haram also justifies its attacks on churches by citing, among other things, state and federal government actions against Muslims.”
The report suggested that the Nigerian government was too focused on fighting Boko Haram and not focused enough on dealing with Christian violence against Muslims. “The Nigerian government’s failure to address chronic religion-related violence contrasts with its commitment to stop Boko Haram, which at times has resulted in the indiscriminate use of force against civilians and in human rights abuses.”
The solution was to scale back the fight against Boko Haram and appease Nigerian Muslims.
“In meetings with Nigerian officials, including Secretary Clinton’s meeting with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in August 2012, the U.S. government consistently has urged the Nigerian government to expand its strategy against Boko Haram from solely a military solution to addressing problems of economic and political marginalization in the north, arguing that Boko Haram’s motivations are not religious but socio-economic,” the report stated.
“Additionally, senior U.S. officials frequently warn in private bilateral meetings and in public speeches that Nigerian security forces’ excessive use of force in response to Boko Haram is unacceptable and counterproductive.”
We have an administration that will not recognize the problem of radical Islam. They won’t even mention the words because they don’t believe it exists. A problem can’t be solved if it goes unrecognized.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the real modern day heroines, largely unrecognized. She is a victim of the real war on women, another aspect of jihad that he refuses to recognize. She explains in only three minutes in this video what is happening in the Muslim world.
This is what Mr. Obama believes is the real war on women: