NEOAVATARA

Obama in Germany

Obama uses numerous political devices, many of which have little or no basis in fact but sound really, really good.

One example that is coming forward today:  Obama uses his great-uncle, Charles Payne’s actions in World War II, where he was  part of the force that liberated Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp, in April 1945.

Only problem is, Payne thinks it is all for political show only.

“This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I’m sure, but for political reasons,” Charles Payne told the German magazine Spiegel. “Perhaps his visit also has something to do with improving his standing with (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel. She gave him a hard time during his campaign and also afterwards.”

“I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany,” Payne said. “We had never talked about that before.”

Now Payne is a life long Democrat, and likes Obama, though his relationship is distant.  But Obama using a family relative (not even a close one) for political game is a classic tool for Obama.  He wants to personalize every issue, in hopes that will make you come to his side…regardless of whether there is any personal connection or not.

One other tool in Obama’s bag of tricks is moral relativism.

Moral Relativism is a term that gets thrown around a lot, mainly because politicians love to use the argument frequent.  Barack Obama is one of the great all-time purveyors of moral relativism.  And his Cairo speech on Islam was  a perfect example.  Mr. Obama continually made decisions by opposing parties seem morally equivalent, when in fact they were not.

One example was Israel and Palestine.  ““If we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth,” said Obama.  True.  But the reality is that Israel has largely accepted the right of Palestine to exists, and Israel is the only partner in this situation to put forward a plan that would have let Israel and Palestine to live side by side.  And on multiple occasions (the most recent being a few months ago), Palestinian leaders have refused.  And most Palestinian leaders have not even accepted Israel’s right to exist.  There is no moral equality there.  Israel is far from innocent, that is true, but the Palestinian leaders deserve less sympathy until they come to the table with an open mind and a fair agreement in their hands.

Additionally, Obama made small  comparisons of the Palestinians plight to that of African-American slavery in the United States, Apartheid in  South Africa…and yes, even the Nazi Holocaust (though in fairness, Obama only insinuated the last part).  Of course, that raises the idiocy of people like Tom Brokaw, who had the audacity to have the following exchange with the President:

Brokaw:  What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

OBAMA: Well, look, there’s no equivalency here.

Brokaw is an idiot…give credit to Obama, although when  you open the door to moral relativism, this is what you get.

The nuclear issue with Iran is another example.  In the last few days, Obama has repeatedly said that no one country should be able to dictate rules to others.  Again, I agree…but where exactly is that happening, may I ask?  It is a straw man argument.  It is occurring no where.  In Iran, the United Nations largely agrees that Iran is breaking UN resolutions.  So, are we to accept that simply because the United States is one of those players?  Obama also said that part of the reason that countries want nuclear weapons is because other players do.  Fine.  So we should allow Iran to have nukes until such time we totally disarm?  Is that the Obama argument?

Additionally, he stated Iran has a right to nuclear energy.  Well, fine…then why don’t  they have the right to nuclear weapons? Moral relativism is dangerous, because it can work both ways.  Once you move in that direction, the enemy can use the same line of thinking in reverse…and totally destroy your argument.

Then there is the talk of woman’s rights.  In this facet, Obama was much, much weaker than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who repeatedly put this forward as a major issue with his administration.  Obama just bypassed the issue.

“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.”

“Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

I guess for Obama, this issue that rape, murder, stoning (sometimes because of being raped), and oppression of women is not much of an issue…at least no enough to really confront.  Yes, the moral relativism of a woman’s right to where the hijab is the United States is equivalent to murder, in Obama’s eyes.

And finally, there was the issue of democracy.  Here was Obama, going to a country led by a virtual dictator, Hosni Mubarak, and talking about freedoms.  Once the Muslim street thinks about this, it will start to ring hollow.  Obama just a few days ago called Mubarak ‘a force for stability’, which is true for America, but is questionable for the hundreds of political prisoners he holds in Egyptian prisons.

Obama started his Cairo speak by stating that he would speak the truth.  Well, in these issues, he allowed moral relativism to make the truth a non-issue.  Speaking truth to power is one of the fastest and greatest ways to make radical change in this world…and in the bid to change the Muslim world,  Obama missed his opportunity in Cairo.