The Ideology of Emotions vs. the Ideology of Reason
Throughout world history liberalism has caused horrific harm to countless countries financially, domestically, and otherwise. Traveling through time or even through the history of America will result in with enough evidence to fill up volumes of encyclopedia-sized tomes. It is actually not necessary to glance back any further than the last couple of years in order to examine the results of liberals in power. The Obama administration has weakened and destructed every positive aspect of the country in which Americans have prided themselves for generations, all in the name of compassion, care, hope and change without any real solutions to solve the problems plaguing this country.
His actions are similar to the OWS protestors who’ve got some nice-sounding slogans and have caused others to identify with them emotionally, but are lacking actual solutions and the ability to allow brains override emotions.
What are the motives of the Occupy Wall Street protestors? Do they want to shut down all businesses? Only big businesses? What will cause them to be satisfied? Do they want the rich to become paupers? Do they wish to sit in fancy offices on swivel chairs as executives for multi-millionaire corporations with their heads bent over long sheets of figures for hours at an end? These people are clueless in how to continue past their emotions of jealously and anger, yet the entire liberal movement from the President and down has endorsed and supported these protestors with ACORN actually providing cash for some so that they participate in the protests.
Obama’s seemingly hasty decision to back the protestors can be understood when remembering that liberals operate solely upon their emotions. If they see someone’s upset, fighting for their rights etc. then those people must be supported ignoring the knowledge that it may cause more harm than good. This often results in unwise choices and puzzling decisions to those who don’t allow emotions to get the better of them, and is what Obama’s foreign policy has been dictated by; emotions.
In Egypt, a Prime Minister of many years was somewhat of a dictator and totalitarian, but not the excessively harsh type who brutally killed thousands of civilians in unmarked mass graves. He would ensure he won the elections (much like Putin in Russia) and was often forced to rule with a tough thumb due to the constant rumblings by Islamic extremists who loathed his positive relationship with America and Israel. The U.S. aided Egypt, its ally, monetarily and otherwise, and helped them develop an impressive and powerful army since Egypt was a rarity in the Muslim world and the Middle East (excluding Israel of course.) Egypt was a Muslim country who actually suppressed terror and helped keep the entire Middle Eastern region somewhat stable and at peace, unlike Syria, Iran and other Arabic countries.
What was Obama’s reaction when Mubarak faced protestors who wished to force him out of power? He dumped him and celebrated his downfall! Why? Because he was overcome with emotion by the opposition people who had chanted for freedom, change and lots of other positive slogans. The information that many of these fighters were Islamic extremists who wish to take control of the country via “democratic elections” didn’t matter, since these people cried for liberty.
How can anyone be assured that the new leadership won’t be more of the same, in addition to being hostile to the U.S. and adding tension to the Middle East? The Muslim Brotherhood who is feared will eventually receive the power, has expressed their intention to govern strictly according to Sharia Law. Even if the unlikely occurs and the extremists don’t manage to take control via “the elections” a few months down the line, they won’t rest until they ensure that they gain control over the country, as we’ve seen with Hamas in Gaza. Although 75% of the country supports Sharia Law, the results in other countries have proven that it will lead to the oppression of women and all non-Muslims.
Dennis Prager had explained how history has proven the last several decades that all change in Muslim countries resulted in less democracy, increased extremism, and worse living conditions despite what promised previously. Despite the evidence, instead of carefully researching the opposition before throwing his support behind them, Obama has behaved recklessly and dangerously.
Let’s roll back the time with thirty three years. The Shah was the moderate ruler of Iran, an ally, and a tough leader against those who wished to promote extremism and terror. When the extremists took to the streets in an attempt to overthrow the Shah, Jimmy Carter, president at the time, threw our former ally under the bus. Carter’s weak stance on foreign policy encouraged the radical Islamists to overthrow the Shah’s rule and then dare overtake the American embassy and hold hostage 52 Americans for 444 days. Ayatollah Khomeini, who took control of the masses, silenced the opposition, ruled according to Sharia Law, and led Iran with a tough fist. Now, thirty plus years later, the current “president” Ahmadinejad is actively aiding terrorism across the globe, spouts dangerous anti-democracy threats, and is in the process of creating nuclear power aka nuclear weapons.
One would think America would look back at history and learn from past mistakes, but with Obama at its helm his sympathy for the protestors overrode everything else.
The assassination of Gaddafi by U.S. backed rebels may have resulted in the eradication of some evil, yet in its stead greater evil is threatening to take his place. Ever since Bush attacked Iraq and Gaddafi had given up his chemical and nuclear programs, his global presence had changed from a threatening negative force to a neutral figure. Out of fear from U.S. repercussions he halted his support for terrorism and paid a total of billion dollars to the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing. Yes, Gaddafi was a dictator and ruled with an iron fist, but he hadn’t gassed or murdered tens of thousands of civilians throughout his dictatorship as Saddam Hussein has done, and which the left has conveniently forgotten in their opposition to the Iraqi War.
Only the last several months when protestors wreaked havoc across the country did he attempt to squelch their power using extreme force, an act which I can’t see a single current Muslim leaders not engaging in. One has got to be extremely naïve to believe that Saudi Arabia or even the new Libyan leader wouldn’t treat rebels attempting to overtake the country in a similar manner.
Anyone remember Obama’s response to the students in Iran seeking true freedom and protesting against the brute Ahmadinejad? Iran is currently ruled by a freedom-suppressing, Sharia imposing, democracy-hating, terrorist sponsor. A change in governing isn’t likely to make it worse for either the Iranian people or the rest of the country. Libya, though, is now very likely to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists who will impose Sharia law, suppress women’s rights, revert to sponsoring and supporting Libya will now be ruled solely by Sharia Law. One mustn’t wait until it is actually enforced, to admit that Libyans aren’t necessarily better off now than previously. In addition to the gruesome manner Gaddafi was killed, mass graves have been discovered in which civilians and business owners who had expressed support for the Gaddafi regime were executed and buried, thus proving the new regime will be equally or even more brutal than the previous one.
Despite all these negative results, the left is gloating and boasting over Gaddafi’s death and congratulating Obama’s foreign policy. Throughout the entire Libyan debacle they have disregarded the Gaddafi of the last decade and chose to support an unknown group comprised of many factions simply since they spouted lines of freedom and justice. Now, when disturbing details are emerging, they continue to revel in their victory. This is the result of governing by emotion rather than by careful consideration.
Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937-1940, declared after signing the Munich Agreement that; “War wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing…in war, there are no winners, only losers” and called it “Peace for our time.” Not much time passed before it became clear that appeasements don’t stall evil since it only whets their appetite for more. Having been granted significant portions of Czechoslovakia, it emboldened the Nazis to proceed forward and conquer the remainder of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Although at that point the United Kingdom, France and Russia declared war on Germany, it was too late to save the lives of millions as Germany succeeded in conquering most of Europe, thus proving Chamberlain wrong. For when there is no war, there often is a winner; evil.
Although eventually defeated, Hitler had been the victor from WWII since he succeeded in reaching most of what he set out to do. If the Allies would’ve confronted and stopped him immediately after he annexed Austria or at least kept their word to protect the Czech, the mind-boggling figure of over fifty million lives could have been saved. However thanks to Hitler’s glib promises he convinced the other world leaders to sign the now-infamous Munich Agreement, while Chamberlain reassured his people via the use of some empty slogan.
It is clear that the liberals haven’t learned from their past mistake as evident in their constant demands for Israel to appease the Islamic extremists by handing over a portion of their land, only to follow thereafter with new demands for additional areas of land to be relinquished. In a sense, supporting the Arab Spring across the world when it is spurred by radical extremists is similarly an attempt to appease them with control over their countries in the hope that they remain satisfied with their loot. Time will still tell what the final results of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy will be.
The 2012 election are now a year away and it is imperative for people to be aware of what we will be battling. The ideology of glib talk, slogans, and emotions will battle intellect and reason. It will boil down to whether people will flow with the emotions or allow their brains to dominate over their heart. Acting based upon emotions is nice when deciding where to spend your charity funds, not when deciding who should lead the country and what type of policies should be enacted. A leader and a government must be able to present real solutions and follow intellect despite the protests of their hearts.
This article is cross-posted from The Thinking Voter.