The Mystery of Iniquity
Vol: 114 Issue: 30 Wednesday, March 30, 2011
There is a principle of internet behavior known as “Godwin’s Law.” Basically, it states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches.”
It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
I tend to agree that comparing somebody to Hitler does Hitler’s uniquely depraved evil an injustice – nobody else could be as evil in exactly the same way as Hitler, except perhaps the antichrist.
But sometimes, the comparisons make themselves.
Hitler was a fascist. The Nazis were fascists. But fascism isn’t the same as Nazism. Modern fascism was the invention of Italian nationalists during WWI, but as a political philosophy it has no particular nationality.
See if any of this sounds familiar to you.
- Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.
- Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.
- Fascism is anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-conservative, anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian, and in many cases anti-capitalist.
- Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.
Austin Hill noted in a Town Hall column the other day that President Obama’s views and agenda since his election generally follow three main schools of philosophical thought.
The first is that of economic collectivism – “sharing the wealth” as he told Joe the Plumber. The rights of group, or collective, supersede the rights of the individual. Obama declared free universal health care a ‘basic human right’ – to be paid for by wealthy individuals.
Obama adheres to the principle of “moral relativism” rejecting moral absolutes in favor of the assumption that values and cultures are not objectively good or bad, but rather everything is relative.
Thus, Obama could explain with a straight face that Islamic terrorism should be understood in the context of American hostility towards Muslim countries following eight years of ‘Bush imperialism.’
Since there is nothing inherently bad about terrorism, Obama could see no reason why he shouldn’t, for example, have a sit-down meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The third school of philosophical thought that dictates Obama’s thinking is Obama’s assumption that global well-being is more important than the interests of any one nation, even his own.
President Obama closed his Monday night address to the nation about why America is involved in the Libyan Civil War with an explanation of what it “says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.”
Think of it as the Obama Doctrine for the use of military power. That doctrine, as he laid it out Monday night, is this:
“The United States can have a moral responsibility to intervene abroad when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.”
See? America ‘can’ have a moral responsibility to intervene abroad’ – or it cannot. What determines that intervention isn’t our safety, but rather, our interests and our values, as determined by the President, and not necessarily the Congress.
The Obama Doctrine gives the president the authority to take the country to war at his discretion, based on his evaluation of what America’s interests and values abroad might be.
(Jay Leno joked the other night that the Obama Doctrine for committing US troops is called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “)
Presidential ‘doctrines’ are supposed to summarize and clarify America’s national policy. So America’s national policy is that the president can use military force – or not.
It depends on the color of Obama’s mood ring. Or something.
The Obama Doctrine sets aside both the Constitution and the Congressional War Powers Act, which gives the President the right to wage war for sixty days without Congressional approval. But that only applies when responding to an attack or if the nation is under imminent threat.
Under the Obama Doctrine, only the President has the right to wage war, when and how he chooses, based on his perception of what is in the national interests.
Obama worked the phones to get approval of the Security Council before going to the Arab League to get their approval. But he didn’t bother to address the American people or even consult with the Congress before committing US forces.
Instead, as Americans went to war, he went on a five-day tour of Latin America with his family.
The president described his reasoning in his Monday night speech, which, unlike his predecessors, was not delivered from the Oval Office:
“(W)hen innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Gadhafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives — then it’s in our national interest to act. And it’s our responsibility.”
In other words, under the Obama Doctrine, America’s national interest is internationalist imperialism.
Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of what he promised the electorate while running for office and what he promised the world after being elected.
He spent his first year on the Obama World Tour telling the Muslim nations that the age of American imperialism is over – unless, based on Obama’s own criteria, American imperial power is necessary to protect . . . ummm . . . just those that Obama feels deserve protection.
The UN mandate that Obama sought authorized the international community to take whatever measures necessary to stop Libyan government forces from advancing on Benghazi and slaughtering the rebels.
As Obama made a point of saying, (after he had made a point of saying the opposite) regime change is not the mission objective. The mission objective was strictly limited to stopping Ghadaffi from using his air power to slaughter civilians.
In his Monday speech, Obama told the nation, “Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Ghadaffi’s deadly advance.”
Mission accomplished? President Obama’s “mission accomplished” speech was delivered on Monday.
On Tuesday, pro-Ghadaffi forces pounded the rebels into a full retreat, chasing them back out of all the towns they had captured over the weekend.
And American missiles are again pounding Libyan military positions – positions held by the rebels only two days ago.
I opened with a discussion of fascism, mainly because that is the preferred pejorative of the Far Left (where Obama lives) to describe conservatives specifically and Republicans in general.
Obama comes far closer to fitting the definition of a fascist than any occupant of the White House since FDR.
Columnist Austin Bey has a column at TownHall that summarize Obama’s newly-articulated war doctrine perfectly in a single sentence;
“Once again, it’s time for Candidate Obama, circa 2007-2008, to condemn President Barack Obama. For that matter, the April 2009 Obama avatar should also sneer at the current version — if he can’t find the time to attend a Washington-area protest demonstration.”
Obama hasn’t sought a Congressional declaration of war — or even sought Congressional approval – because he knows that Senator Obama would have certainly refused to give it to him.
After all, what would Senator Obama say to a policy that requires us to spend $55 million per day on a mission that doesn’t seek regime change – as long as Ghadaffi steps down. It doesn’t matter what Obama says our goals are.
In fact, nothing that the president has said about Libya really matters. He said that it would be an ‘international’ operation, that America would not take the lead, and that his intention was to turn the operation over to NATO.
For NATO to lead violates its own charter. Any NATO military involvement must be unanimous. Any one of NATO’s 28 members can theoretically veto NATO involvement.
Except when America wants to use NATO for cover. NATO member Turkey opposed military action against Libya. (Who cares? It’s only Turkey!)
Obama arranged to have a three-star Canadian general take command of NATO operations in Libya.
According to Reuters, that Canadian general, Charles Bouchard, said of the handoff, “this is a very complex operation…the exact date is soon.”
Exactly. The exact date is soon. And “days, not weeks” has morphed into “weeks, not months.” (Anybody want to bet on how long before the White House starts saying, “months, not years”?)
Obama is hoping nobody will notice that America provides 22% of NATO’s budget. Or that the Commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command is a US admiral. Or that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is always an American officer. That ought to fool everybody!
Since regime change is not Obama’s goal (something he hasn’t fully explained to Secretary Clinton, who thinks it is) and since stopping Ghadaffi is supposed to be in America’s national interest (something he hasn’t fully explained to Secretary Gates, who thinks it is NOT) one wonders how things will turn out if Ghadaffi hangs on to power.
We don’t know who ALL the rebels are, but we know that some of them are al-Qaeda, others are Hezbollah. And so last week, arming the rebels was unthinkable. Obama swore we’d never do that!
This week, the White House is discussing the possibility openly, which in this environment, can only mean that we are already arming them.
Obama swore that the one thing that would never happen is that he would never put American “boots on the ground.” (Apparently, the White House has ordered US Special Forces target acquisition operators on the ground in Libya to start wearing sneakers.)
So we have American Special Forces working with the “rebels” – many of whom were only recently killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are ARMING them and hoping they will seize power in Libya.
Do you ever look around at the mess we find ourselves in and ask yourself, “Is this really happening?”
If you step back and take in the Big Picture, what we’re looking at is a textbook example of the Apostle Paul’s strong delusion in action.
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 says, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” To discover which cause that Paul is referring to, you have to back up a verse.
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
The mainstream media didn’t like the emerging narrative that suggested the One was really a Marxist with racist tendencies and a fascist agenda who may or may not even be eligible to hold his office, so they created a new one that was better suited to their bias.
Barack Obama would have the most responsive administration, he was a different kind of politician, he would have the most open and honest administration, he would ban lobbyists and special interests, end American imperialism and replace war with diplomacy, etc., etc.
As it turns out, they aren’t liking the delusion that much, either.
“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming . . . “ (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8)
That ‘mystery’ doesn’t seem quite so mysterious, anymore.