Managing Evil

FaceOfEvilby Jerry Richardson   9/5/14
President Obama has two primary objects of rage: 1) Israel, and 2) The GOP. A logical question is, “What do these two political entities have in common”?  Indeed, what do Israel and the GOP have in common that makes them the primary two entities in the political-world that President Cool can really get worked-up into a rage over?

That question is actually easy to answer:  President Cool is infuriated with anyone who does not share his unrealistic ideological beliefs.

One of his more astounding political beliefs has just recently been made apparent: He believes that evil in the world can be managed.  Yes, managed; need not be prevented, need not be defeated, need not be destroyed—you don’t even have to have a strategy for it—it just needs to be managed.

“We know that if we are joined by the international community we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”  Managing Killers

This is a clear, if perhaps unintentional, articulation of a policy of tolerating evil.  Many writers have speculated over what might properly be called an Obama Doctrine.

Now we know.

The crux of the Obama Doctrine is simply to Coexist with Evil.   And this notion of managing evil (ISIL being only one case) is why Obama’s two primary objects of rage are Israel and the GOP.

The current US foreign-policy JV team (we don’t have a varsity team) led by Barack Obama and John Kerry are desperate for a win.  In their desperation for a foreign-policy victory in a 6-year season of no-wins, all-loses; Obama and Kerry attempted to bully Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel into withdrawing from the West Bank—of course to appease Israel’s blood-enemies into a “peace” treaty. This bullying effort, led by Obama’s inept Secretary of State, John Kerry collapsed in April 2014.

[July 11, 2014] ‘At present we have a problem with the territory called Gaza,’ the prime minister said. But he noted that the West Bank is 20 times the size of Gaza, and vowed that he was not prepared ‘to create another 20 Gazas’ in the West Bank.

“ ‘I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan’ — a reference to the Jordan Valley and the West Bank — as Kerry had urged during a US-led peace effort that collapsed in April.

“Citing by name both Kerry and the US security adviser Gen. John Allen, who was charged by the secretary of state to draw up security proposals that the US argued could enable Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, Netanyahu said passionately, ‘I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert: We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’ ”  Netanyahu calls out team Obama

The modern state of Israel has been, since its inception in 1948, surrounded by evil.  They have been surrounded by enemies whose stated and publically-vowed intent is the total annihilation of the nation of Israel—another genocidal holocaust.  What could be more evil?

Israel has had to contend with various drive-by-diplomacy attempts at “middle-east peace” such as the flawed Clinton-era Oslo Accords; the unrealistic Bush-era Road map for peace—a two-state solution; followed by the abortive Obama attempt to coerce Israel into relinquishing control of the West Bank.

Most such attempts have been various versions of managing evil by expecting Israel to be willing to accommodate their enemies without the one most critical reciprocal accommodation: The recognition and acceptance of the right of the Nation of Israel to exist in peace.

The latest pathetic attempt, by Obama, following on the heels of the Kerry-led relinquish the West Bank push was the insulting-efforts to force Israel to play-nice by using only a “proportional response” to Hamas-rockets being fired at Israeli citizens and to the Hamas-tunnels being dug to facilitate Hamas-terrorists invasions.

Israel wisely refused to manage the evil of Hamas in perfect accord with the twisted ideology of Barack Obama, and thereby incurred the rage of President Cool.

President Cool wants to manage evil; unmanaged evil disrupts his vacations, his fund-raising trips, and his time on the golf course. So, of course, evil must be managed.

What about the GOP, how do they come-in for rage from President Cool?

Essentially a large portion of the GOP represents the same problem to Obama as the State of Israel does.  Most rank-and-file Republicans do not believe that evil can simply be avoided or ignored or managed.

Obama’s perception of this problem and the connection to the GOP goes back to George W. Bush.  Of course, “Bush is the problem”; “Bush is the root of all problems.”

In 2002, then President Bush used the term “Axis of evil” to refer to the terrorists supporting the governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.  He made the statement during his first State-of-the-union address on January 29, 2002 following the 2001, 9/11 terrorists attacks.   This speech, in essence, set the stage for the “war on terror” that defined George W. Bush’s presidency.

The left, especially including Barack Obama, has always hated President Bush, for numerous reasons, and have ridiculed him for his use of the label “Axis of evil” even though as time has passed it is difficult to see how this label is not unpleasantly correct.

Since Barack Obama ran primarily as anti-Bush, he has incorporated into his ideological foreign-policy, rhetoric and efforts to be non-confrontational toward those very governments that Bush labeled as evil, as well as other governments with similar tyrannical and terrorist sympathies.

The Obama Doctrine is simply to Coexist with Evil.

Since the GOP refuses to bless the management of evil in perfect accord with the warped ideology of Barack Obama, they have incurred the rage of President Cool.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (1276 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Managing Evil

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    One thing I will note here is that Barry Screwtape Obama at the very least resents the United States (as it was, anyway), and perhaps is even enraged at those “bitter clingers”. Another thing to note is that (like most liberals) he refuses to confront the idea that there is genuine evil, which no doubt is why he’s so comfortable managing it and coexisting with it.

    But a key aspect is that liberals are always far more concerned about their internal enemy (who gets in the way of their unrestrained exercise of power) than about foreign foes (whom they consider no serious threat to their power). Power is their sole interest.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      But a key aspect is that liberals are always far more concerned about their internal enemy (who gets in the way of their unrestrained exercise of power) than about foreign foes (whom they consider no serious threat to their power). Power is their sole interest.

      Note the Lenin’s willingness to give away huge swathes of the old Russian Empire via the Brest-Litovsk Treaty in order to give the Bolsheviks the opportunity to consolidate their power. And contrary to the propaganda put about by types such as Edgar Snow, Mao and his criminal gang spent more time fighting against the Nationalists than against the Japanese.

      • David Ray says:

        Lenin also had to concede that the communist economic model is a joke. After giving up Brest, he allowed working capitalism for awhile in what he called “Strategic Retreat”.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Yes, the New Economic Policy. It was still in place when Lenin died, leaving open the question of whether he would have kept it or was only waiting for the opportunity to return to communist dogma. In the end, that’ s what Stalin did (and those who took advantage of NEP were among his millions of victims).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Great article, Jerry.

    Many people think Obama is a Muslim because he is so kind to Muslims and dismissive of Christians. But his religion is actually Leftism, one that posits that white Christian males have been a plague on the world because of their pursuits of empire, profits, and cultural hegemony.

    These guys despise America and love all things foreign and exotic. To understand the mindset of the Left, look back to that video where Michelle Obama was caught mouthing “All that for a flag?” at some ceremony where a flag was being decorously folded. Now, contrast that with the words of her husband who said that the call to prayer in Islam is one of the most beautiful sounds he’s ever heard.

    Good/evil does not exist as a primary abstract for the Left. They have no objective view of it. Their primarily construct is oppressed/oppressor. And from this you can reason your way to the nasty little racist secret of “black is good/white is bad” which we see playing out every time some black punk is shot by a white officer. (They take no note of black officers shooting black punks).

    I don’t think it’s therefore so much a factor of Obama “managing evil” as not thinking that Islam is evil at all. For him it is an intramural battle, one that is lamentable because it weakens Islam and gives them a bad name. Remember once again that “terrorist” and others words have been officially stricken from the roles and it’s now “man-caused disaster.”

    In short, Obama isn’t a Muslim but he sympathizes with Muslims and despises his own country, including all the traditions and values that underpin Western civilization. We have elected a foreigner as our president, and not because he was supposedly born in Kenya, but because he is foreign to all the values and principles that has made America what it is.

    And to have elected (and re-elected) this man shows how foreign we have become to those same values and principles, although we think we have replaced them with something better. But fanning the conceit of moral superiority because one has been played for a useful idiot by the homosexual lobby is a high price to pay for jettisoning Western civilization and replacing it with an ideology that not only despises decent people, but supports those very same people (Muslims) who would kill all homosexuals if they ever got the chance.

    We are the evil that Obama and his type are trying to “manage.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have commented frequently on the liberal tendency to look at every dispute in terms of overdogs and underdogs. I suspect that your similar “oppressed vs. oppressor” comparison is the explanation for this tendency, which simply has become more generalized. Of course, America is an overdog compared to every other country, whites are overdogs compared to everyone else (they base their judgments on the American situation, so that Muslim domination of the Evil Crescent doesn’t keep them from being underdogs), etc.

      One might also note that no one who worships himself (as the Black God does) could be a genuine Muslim. (It would actually be possible for him to be a Christian if he thought he were the Second Coming of Christ, but he doesn’t seem to do that and probably doesn’t believe in it anyway.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I suspect that your similar “oppressed vs. oppressor” comparison is the explanation for this tendency, which simply has become more generalized.

        Well, it’s not my explanation at all. It’s the very definition of Cultural Marxism. It heritage involves a number of twists and turns. But the Left came to the conclusion (through experience and failure of the Soviet Union) that the proletariat wasn’t going to rise up and shake off its masters. Instead, the proletariat was quite happy with middle class life, a lengthening life span, and an increasing standard of living,

        This is where the whole “false consciousness” aspects comes in. We’re just don’t know how miserable we are. And if the Left survives on anything, it is in instilling grievance and guilt — anything to knock people off the equilibrium of happiness and fulfillment. This is why the Left blows everything out of proportion. How can Mr. or Mrs. Smith be happy in their lives if there is some poor person somewhere who doesn’t have enough to eat? Therefore we must pull down the entire house and construct it along lines of “fairness” and “equality.” And Mr. and Mrs. Smith, through long indoctrination of guilt at their very way of life, will give in and pay personal penance by supporting these schemes, both at the ballot box and at the various soap boxes of the agitators. (Catholics, in particular, have almost totally sold out.)

        When the Marxists understood that the capitalist system wasn’t going to collapse and automatically usher in “the dictatorship of the proletariat” then other means of enacting “fundamental transformation” of our society would be pursued. That primarily included stoking and accentuating divisions along the lines of race, sex, and class.

        And this is what we have today. Thus it should be no mystery why there can’t be racial harmony via electing a black president (at least if he is a Marxist one). Their bread-and-butter is stirring up divisions — all, of course, while boldly throwing out their smokescreen (as Hillary so often does) that it is others who are engaging in the “politics of persona destruction.” And, of course, if they are the ones who are actually racists (and they are), then everyone else has to be one.

        To know who the Left is, one need only watch what they are accusing others of. It’s still a bit surprising to me that so many people so easily fell for, or gave into, this comic-bookish ideology. But they have. And part of the problem we face today is that so few want to call a spade a spade. People have been cowed and intimidated by this stuff. And the people themselves have had their grievance and sense of entitlement so ratcheted up that mere simple truths are deemed highly offensive.

        We seem caught in some kind of cultural quicksand. And it’s a Marxist quicksand.

    • Jerry Richardson says:

      Brad,

      You are spot-on in your comments as usual. I wish I had thought to incorporate in the article the dichotomy of perspectives that you put your finger on. Of course:

      We, conservatives perceive, I think correctly, that the terrorists enemies of Israel and the US are evil–and they are, or else the word evil has no meaning.

      Obama perceives, with his %%$#@&-up ideology that Israel and American Conservatives (with political proxy, for better or worse being the GOP) are evil. That is certainly the evil he is most interested in managing. Not the real evil. The real evil to him is just a small “bump in the road.”

      From our Conservative perspective, his policy is to coexist with what we consider to be evil; and that policy is placing us and the rest of the world in grave danger.

      Great comments, thanks.

    • David Ray says:

      His loyal idiot, Janet Napolitano actually has used “right-wing terror” in her memo to describe returning soldiers from the Mid East. “Man-made disaster” is reserved for actual threats which are shrugged off as “work-place violence”.

      When scumbag Nidal Hassan killed 14 “right-wing terrorist” soldiers, I remember he smugly told us not to jump to conclusions . . . the way he did when he accused the Boston Police of “acting stupidly”.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One should also note that the real surprise in regards to Rand Paul announcing that he thinks we should take military action against ISIS is not so much that this conflicts with the dumb libertarian “non-intervention” principle. The real surprise (and inherent conflict with doctrinal libertarianism) is that this shows the he is, at least in this instance, measuring things through the lens of “good/evil.” There is hope for him yet.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Hot Air had a link to a Reason piece in which one of their writers asked several libertarian (more or less) writers what they thought of Rand Paul’s apostasy. I thought Mollie Hemingway made the most sense of the bunch.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Here’s that article in question. Jacob Sulllum wrote:

        But given his sudden conversion and the weakness of the reasons he has offered, it is hard to take Paul seriously on the subject.

        I find it hard to take libertarians on any subject. But anyone who doesn’t take militant Islam seriously is a fool…as are the vast majority of libertarians.

        And here would be a typical libertarian comment by David Boaz which is indistinguishable from something the Left would say (blame America first):

        I think Rand Paul and I agree that American meddling in the Middle East, particularly the Iraq war, led to the rise of ISIL.

        Islam has an over 16 century history of being belligerent in just the way that it is doing now. Earth to libertarians: It’s not our fault. Or, really, perhaps it is. If only we had the common sense and decency to surrender, then there would be no conflict.

        This is why, however tentative, every step Rand Paul takes away from absurd libertarianism is a positive step. Yes, by all means, keep your criticism of the generally “Progressive” foreign policy of Bush, Obama, and others who see only “radical” Islam as the problem. But have you articulated that aspect, Rand? No, not to my knowledge. Under the guise of being a “critic” you are simply forwarding a different narrative which is just as disconnected from the real problem — Islam.

        In some ways “non-interventionism” makes a lot of sense because you don’t have to take a moral stand. And in doing so (ironically), you have all these libertarian dweebs doing just that: preening that they, and only they, know how best to work foreign policy.

        Whether Rand Paul is actually a “realist” remains to be seen. And, of course, who better than Mollie Hemingway to clear things up for us:

        And so, while people keep saying Rand Paul’s perspective is changing, I think it’s more like the ‘New shit has come to light, man!’ scene from Big Lebowski. It’s not a changed view so much as that when you have a given framework, you might have a different plan of action based on the changing facts on the ground. So I see a consistent philosophy responding to different threats.

        Militant Islam isn’t “new shit,” Mollie. And as irreverent as I like to be in order to remain one level above stuffy, if referencing Big Lebowski is representative of libertarian thought, then it is true that a major aspect of libertarianism is eternal juvenile-ism.

        So, what is the proper view of ISIS?

        We need to recognize that violence is an inherent part of Islam, which is not a religion but is a supremacist ideology along the lines of Nazism. The civilized world (which hasn’t always been so civilized itself) has been at war with Islam since Islam’s inception. That is to say, Islam has been at war with the civilized world since its inception.

        One school of thoughts says “Let them slaughter each other so long as they don’t step into our neighborhood.” And that’s fine. But what then to do about the Christians and other innocents who are being slaughtered? We have one of two choices, we “intervene” as a stop-gap, trying to then cobble together some “moderate” Muslims to take over. Or we intervene with the realization that Islam itself is the problem, thus any permanent solution involves irradiating the political influence of Islam.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I think Boaz’s argument is that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to the effective rise of jihadist organizations that he had previously suppressed. There’s an element of truth to that, but it ignores the effect of the “Arab spring” — which in most cases was really the jihadist version of 1848.

          I wouldn’t say that Islam (Submission) isn’t a religion; rather, it is (like Leftism) a combination of a religion and a totalitarian political philosophy. Judaism was designed in much the same fashion, albeit only for a single small nation of adherents rather than a global caliphate or people’s republic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *