Much has been made of President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to report this story.
As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:
"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.
In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another will inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In order for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can be preferred over another--not even our own. In a word, no country can be allowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or military superiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty and independence to the new "world order." Furthermore, all nations must be willing to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, my friend, all of this is inferred in Obama's statement.
The last half of Obama's statement is equally chilling: "Whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." In other words, Americans must forget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of national sovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of "America First" is passÃ©. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with the international principles of a new "world order."
In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker's dam if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCain repeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becoming President would be to implement a new "League of Democracies." In fact, look no further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. According to McCain, "The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order." (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution, CFR Publication, May 1, 2007)
At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are taking the United States headlong into an international "New World Order." The national news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of the Religious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, and movements.
As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read or heard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say that many readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as they read this column.
The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate institutions sell our country into global tyranny?
Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothing to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in Washington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue, and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.). Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if they love big national government, think how they will love big international government.
Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors. They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busy fighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadership necessary to "rally the troops"--as did the patriotic clergymen of Colonial America's "Black Regiment."
That leaves you and me--and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, and guts was all it took in 1776, wasn't it?
So, while all of the attention of the "talking heads" was focused on virtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentially destructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all but ignored.