Obama Gives U.S.A. an Expiration Date and it’s NOW

-By Warner Todd Huston

In his much ballyhooed speech given in Cairo, Egypt, yesterday, Barack Obama sought to make common cause with the “Muslim world” as if all Muslims are in accord. Of course, this ignores the simple fact that Muslims kill Muslims far more than Muslims even kill others. Still, it’s all well and good to want to make common cause when it is achievable.

There is much to agree with in Obama’s Cairo speech. (Full text here) His rhetoric about freedom of religion and the American success story is right on. There is also much to quibble with, especially that he seems to assume a moral equivalence between all parties in the conflict between the west and that “Muslim world.”

There is, however, one line in his speech that reveals what he thinks of us and where he thinks we should be as a nation. And that “where” is down.

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 of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

What does this say about how President Obama feels about his own nation? Is he not interested in “elevating” us to a higher status if possible? Are we to assume he wants to keep the U.S. down so that it won’t outshine any other nation? Should we assume that he wants to make sure we have as dismal a standard of living as other countries just to be “fair”? Should we abandon our status in the world to avoid the appearance of being “elevated”?

I don’t know about you but the idea of a leveled world playing field implicit in this comment seems to compare quite well with Obama’s stated ideals of “spreading the wealth” that gave him so much trouble during the late presidential campaign.

So, how far will President Obama go to make Muslims feel good? Will he go so far as to make sure the U.S.A. isn’t perceived as being better than anyone else? And will he do his best to lay our country low to fulfill his diplomatic philosophy?

Maybe. But only if the American voter allows him to do so.

____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston

Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


2 thoughts on “
Obama Gives U.S.A. an Expiration Date and it’s NOW”

  1. Yep, given the context of the speech, which was about the Arab/Isreali peace process, there is no other POSSIBLE interpretation of that sentence.

  2. Well, then. How do you see it? Was he just saying THEY shouldn’t appear “elevated,” then? If so, doesn’t that seem contradictory?

Comments are closed.

Copyright Publius Forum 2001