Jeannieology
Selective humanitarianism
By Jeannieology
President Barack Obama wants America to believe our nation is involved in a Libyan "kinetic military action" because he is now in the business of advocating for human freedom and "basic human rights." Disguised as crusader for the vulnerable, Barack is now "acting on behalf of what's right," and supposedly has taken America to war in an effort to prevent a "looming humanitarian" crisis and to protect citizens from genocide.
In an effort to justify military action, the President is presently going about the business of refashioning his image from community organizer/President into compassionate global humanitarian. When not out lobbying for the enactment of radical abortion policy, a newfangled Barack is promoting himself as a man who prides himself on being unable "To brush aside America's responsibility ... to our fellow human beings." So much so, the President contends that allowing Qaddafi to slaughter innocents would be "a betrayal of who we are."
To help persuade Americans to embrace "Obama's two-year campaign to promote human rights," the White House dispatched anti-genocide advocate and spouse of Cass Sunstein, possible future Secretary of State, Samantha Power. Ms. Power even suggested that "words" spoken by Obama might have been the impetus that "nudged" the people of Libya toward rising up against Moammar Qaddafi.
In a speech...at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president's efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
Pulitzer Prize winner Power explained to her audience that an American president, committed to values that "cannot be separated" from interests, standing with those that "risk their lives on the street," has infused the Middle East with the courage to rebel against savagery, genocide and dictatorial regimes.
Truth is, humanitarianism is "marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare...respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species." Yet despite trying, what Ms. Powers failed to accomplish in her pro-Obama speech at Columbia University was to impart credibility to a President who supports genocide against unborn children and does so with the passion of Moammar Qaddafi carpet-bombing his own people.
Ms. Power shared that in Libya the international coalition acted to save the rebel stronghold city of Benghazi because of Qaddafi's attacks. Samantha lamented that "On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion" of being anti-government rebels. Moral outrage coming from a representative of an administration that supports and seeks to fund the massacre of 3,700 human beings a day based on the premise that they're non-viable life forms, and whose husband urges the government to "focus on life-years rather than lives," is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.
It seems that when it comes to justifying genocide — the only difference is whether Qaddafi or Obama and his crony czars are doing the rationalization.
Following up Samantha, faithful defender of "choice," Barack Obama, also took time to explain his decision to involve America in a civil war:
The United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day... we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we ...waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
If policy initiatives were viewed as a whole rather than as disconnected sound bites, it would be hard to deny that a pro-choice liberal of Barack Obama's ilk taking a position on Libyan genocide, in response to being "faced...[with] the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," is like Michael Vick suddenly showing up on a poster for PETA.
To defend military action in Libya, Barack brought up "fellow human beings" and "betrayal of who we are" if we "turn a blind eye" to atrocity. Statements such as these are the personification of disingenuous hypocrisy, because the same man who pledged to never yield in a "culture war" that ensures the right to exterminate 1.2 million unborn American children a year justifies saving lives by saying he "refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves [in Libya] before taking action."
Conveniently, the President chooses to disregard conscience when it comes to abortion, as well as genocide in Darfur and Iran, the slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and loss of life on the border of the United States and Mexico. On the issue of arbitrary defense of life, Obama is not alone. A feminist pro-military-Libyan-action contingency, made up of Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — known for "dramatic action" against genocide — and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are the ones who "helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Colonel Qaddafi's forces...under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces."
A band of Democrat women, together with a vehemently pro-choice President, all deny that taking the life of a living being in utero is a "crime against humanity." Then the same group extends maternal protection for defenseless civilians worldwide based on "Responsibility to Protect," which is an international community norm that "focuses on efforts to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing."
That same liberal powerbase is presently attempting to convince the world that they support the cause of humankind, human rights, and freedom, echoed in the "voice... of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer." The only problem is that these five individuals simultaneously support abortion policy that has waged a similar reign of terror against two generations of unborn children for the entirety of Qaddafi's 40-year rule.
Nevertheless, the present situation in Libya presents Barack Obama with a perfect opportunity to prove his newfound humanitarian mettle. The President could initiate the process by publically rejecting the unrelenting genocide abortion has imposed upon 60 million defenseless human beings with "no means to defend themselves against assault" and who continue to be denied the same right to life that Obama wants the world to believe he's defending on behalf of the Libyan people.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
© Jeannieology
April 6, 2011
President Barack Obama wants America to believe our nation is involved in a Libyan "kinetic military action" because he is now in the business of advocating for human freedom and "basic human rights." Disguised as crusader for the vulnerable, Barack is now "acting on behalf of what's right," and supposedly has taken America to war in an effort to prevent a "looming humanitarian" crisis and to protect citizens from genocide.
In an effort to justify military action, the President is presently going about the business of refashioning his image from community organizer/President into compassionate global humanitarian. When not out lobbying for the enactment of radical abortion policy, a newfangled Barack is promoting himself as a man who prides himself on being unable "To brush aside America's responsibility ... to our fellow human beings." So much so, the President contends that allowing Qaddafi to slaughter innocents would be "a betrayal of who we are."
To help persuade Americans to embrace "Obama's two-year campaign to promote human rights," the White House dispatched anti-genocide advocate and spouse of Cass Sunstein, possible future Secretary of State, Samantha Power. Ms. Power even suggested that "words" spoken by Obama might have been the impetus that "nudged" the people of Libya toward rising up against Moammar Qaddafi.
In a speech...at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president's efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
Pulitzer Prize winner Power explained to her audience that an American president, committed to values that "cannot be separated" from interests, standing with those that "risk their lives on the street," has infused the Middle East with the courage to rebel against savagery, genocide and dictatorial regimes.
Truth is, humanitarianism is "marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare...respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species." Yet despite trying, what Ms. Powers failed to accomplish in her pro-Obama speech at Columbia University was to impart credibility to a President who supports genocide against unborn children and does so with the passion of Moammar Qaddafi carpet-bombing his own people.
Ms. Power shared that in Libya the international coalition acted to save the rebel stronghold city of Benghazi because of Qaddafi's attacks. Samantha lamented that "On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion" of being anti-government rebels. Moral outrage coming from a representative of an administration that supports and seeks to fund the massacre of 3,700 human beings a day based on the premise that they're non-viable life forms, and whose husband urges the government to "focus on life-years rather than lives," is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.
It seems that when it comes to justifying genocide — the only difference is whether Qaddafi or Obama and his crony czars are doing the rationalization.
Following up Samantha, faithful defender of "choice," Barack Obama, also took time to explain his decision to involve America in a civil war:
The United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day... we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we ...waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
If policy initiatives were viewed as a whole rather than as disconnected sound bites, it would be hard to deny that a pro-choice liberal of Barack Obama's ilk taking a position on Libyan genocide, in response to being "faced...[with] the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," is like Michael Vick suddenly showing up on a poster for PETA.
To defend military action in Libya, Barack brought up "fellow human beings" and "betrayal of who we are" if we "turn a blind eye" to atrocity. Statements such as these are the personification of disingenuous hypocrisy, because the same man who pledged to never yield in a "culture war" that ensures the right to exterminate 1.2 million unborn American children a year justifies saving lives by saying he "refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves [in Libya] before taking action."
Conveniently, the President chooses to disregard conscience when it comes to abortion, as well as genocide in Darfur and Iran, the slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and loss of life on the border of the United States and Mexico. On the issue of arbitrary defense of life, Obama is not alone. A feminist pro-military-Libyan-action contingency, made up of Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — known for "dramatic action" against genocide — and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are the ones who "helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Colonel Qaddafi's forces...under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces."
A band of Democrat women, together with a vehemently pro-choice President, all deny that taking the life of a living being in utero is a "crime against humanity." Then the same group extends maternal protection for defenseless civilians worldwide based on "Responsibility to Protect," which is an international community norm that "focuses on efforts to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing."
That same liberal powerbase is presently attempting to convince the world that they support the cause of humankind, human rights, and freedom, echoed in the "voice... of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer." The only problem is that these five individuals simultaneously support abortion policy that has waged a similar reign of terror against two generations of unborn children for the entirety of Qaddafi's 40-year rule.
Nevertheless, the present situation in Libya presents Barack Obama with a perfect opportunity to prove his newfound humanitarian mettle. The President could initiate the process by publically rejecting the unrelenting genocide abortion has imposed upon 60 million defenseless human beings with "no means to defend themselves against assault" and who continue to be denied the same right to life that Obama wants the world to believe he's defending on behalf of the Libyan people.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
© Jeannieology
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
