Continued from page 1

Across Middle Eastern and Islamic capitals we are seeing our American embassies and consulates overrun and burned, walls breached and windows smashed. Diplomats and security personnel have been killed. American flags flying high and proud above our diplomatic outposts have been torn down, desecrated and set aflame, and some replaced by the banner of al Qaeda. This is the response to the president’s so called “new era of civility and understanding.” What we are seeing is what the president has described as “some bumps in the road.”

Instead of taking a firm stance against those who attack our embassies and our diplomats, this administration reserves its harshest words of condemnation for a provocateur video maker. One U.S. Embassy issued an abject apology and a condemnation of those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Instead of defending the Constitutional right of free speech, our senior officials dignified it as the pretext to rage and riot.

Recall the various excuses that supposedly have led radical Islamists to kill in the name of God: Early on it was a book by Salman Rushdie. Then it was American troops in Saudi Arabia. Then it was Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Then it was Guantanamo Bay. Then U.S. support for Israel. Then it was supposedly global warming as [Ayman al] Zawahiri and [Osama] bin Laden once wrote. And now it is a web video practically no one has seen.

This is not what motivates them to murder innocents. These are weak, convenient justifications that are all too willingly accepted. Yet our nation’s current leaders seem more interested in making excuses for our enemies than in defending the ideals on which America was founded.

Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is not with America. It is with an intolerant, backwards ideology championed by radical Islamists. An ideology that is so intolerant it belongs in the Middle Ages, not in the Middle East; an ideology diametrically opposed to our ideas of freedom and equality.

The radical Islamists have an ideology that insists that half the population not participate in commerce and public life; an ideology that sees Israel as the focus of evil in this world to be incinerated and its ashen remnants pushed into the sea; an ideology that shuns science and innovation for a return to the 7th century; an ideology that denies individual freedom and economic freedom alike; an ideology that revels in a cult of death and martyrdom; an ideology that denies the very existence of the nation state; an ideology that seeks retribution for supposed wrongs inflicted in past centuries instead of working to build a better future.

When President Obama went to Cairo in 2009, did he fail to realize that this radical ideology existed? Or did he simply choose to ignore it? Because the ideology is a fact. It exists in many corners of our world today, and in all of those corners — right now — are violent men planning to come out from their corners and attack the innocent.

So we as a citizenry, have the right and responsibility to ask: Has apologizing for America and denying that we should take a leading role in global affairs led others to love us … or to even like us?

Has it led them to respect us? Quite the contrary!

When upheaval swept the Arab world in 2011; the epicenter was Cairo. An American ally was tossed aside in favor of the rule of the streets. The Muslim Brotherhood is now in control — not because they have the backing of a majority of people, but because they are the strongest and best organized. And our president doesn’t know whether Egypt is an ally or not.

All of this has sent an unambiguous message: it is that America is weak, and in decline; that ours is a nation that is an unreliable friend and a weak enemy; that we are at best a spectator of global affairs — not a leader; that we aspire to be … lesser. And a lesser America is not an America to be respected.

Through my 80-plus years, I have seen the dangers of a perception of weakness. Weakness is provocative. It is an invitation.

This is an administration in which the lawyers, academics and the wordsmiths who populate their ranks characterize acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters” and the Fort Hood killings as “workplace violence.” They use phrases like “leading from behind,” or “transnational governance” and “pooling” our nation’s sovereignty with other countries. They seem to believe America’s policies should be based on an international consensus of the nations that dominate the U.N. General Assembly, instead of on our Constitution and the decisions of our elected representatives.

Take, for example, the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is still perilously close to being ratified by the U.S. Senate. This is a scheme that has been kicking around for decades, the idea being that developed nations like ours should give hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties to countries that have no part in exploration or extraction of mineral and oil and gas resources in the world’s oceans, those billions to be spent by many with views fundamentally contrary to ours.

The Obama administration has promoted the Law of the Sea Treaty and seems to have bought into the false nobility of global governance.

Story Continues →