Two weeks ago today, the primary question being addressed on the talking head programs that Sunday morning was the question of the 1980 Presidential election - 'Are you better off today than you were four years ago?'
The Obama campaign officials and sycophants for the Obama Presidency did not have a good answer for that question. They embarked down the standard process to move the goalposts from that question to other issues. They sought to avoid reality and focus on defining a new perception to deflect from reality. The issue isn't that the President's economic agenda has failed, the 'real' issue is how dangerous the economic agenda of Romney / Ryan is. The issue is 'a return to the same failed policies that created the economic crisis of 2008'.
Whenever someone cannot address the reality of the circumstances, many seek to deflect and redefine that reality. Convince others that not only are things not as they seem, or as simple as they seem, convince them that the 'real' problem is something else entirely - something far more threatening. In this, perception comes to drive reality as opposed to the other way around.
Today's primary question should be - 'Are you safer today than you were four years ago?'
With the actions over the past week ranging from the 11th anniversary of the 9/11/01 terror attack on the US, to the radical Islamic sackings of several US Embassies, to the deliberate murder of the US Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, to the expansion of anti-US violent demonstrations by Muslims to over 2 dozen countries, this is another critical question the American voters need to ask themselves as we near November 6th.
All week, the Administration has been working to deflect and redefine the reality that we are witnessing by these actions away from the failed policies, agenda, and naive worldview of Barack Obama and the progressive left. These violent acts against the US aren't, according to the 'experts' within the Administration, because of radical islamofascism expanding throughout Islam, but because a few decided to 'insult' the prophet Mohammed in a film titled 'The Innocence of Muslims' which had a 14 minute trailer released on the internet in June - and by 9/11/12 had fewer viewers than the number of demonstrators who sacked the embassy in Cairo.
Some may wonder how did a simple film 'insult' Muslims? It 'insulted' Muslims with what is generally accepted as a historically accurate picture of Mohammed as a pedophile - marrying a 6 year old girl and then consummating the marriage when she was age 9. It also, apparently, also notes the misogyny and homophobia that instilled in Islam via the Qu'ran - as well as the concepts of jihad, Shari'a law, and establishing a global Islamic caliphate that are core to 'true believers'.
This morning, the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, appearing on Fox News Sunday, continued to parrot the official Administration line that the 'irresponsible' actions of the filmmaker making and releasing this film was the cause for the murder of the four Americans in Benghazi, the sacking of US Embassies, and the continuing anti-American demonstrations by Muslims around the world. Federal investigators questioned the filmmaker - something that these investigators have yet to do with former NJ Governor Jon Corzine, whose investment firm went bankrupt after misappropriating $1.6 billion in client funds in an effort to avoid failure.
The official position of the Obama Administration is to vehemently deny that their policies and actions contributed or ignited these issues. They also vehemently deny that these actions are the result of pre-planned and deliberate actions against the US by groups that embrace islamofascism. No, the sole reason for the violence and demonstrations is a reaction to the 'insult' offered by the film.
According to reports, the demonstrators who overran the US Embassy in Cairo, removing and desecrating the US Flag, replacing it with the black flag of al-Qaeda, chanted that 'we are all Osama's' - referencing the former leader of al-Qaeda who was responsible for the 9/11/01 terror attack and was, according to the Obama campaign, killed by Barack Obama. In the last several days, other Embassies have been overrun with their flags replaced by the same black flag. This same black flag is commonly displayed in nearly all of the demonstrations.
I'm wondering, then, if a poorly written and produced film done by an unknown generated this level of violence and angst in the Muslim world, what will happen when Sony Pictures releases in October, a film developed in close cooperation with the Obama Administration (including obtaining classified information) which touts and 'spikes the football' on killing Osama Bin Laden in a SpecOps raid on OBL's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan?
Are there any demands to not air that film because it might 'inflame' anti-US demonstrations?
For many, we're not to view the images of 9/11/01 in full, because of the emotions that they might fuel. An ABC miniseries, aired only once, 'The Path to 9/11' remains locked away in ABC's vault not only because of the emotions they might fuel, but of the accurate depiction of the fecklessness of the Clinton Administration towards the threat and actions of radical Islamic terrorists like those of al-Qaeda.
If these films are 'dangerous' then why isn't the film that spikes the football over killing Bin Laden?
The truth of the matter is that the film, 'The Innocence of Muslims' is a convenient scapegoat for both sides.
It allows radical Islam, from the Salafists, to the Wahibbists, to the Muslim Brotherhood - and its terrorist offshoots (al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc) to point to an 'insult' of their faith to motivate more to stand with them, accept the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran they promote, and embark on jihad against the infidel, achieve martyrdom and ultimately a global Islamic caliphate. Lost is the fact that this religion remains locked into the 7th century and encourages a 7th century world.
It allows the Obama Administration to deflect from its incompetent and feckless foreign policy in the region.
Policy? If one can term a schizophrenic collection of actions a policy.
In the spring of 2009, after campaigning to abandon the War in Iraq, after campaigning against the policies of the Bush Administration regarding drones, military tribunals, rendering, and Gitmo, Barack Obama embarked on an 'apology' tour to 'reset' the US foreign policy in the region. Iraq was abandoned. A departure date has been announced for the complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. American ally, Hosani Mubarak, President of Egypt, was tossed under the bus in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. American and NATO warplanes helped radical Islamists topple Libyan dictator Qaddafi. America's number one ally in the region, sees and hears her Prime Minister insulted by Obama, and is effectively dismissed as a friend (well, only until he needs Jewish votes for re-election, then lip service is offered). Rather than confrontation, Iran is offered appeasement - and sanctions (which worked so well on Saddam).
At the same time, Gitmo remains open. Captured illegal enemy combatants are getting military tribunals - or at least they will resume now that their being placed on hold for Ramadan has ended with the end of the Islamic celebration. We've stopped trying to capture and interrogate terrorists (even by means other than harsh interrogation methods) and have dramatically expanded the use of drones to interdict and kill those on the President's kill list. Just a few days prior to the 9/11 anniversary, a drone attack killed the #2 al-Qaeda leader in Yemen - an act that is being noted (by all except the Administration) as a primary cause for the Benghazi consulate attack.
No, the cause of these acts are not because of a film - but because of two reasons. One is the expansion of radical Islam and its ideology to embrace the 'true faith' to restore Islam to its proper place in the world.
The other is because of the incompetence and naivete of America's leadership to see things as they are and not as they would like them to be.
The 'blame America first' crowd is not only in charge here in the US, but they also dominate the mainstream media.
We are not safer now just as we are not better off than we were 4 years ago.
We cannot double down on failure. The stakes are far too high.