The New ‘New Normal’

The New ‘New Normal’
Vol: 117 Issue: 25 Saturday, June 25, 2011

President Barack Obama is reportedly considering a dramatic reconciliation with Iran, despite the mullocracy’s unbridled animosity towards the West in general and the United States and Israel in particular.

So how much do you think that Israel could trust Iran? Suppose Benjamin Netanyahu offered to accept all Palestinian territorial demands, pulled all Israelis inside the Green Line, closed every disputed settlement and sponsored a UN resolution declaring Palestinian statehood. 

Do you think that having done all that, the Iranian mullocracy will forget that Israel is a Jewish state or that if Netanyahu begged Ahmadinejad for an audience that the Iranian Supreme Council would accept an Israeli offer of friendship?

Of course not.  Iran is an Islamic republic – Israel is a Jewish state. In Iran’s mullocracy, Israel is the little Satan.  How could a religiously-based theocracy enter into any kind of treaty relationship with an entity it regards as Satanic?

The very thought of an Israeli-Iranian rapprochement under the current regime is pie-in-the-sky dreaming. 

For Iran to enter into a peace agreement with Israel would be tantamount, from the perspective of the mullahs, to making peace with the devil himself.  

America is the Great Satan.

According to a report in the World Tribune, the White House has been debating a proposed initiative in which Obama would visit Iran and declare rapprochement with the Iranian mullahs on whatever terms he can get.  

The Tribune says Obama’s plan has the support of the First Lady, but is opposed by Obama’s senior policy officials. . . 

“The idea is that the president does with Iran what [President Richard] Nixon did with China — a reconciliation and dialogue that would recognize Teheran as the leader of the region,” a source familiar with the debate said, according to the report.

The sources said opponents of the proposed initiative toward Iran included senior officials in the National Security Council as well as the Defense Department and State Department. They argued that Iran, which refused to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, has not demonstrated any willingness to halt such objectionable programs as uranium enrichment and long-range ballistic missile development.

At this point however, many of Obama’s closest aides were said to support a U.S. reconciliation with Iran that would allow the Middle East regime to continue with a civilian nuclear program.

The sources cited such administration advisers as Valerie Jarret, Samantha Power and U.S. envoy to the United Nations Susan Rice, who want a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan to pave the way for a rapprochement with Teheran.

The sources said the president’s wife, Michelle, has also endorsed the reconciliation proposal. They said proponents have argued that this was Obama’s only option to achieve a breakthrough in U.S. foreign policy before the 2012 elections.

“There is a huge debate in the White House on this,” one source said.

The sources said the White House has been alarmed by the failure to raise funds for Obama’s re-election campaign. They said Jewish members of the Democratic Party, once deemed the biggest supporters of Obama, were donating at a rate of no more than eight percent of that in 2008.

It isn’t that the Obama administration has a plan worked out that is aimed at bring peace to the Middle East.  If Obama’s plan was aimed at Middle East peace, then it would necessarily involve Israel and to a lesser degree, her surrounding enemies.

Instead, Obama’s plan is to get himself re-elected at any cost.  What’s worse, according to the Tribune, is what might happen if Obama decides he can’t win.

A political consultant involved in White House fundraising efforts said Obama’s foreign policy could veer sharply from the status quo if he becomes convinced that he would lose in 2012. The consultant said an increasing number of Democratic Party leaders were considering asking the president not to run.

“Obama has both severe political and legal problems in winning a second term,” said the consultant, who, like the others interviewed, did not want to be named.

“If he feels he will lose anyway, Obama will follow a foreign and maybe even domestic policy that will be very controversial,” the consultant said.

“The idea is to show the president as a peacemaker who was stopped by the Republicans and other opponents in Congress.”

In other words, this isn’t about peace with Iran.  It’s a political con job. Obama’s rapprochement is expected to fail – but in any case, it doesn’t matter.  

In the end, Obama hopes his efforts will divide the Congress, create division and strife at home, and split the country down the middle (again) so he can ride a divided electorate back into the Oval Office for another term.

Assessment:

I believe that it was P.T. Barnum that made the observation that “nobody ever went broke betting on the gullibility of the American people.”  No matter – history proves him right, whoever he was.

When I was in the service, on payday we’d sometimes play a game called  ‘Liar’s Poker’.  Each player would declare the best poker hand he could make out of the serial number on a dollar bill. 

But you were allowed to lie.  That’s what made it interesting. The trick was knowing when to call the other guy’s bluff.

In Liar’s Poker, the winner isn’t necessarily the one with the best hand.  More often than not, the winner was the best liar.   It was a terrible way to try and stretch one’s paycheck. 

But it is an even worse way to try and govern a nation. Is it immoral to lie in order to advance a cause you believe strongly in?  

Would it be immoral to lie in order to trick somebody to becoming a Christian?  Of course it would.  

Even if one thought he was saving a person from eternal damnation?  Of course it would. 

Deception and lies are the tools of the enemy and the polar opposite of the God of Whom the Bible says, “Thy Word is truth.” 

What I find so striking about Obama’s dishonesty is its overtness – Obama lies openly and often, sometimes with a straight face, sometimes with wink and a nod.  He doesn’t care if people can see right through it or not.  

“From the moment he stepped onto the national stage to campaign for the presidency, Obama has consistently lied to the American people in order to convince us to trust him with our economic and national security.  Since becoming our president, he has betrayed that trust.

During his first eight months in office, Obama has exhibited his admiration for dictators and disdain for our allies.  He offended the Queen of England and bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.  He praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega, kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek and endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.  He sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras, a country that followed its constitution and stopped its president from illegally turning himself into that country’s dictator.”

In a normal world, US presidents don’t deliberately work against what are clearly in America’s best interests.  In a normal world, US presidents don’t routinely lie without fear of retribution.

In a normal world, US presidents don’t routinely demonize their own constituencies or attack their own supporters or embrace their nation’s bitterest enemies.

In a normal world, such a leader would face a public backlash that would make the public excoriation of George W. Bush look like a comparative vote of confidence.

But it appears that we’ve all stepped through some kind of portal into yet a new “New Normal” even more radical than the old post 9/11 New Normal.  In the past two and a half years, we’ve boldly gone where no one had gone before in terms of lawlessness and disorder.

We’ve witnessed the stretching of our moral fabric to points not previously thought possible, seen the Constitution trampled before our eyes and our future sold off to our enemies to finance present excesses.

Since taking office, Obama has doubled the US debt, strangled the economy with regulations and roadblocks, unconstitutionally expanded America’s involvement in foreign wars, ignoring Congressional opposition, and not once has he been seriously called to account. 

It appears that the public either has an endless supply of patience or it simply cannot believe what is happening before its very eyes.  In either case, it is surreal.

Bible prophecy only identifies the existence of four spheres of global power in the very last days, none of them resembling the United States.  America’s absence from Bible prophecy has therefore long been a source of speculation. 

The simple fact is that by the time the antichrist comes to power, America is no longer a relevant player. Iran [Persia] still is.  Russia still is.  Israel still is.  So is Europe.

The Rapture may well account for America’s absence from the Biblical record.

But so could Barack Obama.  

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s