Obama's Speech In Egypt

Note: This commentary by Dr. Chuck Baldwin is posted to this Blog in its entirety, with no further editorial comment by this individual. For more information go to www.chuckbaldwinlive.com (djb)


Much has been made of President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech inCairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focusedon Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of theworld. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bibleonly once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama usedwas a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required tokill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Notsurprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to reportthis story. See:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100504 )As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the mostegregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was anotherone that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered toreport. The sinister statement is as follows:"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation orgroup of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think ofthe past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source:WhiteHouse.gov)Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush,Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linkedcommercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New WorldOrder;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton oftenregurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called ita "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since RonaldReagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an internationalone-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given ourinterdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over anotherwill inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? Inorder for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can bepreferred over another--not even our own. In a word, no country can beallowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or militarysuperiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty andindependence to the new "world order." Furthermore, all nations must bewilling to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, myfriend, all of this is inferred in Obama's statement.The last half of Obama's statement is equally chilling: "Whatever we thinkof the past, we must not be prisoners to it." In other words, Americans mustforget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of nationalsovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of "America First" ispassé. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with theinternational principles of a new "world order."In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker's dam if John McCainhad been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCainrepeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becomingPresident would be to implement a new "League of Democracies." In fact, lookno further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. Accordingto McCain, "The new League of Democracies would form the core of aninternational order." (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution,CFR Publication, May 1, 2007)At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are takingthe United States headlong into an international "New World Order." Thenational news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of theReligious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, andmovements.As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read orheard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say thatmany readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as theyread this column.The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to donothing as these globalists who control our political and corporateinstitutions sell our country into global tyranny?Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothingto resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise novoice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of theproblem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican inWashington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At thenational level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instinctsto the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue,and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.)Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. Theyhave never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And ifthey love big national government, think how they will love biginternational government.Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are alltoo busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worryabout something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of oursovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors.They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busyfighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadershipnecessary to "rally the troops"--as did the patriotic clergymen of ColonialAmerica's "Black Regiment."That leaves you and me--and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, andguts was all it took in 1776, wasn't it?So, while all of the attention of the "talking heads" was focused onvirtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentiallydestructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all butignored.