ISLAMOSCHMOOZING

Mark Steyn analyzes the Savior of the World's address to Islam:

Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department website, “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyper-alert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the U.N. and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.
[...]
Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext — the absence of American will — became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and any other psycho-state minded to join them.

Obama is not the only one, albeit he's one of the more powerful, who doesn't seem to mind the ongoing Islamist rape of the world. O speaks for the world in saying (Rich Lowrey, quoted by Steyn),"We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.”

OTOH, rape appears to be ok for some. In fact, we have

...left-wing Dutch journalist, Joanie de Rijke, who went to Afghanistan to conduct a sympathetic interview with Taliban jihadists who had just killed 10 French troops. Naturally, she was abducted and serially raped for six days. And now she is angry ... not at the chief Taliban thug — who showed her "respect," though, regrettably, "he could not control his testosterone" — but at the Dutch and Belgian governments who refused to pay the $2 million ransom the jihadists demanded. And of course, in the Netherlands, the media and the government are furious at Geert Wilders for pointing out the obvious:

This story is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters. Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. One would expect: a woman is being raped and finds this unbearable. But this journalist is not angry because the Muslim involved also showed respect. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims – that is the one thing they will condemn.

Gilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.

The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.

The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.

Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom.

UPDATE: A reckoning is coming--reality doesn't like to be ignored for too long:

Obama’s make-over will have positive short-term effects, as he reminds the world ad nauseam that he is black, sorta, kinda from a Muslim family, and the son of an African who is more like the world than he like most Americans-and not George Bush and not a thieving capitalist and not a warmongering imperialist and not (fill in the blanks). (My favorite Cairo line was the apology on Gitmo where inmates have laptops and Mediterranean food, spoken to millions whose societies kill and maim tens of thousands in Gulags on a yearly basis.)

But in the long run?

He hits against human nature....

Only someone who has not been in the real world, but only marketed rhetoric without consequences (e.g., if Obama had a bad day organizing, or legislating, was he fired?) could believe such things.