In his rather mundane speech the other night, Barack Obama said among the other nonsense he spouted, that the new Iraqi government must be more inclusive. A stable Iraqi government must be one that represents the country’s plethora of religious and ethnic minorities – that all must be represented.
He said: “Once an inclusive government is in place, I’m confident it will be easier to mobilize all Iraqis against ISIL. That’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depend upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government…”
Secretary of State John Kerry went to Iraq to meet with the new government and support their efforts to promote “unity.” He too wants them to be more inclusive.
Everywhere it seems someone is promoting the idea of inclusivity. In 2011, HuffPo posted an article of their belief that Israel must “Create a More Inclusive Atmosphere.” Meaning to “include” more Arabs.
Yossi Vardi, an entrepreneur who is heavily invested in the booming Israeli “tech” economy, has been working to “include” sectors of Israel’s population who are “largely outside the workforce.” He insists that the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israel’s Arab population have been left out. “Israel tech needs to be more inclusive,” He claims.
In Britain, there are claims that music programs in schools must become more “diverse” and “inclusive.” Here, advocates insist that schools must become more “inclusive” with those with disabilities.
The want for inclusion permeates everything, it seems. Everything except our government and its “Two-Party System.”
In March of this year, Ed Gillespie, former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman, said the Republicans must reach out to minorities and other groups instead of letting the left fill that void. He claims the Republicans don’t need to speak Spanish to go on Univision or Telemundo. Gillespie said, “We certainly shouldn’t cede those audiences to the left.”
He, like every other establishment Republican, is constantly calling for a more “inclusive” party. But with all this “inclusion” going on, there is always one segment of the population that is “excluded,” and it seems happily so.
Yes, they would be us – the conservatives – the Tea Party – the gun toting “religious right.”
Obama and his fellow leftists are all for “inclusiveness” as long as it “includes” the correct folks. Socialists – the Feminazis – radical homosexual advocates – anti-capitalist greenies, etc.
The Republicans aren’t much better. They treat conservatives as enemies of the State (as they define and manage it). And for all their blustering over the need for “inclusion,” they want nothing more than to kick us to the curb – to “exclude” us.
Imagine if the new Iraqi president said in his first speech that he wasn’t going to wait for the rest of the government to act. That he’s decided not to include the Sunnis in his decision-making. Imagine if he had a pen and a phone to act unilaterally. Worse yet, that he decided to form a unity government with ISIS.
Just how fast would John Kerry fire up the State Department jet and flyover to tell him he will not do that and that the Iraqi government must be “inclusive”? The new president must seek counsel from all factions in Iraq. He cannot just go off and dictate on his own.
Or worse, if Netanyahu said he would rule unilaterally – that he would “exclude” the Arabs living in Israel. The cry of foul would be deafening.
But when our rights are trampled, our voices not heard by either party, it’s okay. It’s okay for us not to be “included.”
Funny how terrorists like Hamas must be “included” in a peace process, but we on the right can’t be “included” in a decision to make a wedding cake for two men who wish to be “married.”