I have grown weary of pretending that Barack Obama has anything but disdain for the United States of America. So let us ask the question on all of our minds: Are the actions of this president those of a man committed to what is best for his country?
With small business, the engine of our economy, on the ropes, Obama and his myrmidons in Congress are trying to ram through a health care reform bill that will, in the words of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, bring about our "fiscal ruin." Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama continues to push his "Cap and Trade" legislation, with all the taxes, fees, energy price increases and restrictions on freedom that inevitably accompany it, on the strength of junk science that is being discredited every day. A growing number of reputable scientists are expressing doubt that global warming even exists, and recently a hacker or a whistleblower made public thousands of insider e-mails showing that climate change advocates know the whole thing is a scam. Yet the president intends to go to the Copenhagen climate conference and pretend that none of this ever happened. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
So preoccupied with his domestic agenda is this president, that an urgent request for more troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, has been collecting dust on his desk in the Oval Office since August. It is now December. Gen. McChrystal has said that anything less than 40,000 troops will guarantee failure, so naturally Obama will send fewer than that. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama was quick to jump to conclusions when Harvard Professor Henry Gates was arrested breaking into his own house. Although he admitted that he didn't have all the facts, the president nonetheless proclaimed that the police "acted stupidly." Yet when an Islamist fanatic in our own armed forces murdered 13 innocent people at Fort Hood, Texas, in an obvious act of terror, we were told by our president not to jump to conclusions. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
The president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, along with his fellow terrorists, will get a trial in civilian court in New York City, with all the rights afforded American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. This outrageous decision even caused some in the generally uncritical media to question its wisdom, whereupon both Obama and Holder immediately poisoned the jury pool by pronouncing the defendants "guilty" and promising that they will be executed. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
And finally, there is the tale of Mathew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Hertas, three Navy SEALs who should be receiving commendations from their commander in chief, but who, sadly, will instead receive court-martials. The charge? They gave the most wanted terrorist in all of Iraq a boo-boo on his lip! That's right. The man responsible for murdering four American contractors in March of 2004, mutilating and burning their bodies, dragging them through the streets of Fallujah and hanging what was left of them from a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to dutifully photograph, was finally captured by these three brave Navy SEALs. But in the course of subduing him, apparently he got slugged in the mouth. Do you care? I know I don't. But apparently our politically correct military does, from the commander in chief on down. Obama pardoned a turkey last week, but heroes he court-martials.
For the last time, I ask you, are these the actions of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?