Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Bull in a China Shop


Everyone knows the cliche. The implication is that a person goes in carelessly, or I guess maybe intentionally, to a situation and destroys the place. This is my impression of President Obama's LESS THAN 100 days in office. It is almost impossible to even keep up with all the changes he is making to our country but I will not comment on all of them for lack of time and space. This is more than my complaining about differences in ideology. This is becoming fear for what we as a country can and/or will become under his policies. Let me explain.

The most recent mud slinging at the Bush administration over the interrogation tactics is appauling. How in the world can anyone say that the tactic of water boarding on key terrorists was not helpful? For the record, which the media fails to reveal, water boarding was used on three people. One would never know that based upon the media's and the left wing extremists' reports. Other reports say these tactics revealed important information that helped protect the citizens of this great country. Ironically, the people who performed these interrogations did the jobs we have entrusted them to do. Or, do the people of our country so quickly forget the attacks on 9/11 where over 3,000 Americans died?! This is outrageous. The other forms of interrogation that is under investigation is almost comical: one terrorist had a neck brace put on to prevent injury when he was getting pushed around; another, who had a fear of stinging insects, had a caterpillar put on him and was told it stung. Seriously, even if these tactics were harsher, we are in a war and these men are trying to kill us. Would any one of you out there act differently if you thought your family was potentially the next target? If these interrogations failed, they might have been.

Second, this is a threat to our national security! As one general put it, by making this information public you are allowing the next terrorists to train and prepare themselves in the case of capture. These terrorists do in fact train to go through these interrogations so as not to give up information. Not only this, but by softening our position we can only be emboldening our enemies as we go after our own people who did what they thought right to protect our country. Our enemies do not play by the rules. They don't care about our rules. If we were not at war and we were not constantly a target, I agree, these tactics would be a excessive but we are not. American lives are continually in jeopardy and it is the President who is responsible to make sure that safety is ensured.

Third, come to find out, new reports are surfacing that many of these Democrats accusing the Bush administration were in fact informed of what was happening yet had no objections at the time. If this is true then this is obviously more a political move than it is a matter of virtue (which I believe it is). The leadership in this country, whether Republican or Democrat, needs to start acting like leaders and stop basing decisions upon poles and "popular opinion." It is also way too easy to look at something far removed from the freshness of 9/11 and judge whether these tactics were extreme or not. Frankly, that is unfair and hypocritical. It is also interesting that Obama has flip-flopped on whether or not to prosecute these lawyers and aids over their interpretation of the law. Especially after the U.N. (which is useless in and of itself) publicly condemned this as well as other left wing extremists.

Fourth is the matter if Obama can distinguish between friend and enemy. Prior to April 15's tea parties, the Obama administration publicized a new threat to our homeland security. Interestingly enough, myself and people with similar convictions earily resembled this new threat. The threat is of "Right Wing Extremists." There is some language in there that is quite troubling, in fact very troubling. Also worth mentioning is the fact every tea party was a peaceful demonstration, not a cause for conern despite what CNN would like to portray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo; not family viewing? It was a peaceful demonstration!).

The document begins by saying, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

First, they admit there is no evidence any harm is going to be done. No evidence. Second, they are turning opposition to Obama into a race issue. This is ridiculous. If my opposing President Obama's policies, which by the way he has even admitted to wanting to change the foundation of our country , makes me a racist then I'm a racist. BUT, I am not a racist if you mean I oppose him because of his skin color. Ethnicity, race, and/or color is not the issue here. I believe President Obama to be more extreme every day in his ideologies. He is hypocritical for criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending then he goes and quadrupals it in his first year. His ideologies reflect more of a Communist than they do a Capitalist. Maybe this is why he condemns "right wingers" and shakes hands with people who hate our country.

There are other very disconcerting things about this document. It also states, "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Uumm, where do I start? First, let's deal with "hate." This term is used very broadly to describe those who oppose homosexual marriage, people's religious convictions (such as Christians believing there is one way to heaven), and even conservatives who oppose President Obama's policies; therefore, they must be racist. Also, the rejection of federal authority in favor of state or local is actually constitutional. The federal government is not a monarchy. The President of the Unite States is not Czar. Nor is he a Communist dictator. The Federal government has limited power over the states. Finally, the issues mentioned here that the "right wing extremists" would rally under are quite confusing. So if you strongly oppose abortion, or you would like the government to actually do its job concerning immigration (i.e., like secure the borders, like consider it a crime to illegally cross the borders, etc.) you are right wing extremists? Seriously?

The document gets into more than this. I didn't even get into what it says about the military. If you would like to read it, the link is hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf or I'm sure you can search for it with Google.

As I have seen the actions this new adminstration has done, I feel like I'm in an alternate reality. Our President is befriending enemies and accusing conservatives who differ in ideology. He is reaching out to our enemies all the while apologizing for his country as he travels the world. If he is that ashamed of our country he should have never run for President. Personally, I think the President needs to stop focusing on his popularity and start running this country in a responsible way. Instead, he chooses to be a bull in the china shop and dismantle most everything.

1 comments:

Damocles Chrysostom said...

Is anybody surprised by any of this--conservatives, liberals, other? While I believe that the said document has since been discredited by the administration as an outlier or non-representative of mainstream consensus, the fact is that it was deemed necessary (assumedly by an eager new hire) by someone to develop, fund, and publish.

In one sense, there is some reason for the left's consternation about the listed groups. They are dangerous to them politically. But dangerous to the country? Perhaps to their version but without these groups there wouldn't be a nation to even discuss.

Perhaps a lot of this was to give the administration an easy way to publicly denounce or at least seem like it isn't touting the loud, angry rhetoric of much of its support base. But, let's face it: these people got the majority vote in 2008 and will hold power as long as they can. Previous to November 2008, the self-professed mission of many of Candidate Obama's most loyal supporters was treasonous at best. Can we expect them to have any respect for the views of people (pro-lifers, veterans/military personnel, gun rights' advocates, etc) that they believe are the source of the problem?