Another Day That Will Live in Infamy?

This past week, the American people were confronted with the horrible visage of evil in the form of an American man and his immigrant bride, who in the name of Islam and ISIS decided to murder fourteen Americans in cold blood, and would have killed more but for the intrepid forces of the San Bernardino Police Department who conferred on the couple the martyrdom they sought. Until now, the President hasn’t formally addressed this attack, but because it seems that in the wake of the Jihadi violence that the American people have chosen to believe their own lying eyes rather than the President’s previous comments or media spin, last night Obama decided to adjust the record by finally giving an address concerning the terrorist attack, his own meager efforts in the war on terror (or whatever PC term POTUS uses), and what else he thinks should be done.  After hearing it, I don’t think this latest effort at reality distortion is going to have the effect that he desires, as it was all too naked a ploy to distract from his own imperiousness and his impotence in dealing with America’s enemies.

First of all, the President did the obligatory thing and empathized with the victims of the attack; no foul there. However he was very careful to point out there have been no direct links between the California massacre and international terrorism, which I found a very stupid thing to say. It is accurate to say that the administration hasn’t proven conclusively that the perpetrators physically met with representatives of ISIS, however, the way ISIS recruits doesn’t require a direct connection. In addition to smuggling fighters in refugee populations being transported into Western countries, ISIS exports terror by putting out propaganda into cyberspace for Western consumption, radicalization, and ultimately the commission of violent acts on their behalf. * Tashfeen Malik, the female in the terror twosome, swore allegiance to ISIS on-line just before the shooting, ** which is all she needed to do to join ISIS, and then consummated her loyalty in blood. Additionally, both of the terrorists most likely received help from someone in constructing those pipe-bombs, if only online. Ultimately, ISIS itself has claimed responsibility in these attacks **, so when the President goes out of his way to state such a qualification he comes off as defending ISIS, which is hardly going to bring comfort to families of the victims, nor the American people, who are both looking to the President for leadership in a time of crisis.

After his first blunder, Obama went on to describe how he will respond militarily. It sounded great, at first, with Obama describing his plan to destroy ISIS with a multinational coalition led by the US. However, it quickly became evident that the President had pulled a lawyer trick by using the word “continue”. He’s going to have the military “continue to hunt down terrorist plotters”, *** or that he will “continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces”, *** meaning that he’s not going to change a blessed thing in his strategy, so we should all quit our complaining. The day before the Paris attacks, **** the President declared that ISIS was contained, but then they hit Paris, and Mali, and now us which is hardly proof of a winning strategy. So why doesn’t the President vow to bomb them into the Stone Age, or some similar doom? As I’ve written previously, I believe that Obama’s war strategy is to have all the optics of doing something, without really doing anything. The President could turn ISIS into a glass ashtray tomorrow, if he so desired, with a multitude of other less severe options that all end up with ISIS gone from the face of the earth. The only reason that this hasn’t happened is that the President doesn’t want it to happen. Obama believes, probably from deep within, that it is and always will be our fault when non-Westerners attack us. You have only to examine one of his many speeches where he blames America and American foreign policy for the state the world today (under other Presidents, mind you). For instance, consider this September 23, 2009 quote when he said, “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust.  Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country.  Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.  And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.” ***** Leaving aside for the moment that he falsely accuses America of acting “unilaterally” (e.g. the Iraq war) or that America acts without regard for other countries, he squarely places the blame on his own country. As consequence of this belief, he is loath to use military power on what he sees at some level as a movement of the people. Because of this and also his apparent general discomfort with the military, Obama wants to keep his war efforts to a minimum, and if his lack of might lead to the deaths of more so-called privileged Americans, he obviously sees them as acceptable losses in his efforts to avoid seriously taking on ISIS or any other hostile group that he sees as suffering from socio-economic disadvantage.

Subsequently, the President played that old tune about curtailing the second amendment. He attacked the usual suspects, such as so-called assault weapons, but he left out a few important details that would throw cold water on his gun-control fantasy. He failed to mention that the terrorists targeted a gun-free zone (again); ***** it must have slipped his mind that the terrorists had their weapons purchased in a state that has some of the toughest gun control laws of any ; ****** he forgot to discuss the bombs the terrorists possessed, ******* which are completely illegal, but widely available to anyone with knowledge and access to a Home Depot; and he gave no evidence that he realized that all of California’s gun control efforts, similar to what he wants for the nation, were powerless to protect the victims. It seems that those without guns can still die by them. Now, the President wants power to deny the purchase of weapons to people on the no-fly list. To many, this may seem like common sense, because people on the no-fly list must be bad, right? However there’s one thing we should consider before giving Obama this new power, and that’s the requirement of due process. The terrorism watch list is a quick and dirty tool of the executive that can prevent people from getting on a plane, and flying is not a Constitutional right, but it’s rife with issues and mistakes. For instance, if you are unlucky enough to have the same name as a terrorist, and you decide to take a plane to visit Grandma-ma for Christmas, you could be thrown in jail, be banned from further flights, and have to waste a lot of time and treasure to get the slovenly government to right that injustice (to read a specific example of this, follow the link below ********). In this country, if you want to deny someone of their Constitutional rights, you need to bring evidence before a judge as part of the checks and balances on government written in the Constitution. Congress is right not confer this new power on the President since it would be unlikely that it would stand up in court, being unconstitutional, but more importantly because this President has shown himself to be untrustworthy with power. I’m sure that if Congress denies him, he will once again go outside the law and claim yet another new power for himself and wait for the courts to rule against him like they’ve done 22 times before. ********* Now, you may not agree with the second amendment and have the opinion that all guns everywhere should be confiscated while we surrender our safety and that of our family’s to the tender mercies of government, putting our trust in five minute response times to save us, but for the moment the second amendment is a right that all Americans except where it has been removed by due process, and the courts have pretty consistently upheld it. In fact, the second amendment, plus all of the Bill of Rights and Constitution exist to protect the citizen from a government that can take away your rights as easy as a pen pusher putting your name on a list. I know there are Americans who believe that government shouldn’t be limited, just so long as this all-powerful government acts in favor of progressive goals, but they would do well to consider that the power they allow one Democrat politician today will still be there for a Republican tomorrow, and be sure that a supreme GOP executive could use any of the 76 Obama over-reaches ********** as precedent to abridge a freedom that they DO care about, in the name of common sense, of course. If the President seriously wants to fight ISIS, let him do so by killing the enemy abroad, stopping them from getting into this country with better screening and refusing entry to un-screen-able refugees from enemy-rich countries, and not with new restrictions on liberty that will only apply to those that don’t break the law, which is the least concern for terrorists.

The President went on to argue that Congress should give him greater latitude to improve terrorist screening and give him greater war powers to fight ISIS with, which I have no problem with in principle, but with Obama, nothing is as it seems. I know in the past, he’s requested war-powers that are too weak to make a difference and lack clarity for winning, *********** a word that, if you remember from his recent press conference in Turkey, Obama doesn’t like to use. ************ That last part should tell you all you need to know about why he hasn’t been given what he asks for: he’s not interested in victory.

I think it’s appropriate that while the President continues desperately to try to shift focus off of his failures as Commander-In-Chief and onto the restriction of our liberties that we take a moment and remember what happened in 1941 on this day, December Seventh. Our country was attacked by a coordinated effort by a foreign power, in which thousands of American’s died. President Roosevelt framed this attack as infamous, and showed resolve in declaring that we would fight on until we had the unconditional surrender of the enemy. 74 years hence from FDR’s address to congress, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and his administration offer no resolve to fight on until victory, but rather seek to placate our demand for justice with a show-war, while at the same time offering nuance and apologies for the enemy (See POTUS’s prayer breakfast comments from this year *************) instead of fierce condemnation and defiance, and in the end seek to use yet another crisis to expand Presidential power and diminish our rights. Pearl Harbor bore witness to infamy, but in today’s present war with Radical Islamists, it’s difficult to determine where the greater infamy resides: in the deaths of 14 victims or in a President who would risk more American deaths and make victims of us all by taking away our liberty in order to satiate his unquestioning devotion to a twisted ideology and his own lust for power.

– Ryan Thorson

















Obama’s in the Wrong Job


This Monday at the G20 summit in Turkey, President Obama gave a press conference where the topic turned to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris organized by Islamo-fascists from ISIS. The President asserted what he believed to be the improper response for America in such times. Obama said, “What I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow in the abstract make America look tough. Or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed and I see a 25 year old kid who is paralyzed or who has lost his limbs and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle.”* The President continued, “But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people. And to protect people in the region who are getting killed. And to protect our allies in people like France. I’m too busy for that.”* I’m glad the President has a firm grasp on what he believes he shouldn’t do, but I’d really like to know what he is prepared to do. What Obama doesn’t seem to get, and never has, is that as President, there are a few things that are his responsibility, tasks that he alone is obligated to do. I know he’d rather not be bothered by all this inconvenient death and distraction, especially when he’s busy expanding government, running up the debt, and curtailing the liberties of the regular citizens (that’s some hard work). However, any President with regard for his office greater than their regard for their own ego must not hesitate in doing their Constitutional duty, as unpleasant as it may be. What Obama fails to realize is that as President, the business of “America winning,” even as a slogan, is supposed to be his business.

The most obvious responsibility of the President is his Constitutional obligation as commander-in-chief. He’s responsible for accessing and eliminating immediate threats to our country. Sure, he’s supposed to work with Congress, who writes the checks and to whom he has to justify his military decisions, but he’s the one person in our government that has the authority and means to act, and quickly. You might even say that the President is our country’s primary first responder, and that is really the most important function of a President. And while not every threat warrants a military response, one cannot escape the fact that in this case, Congressional declaration of war or not, ISIS is clearly at war with us and the rest of the Western world. They’ve killed plenty of Americans already and have sworn to kill more, even within our borders. They are clearly a major threat, and one that needs an appropriate response. However, the sum total of military actions that this President has already taken against ISIS has clearly not worked in any significant way. This being evident, a reasonable person would say that it’s time to step things up. So, in the President’s own words, I’d like to know “…what is actually going to work”? Surely, the President doesn’t think that his strategy of death by many pin-pricks is effective, does he? With his current approach being less than successful at even demoralizing (let alone the stated goal of eliminating or isolating) the enemy, is it logical to assume that the President’s ISIS policy so subtly successful that it just looks like failure to the untrained eye, or is it more likely that his heart not really in the task at hand? The latter seems to be the case. Even if one may agree that ramping up hostilities is not the way to handle ISIS, does anyone think for a moment that it is a wise decision to reveal to ISIS and the world that the US has no plans on countering them after they’ve already upped their game? If the President would just keep his mouth shut, that alone would at least not make a bad situation worse, but much like announcing his time-line for troop withdrawals from Iraq, he can’t seem to help himself from revealing intelligence to the enemy. So, what do you think is likely to happen if you don’t make America “look tough”? The obvious answer is that you make America look weak, marking us a target of opportunity. Even if you submit that the drone strikes and getting Jihadi John are evidence that Obama is serious about fighting these guys, try to keep in mind that Obama could end these guys tomorrow if he wanted to… he just doesn’t want to. Furthermore, I would argue that his military campaign against ISIS thus far has been purely for the political optics of looking tough, contrary to what he claimed in Turkey. In this way the President can say, “Look at me, I’m serious about this man-made disaster stuff!” while mostly ignoring the Middle East crisis and instead focusing on his next batch of illegal executive orders. Obama does just enough for show, something to appease an outraged America who demand action even as they watch videos on YouTube of its citizens being executed. And while Obama postures, ISIS expands, murders people by the bushel, ethnically cleanses Christians, and carries out coordinated attacks on allied soil. At the end of the day, all the President’s inaction and his hand-wringing about war make more and more certain that war will come, and not on foreign sands, but in our midst as our civilians are gunned down and our cities bombed, and all to the cadence of “Allah akbar!”

A big part of the job of the President is to be the nation’s primary representative and rhetorical defender. Obama evidently is uncomfortable with this, and so, true to his word, don’t expect many slogans out of him (at least ones that are positive about America). As an America-critic, Obama is in his natural community-organizer element, but as a cheerleader-in-chief for the nation, he’s out of his depth. The world judges us by his conduct and words. However, those same words he uses to describe us equally apply to him in the eyes of the world. I don’t think he considers this reality as his critique of the USA seems to flow so effortlessly from his lips. So pervasive is his criticism, at times, I even wonder if he even likes the country at all, outside of what he wants to shape out of it. So, instead of showcasing indomitable American resolution while on foreign soil, he instead shows the world an American leader who will not act, making the situation that much more favorable for an implacable enemy that simply wants to kill us. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the President is an ally of the Islamo-fascists. I’m perfectly willing to accept that he’s merely misguided by his warped progressive ideology and is incompetent to boot. Nevertheless, with results like these, with a world on fire, does it really matter what his motivations are?

Lastly, it is the President’s responsibility to order our military into battle. I can understand why the President it reticent to do this. I certainly would think less of him if he didn’t weigh the cost in troop lives against any objective. Still, that is his burden to bear; he wanted to be President, and so he’ll have to live with the mental encumbrance that he may send soldiers to their death and disfigurement. This because sometimes, a military response is the only way you can deal with a threat to the lives of our citizens. And when Obama uses our wounded warriors as a reason for not committing soldiers to battle when there is so much at stake, that’s tantamount to saying, “I won’t send firemen to fight that fire because they might get hurt!” It’s great that he cares about first-responder lives, but in the meantime the holocaust spreads. Diplomacy is ideal, if it works, if you are dealing with a some-what reasonable adversary that is not totally depraved, but I’m afraid that he is not going to be able to appeal to our common humanity with ISIS because they are an Islamic death-cult who are fanatically devoted to the idea of Islamic world domination, and also that killing infidels (e.g. you and me) is a holy thing that will bring reward in heaven to the faithful that die in such a cause. Since there is no price that they will not pay to perform their self-believed sacred mission, how can you expect to reason with them? How do you negotiate with such desperate hate staring at you from across the table? What can you offer the man who just wants you to die? Somebody tell the President that when there’s a fire that needs extinguishing, he needs to let the professionals handle it. Additionally, assure him not to worry too much about our fighting men and the sacrifices they make. As a former military man, I knew that when I took that oath and signed on the dotted line that I might have to die in service to my country. However, I also believed that such a sacrifice would be a good one if it meant keeping the monsters from my family and countrymen. All I wanted from my President is to know that he had my back as I accomplished my mission. I knew this, our men and women in the military know this, so Obama need’s to stop using our wounded warriors as human shields to protect his political ends and let our troops do what they’ve trained to do before the monsters get here.

In examining the career of Obama, it is a struggle to find confirmation in action or in word that he understands or believes that the office he holds or the laws that he’s supposed to uphold are bigger than him. Often, a President must set his personal ideology aside and, for the safety and well-being of our country, make the difficult choice that is his sworn duty. However, because the duties of a military commander are either too uninteresting or too difficult for Obama, he seems to continually avoid them. Trump recently commented on our current President, saying, “I mean, personally, I don’t think he was meant for this job, if you want to know the truth.” ** I agree. Obama seems unmotivated and ill-equipped to deal with the hard choices that the President must make. If this task is such a burden to Obama, I would suggest that he retire and get some other job where he could be happier, turning over the reins of power to someone who doesn’t have his variety of dangerous impotency, or must we wait until 120 people are killed on US soil before he acts… if he ever does?

Ryan Thorson

Agree? Disagree? Leave your comments below.