By Austin Hill
“The bottom line is this – if the Koran is burned, our troops will be in greater danger. It’s that simple…”
That remark came from a certain military officer (an officer who will remain unnamed here), during a special press briefing I attended regarding upcoming foreign troop deployments.
The news of a threatened “Koran burning ceremony” to be held in Florida was being widely reported at the time, and a journalist had asked the Officer for comment.
In response to the Officer’s comment, I followed up by asking “if Americans didn’t exercise their Second Amendment rights, would the troops be safer?”
“ With all due respect, I think you’re politicizing the matter, sir,” the Officer said to me, “and I have no further comment…”
It was appropriate that the Officer had “no further comment.” But I wasn’t politicizing anything. I was asking a very serious, sobering, and legitimate question, a question that all Americans should be asking in the face of the Obama Administration’s disposition towards Islamic Radicalism.
For the entire duration of his Presidency, Barack Obama has articulated a vision of “the Muslim Word,” as he calls it, and practitioners of the Muslim faith, that conveniently ignores what is frighteningly obvious to most Americans: that some of the most horrific and gruesome murders and terrorist acts on the planet these days are committed by people who call themselves Muslims, and claim to be following the edicts of the Koran.
President Obama set this pattern of denial in motion back in June of 2009, when he made good on his campaign promise of delivering a speech in the capitol city of a predominantly Muslim nation.
Speaking at Cairo University in that month, the President said, in part, “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”
Five months after that speech, the United States sustained what previously may have been unthinkable – a terrorist attack at an Army base in Texas, all at the hands of an Army Major who was – yes, you guessed it – a Muslim. Major Nidal Hasan, a Medical Doctor in the U.S. Army, shot and killed 13 other Army soldiers and wounded 30 other people. He claimed that he was operating in allegiance to the Koran, and his Muslim faith.
As President Obama spoke at the Memorial Service for the dead soldiers, he referred to the murders as “craven acts,” and insisted that “no just and loving God looks upon then with favor.” But how are we to take these remarks?
Was President Obama insinuating that the “God” of Islam is not “just” and not “loving?” This proposition is doubtful. More likely, the President’s remarks were intended to suggest that Mr. Hasan wasn’t really behaving as a “real Muslim” would, so, therefore, these “craven acts” were no indictment on Islam.
But since the massacre at Fort Hood , we have sustained two other terrorist attacks on American soil – the “underwear bomber” case on Christmas Day last year, and the effort to blow up Times Square in Manhattan last Spring. Both of these incidents were terrorist attacks (despite Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano’s claim that “The system worked” last December – it did not), attacks that were both fortunately thwarted before they could be carried out to full fruition.
All three of these acts were carried-out by people who called themselves Muslims. And if these terrorists each called themselves a “Muslim,” who am I – and who is Barack Obama – to insist that they are not?
President Obama’s timid stance with “the Muslim World” stands in stark contrast to this undeniable reality: In America, we are a very diverse bunch, but we generally get along with each other pretty well.
We are Christians and Jews and Secularists. We are theologically conservative Protestants and Catholics and Jews, and we are theologically liberal Protestants and Catholics and Jews. We are Atheists and Buddhists and Mormons and Bahai’s and completely irreligious. “Church” and “synagogue” and “temple” happen every weekend in America , as do sporting events and naps and work and play. As Americans we go about these activities according to our own wishes, being disagreeable with each other at times, yes, but still living together and getting along.
But then, there is this one particular group in America and around the world that can’t seem to play by America ’s “we all get along” terms. According to our President, our lives are jeopardized if we so much as state the obvious about this group.
If our President continues with his denial of the obvious, he will continue to alienate America , and weaken our nation abroad.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
Monday, September 20, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Has The First Amendment Become A “National Security Threat?”
By Austin Hill
"This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”
That’s how President Barack Obama, in a national television interview on September 9, described the plans of an American Pastor to hold a September 11th “Koran burning” event at his church in Florida.
Prior to the President’s TV interview, the Pastor had already been chastised by some of the highest-ranking officials in the Obama Administration. Attorney General Eric Holder had described the Pastor and his plans as “idiotic,” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had stated that it was all “disgraceful.”
Yet President Obama apparently believed it was necessary to speak about this himself, and try to stop the Koran burning festivities.
If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained, adding that "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance..."
These are strong words from the sitting U.S. President, aimed at one, private citizen. And the fact that the stated intentions of one private citizen would draw criticism from the President and his Administration – and would touch-off death threats on American lives– is seriously troublesome on multiple levels.
First, let’s accurately assess what has been at the epicenter of this controversy in the first place. At the time of this writing (I’m composing these words on the afternoon of Friday September 10), it is unclear whether the Florida Pastor will stage a Koran Burning event on September 11th, or not. This is to say that the Pastor has only stated his intentions, and we don’t know if he will ever carry them out.
Describe the Pastor and his plans in whatever derogatory and demeaning terms you wish. Stupid. Inflammatory. Insensitive. Intolerant. Misguided. Ill-advised. My observation is that the man seems quite inarticulate, and a bit “nutty,” and I wish the Obama Administration and the worldwide media industry had not drawn so much attention to him (notice that I am not stating the man’s name – it makes no sense for me to give this character more attention).
Yet this nutty guy is merely speaking his mind – and in America, we regard this as constitutionally protected “free speech.” For much of our nation’s history, Americans have possessed an attitude that says “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it..”
But we now seem to have turned a corner on this type of freedom. In this instance, some of the most powerful people in our government determined that if this one private citizen were to exercise his legal right to burn copies of a particular book, such an excursion in human liberty would threaten the security of Americans both domestically, and abroad – and thus, this one private citizen should not exercise his legal rights.
A President who was more appreciative of the uniqueness of American liberty, might have taken the opportunity to explain that American freedom is a good thing, and that freedom itself is not a problem. Yet when one lacks the discernment as to how to wisely exercise their freedoms, therein lies a problem. That could have been a true moment of presidential leadership - a “teachable moment” if you will – but that is not how President Obama and his Administration has responded to the rhetoric of our nutty fellow American.
Second, the fact that mere rhetoric can incite “death to America” demonstrations in Afghanistan and can rise to the level of a national security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture, and President Obama’s assessment of that culture.
In June of 2009, our President delivered a now-famous speech at Cairo University, wherein he stated “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”
Those were beautiful words, words that were perhaps meant to inspire. Yet polling conducted by the Brookings Institute two months ago shows that President Obama faces a near 65% disapproval rate in the Middle East, and the Muslim world remains as hostile as ever towards the West.
If indeed Americans and Muslims shared the “common principles” of “tolerance and dignity of all human beings” as President Obama has stated, then American lives would not be endangered because of the words of one man in Florida.
Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
"This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”
That’s how President Barack Obama, in a national television interview on September 9, described the plans of an American Pastor to hold a September 11th “Koran burning” event at his church in Florida.
Prior to the President’s TV interview, the Pastor had already been chastised by some of the highest-ranking officials in the Obama Administration. Attorney General Eric Holder had described the Pastor and his plans as “idiotic,” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had stated that it was all “disgraceful.”
Yet President Obama apparently believed it was necessary to speak about this himself, and try to stop the Koran burning festivities.
If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained, adding that "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance..."
These are strong words from the sitting U.S. President, aimed at one, private citizen. And the fact that the stated intentions of one private citizen would draw criticism from the President and his Administration – and would touch-off death threats on American lives– is seriously troublesome on multiple levels.
First, let’s accurately assess what has been at the epicenter of this controversy in the first place. At the time of this writing (I’m composing these words on the afternoon of Friday September 10), it is unclear whether the Florida Pastor will stage a Koran Burning event on September 11th, or not. This is to say that the Pastor has only stated his intentions, and we don’t know if he will ever carry them out.
Describe the Pastor and his plans in whatever derogatory and demeaning terms you wish. Stupid. Inflammatory. Insensitive. Intolerant. Misguided. Ill-advised. My observation is that the man seems quite inarticulate, and a bit “nutty,” and I wish the Obama Administration and the worldwide media industry had not drawn so much attention to him (notice that I am not stating the man’s name – it makes no sense for me to give this character more attention).
Yet this nutty guy is merely speaking his mind – and in America, we regard this as constitutionally protected “free speech.” For much of our nation’s history, Americans have possessed an attitude that says “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it..”
But we now seem to have turned a corner on this type of freedom. In this instance, some of the most powerful people in our government determined that if this one private citizen were to exercise his legal right to burn copies of a particular book, such an excursion in human liberty would threaten the security of Americans both domestically, and abroad – and thus, this one private citizen should not exercise his legal rights.
A President who was more appreciative of the uniqueness of American liberty, might have taken the opportunity to explain that American freedom is a good thing, and that freedom itself is not a problem. Yet when one lacks the discernment as to how to wisely exercise their freedoms, therein lies a problem. That could have been a true moment of presidential leadership - a “teachable moment” if you will – but that is not how President Obama and his Administration has responded to the rhetoric of our nutty fellow American.
Second, the fact that mere rhetoric can incite “death to America” demonstrations in Afghanistan and can rise to the level of a national security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture, and President Obama’s assessment of that culture.
In June of 2009, our President delivered a now-famous speech at Cairo University, wherein he stated “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”
Those were beautiful words, words that were perhaps meant to inspire. Yet polling conducted by the Brookings Institute two months ago shows that President Obama faces a near 65% disapproval rate in the Middle East, and the Muslim world remains as hostile as ever towards the West.
If indeed Americans and Muslims shared the “common principles” of “tolerance and dignity of all human beings” as President Obama has stated, then American lives would not be endangered because of the words of one man in Florida.
Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, September 10, 2010
When Did Liberals Become So Concerned About Religion?
By Idaho Conservative Blogger
The Ground Zero Mosque issue has created quite a divide in the country. Most agree that legally it’s a non-issue. The divide seems to be appropriateness, many Conservatives think it’s outrageously inappropriate to build the Mosque so close to Ground Zero, and those, many on the Left who say the Mosque builders should be able to practice their religion anywhere they want.
I ask, when is the last time Liberals championed so passionately religious rights?
Are they not the ones always screaming about the separation of church and state?
Where are Liberals when Christmas is attacked?
Not too long ago in a Texas classroom, children were told to draw a tracing of their foot, and then put a message on the drawing. One ittle girl wrote “Jesus Loves Me” on hers. The child’s teacher ripped he tracing off the board. “Don’t you ever do this again,” she said as little girl burst into tears.
How about in a Plano, Texas, classroom, a teacher told students not to write “Merry Christmas” on greeting cards for soldiers in Iraq because it might offend someone. They were even forbidden to say “Merry Christmas” to their classmates.
In a New York school, the halls were decked with menorahs and Kwanzaa candles. When a father asked why there was no Christmas tree, the principal said, “Oh, we’re trying to make sure we don’t offend people.”
Where are Liberals when the American Flag is burned?
Where are Liberals when the bible is burned?
Where were Liberals when The Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled 'Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate' that labeled conservative Christians extremists and potential terrorists."
Where were Liberals when an activist judge ordered a homeschool mom in New Hampshire to stop homeschooling her daughter because the little girl 'reflected too strongly' her mother's Christian faith."
Where were Liberals when the Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Ky., to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed."
Where were Liberals when HBO's program 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' aired an episode where the main actor urinates on painting of Jesus. When confronted HBO would not apologize."
In The Hill this week Eboo Patel, Founder and President of Interfaith Youth Core group from Chicago writes,
In America, we don’t discriminate against people of any religion
In America, we will not be divided by faith.
In America, everyone has a place.
In America, we are better together.
How naive.
Michelle Malkin writes in a recent post at Townhall.comThe Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage
Shhhhhhh, we're told. Don't protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don't burn a Koran. It'll imperil the troops. It'll inflame tensions. The "Muslim world" will "explode" if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the "Muslim world" not ready to "explode"?
At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual
Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.
In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran.
In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company's "Air" logo looked like the Arabic script for "Allah."
In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever's ice cream logo -- which Muslims claimed looked like "Allah" if read upside-down and backward (can't recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).
Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy's Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell
That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant -- which they considered an affront to Allah.
In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, you guessed it, the Arabic script for "Allah."
In 2007, Muslims combusted again in Sudan after an infidel elementary school teacher innocently named a classroom teddy bear "Mohammed."
Protesters chanted, "Kill her, kill her by firing squad!" and "No tolerance -- execution!" She was arrested, jailed and faced 40 lashes for blasphemy before being freed after eight days. Not wanting to cause further inflammation, the teacher rushed to apologize: "I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone, and I am sorry if I caused any distress."
The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.
Now I am not bashing the Muslim religion, there are certainly religious nuts in every camp. I just don’t understand why Liberals are so quick to defend, excuse, pander and support Muslim religious freedoms, claiming tolerance while at the same time fighting to suppress others.
Maybe I do understand, Despite what President Obama says, America is a Christian nation and that drives Liberals crazy.
E-mail: Idaho Conservative Blogger
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
The Ground Zero Mosque issue has created quite a divide in the country. Most agree that legally it’s a non-issue. The divide seems to be appropriateness, many Conservatives think it’s outrageously inappropriate to build the Mosque so close to Ground Zero, and those, many on the Left who say the Mosque builders should be able to practice their religion anywhere they want.
I ask, when is the last time Liberals championed so passionately religious rights?
Are they not the ones always screaming about the separation of church and state?
Where are Liberals when Christmas is attacked?
Not too long ago in a Texas classroom, children were told to draw a tracing of their foot, and then put a message on the drawing. One ittle girl wrote “Jesus Loves Me” on hers. The child’s teacher ripped he tracing off the board. “Don’t you ever do this again,” she said as little girl burst into tears.
How about in a Plano, Texas, classroom, a teacher told students not to write “Merry Christmas” on greeting cards for soldiers in Iraq because it might offend someone. They were even forbidden to say “Merry Christmas” to their classmates.
In a New York school, the halls were decked with menorahs and Kwanzaa candles. When a father asked why there was no Christmas tree, the principal said, “Oh, we’re trying to make sure we don’t offend people.”
Where are Liberals when the American Flag is burned?
Where are Liberals when the bible is burned?
Where were Liberals when The Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled 'Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate' that labeled conservative Christians extremists and potential terrorists."
Where were Liberals when an activist judge ordered a homeschool mom in New Hampshire to stop homeschooling her daughter because the little girl 'reflected too strongly' her mother's Christian faith."
Where were Liberals when the Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Ky., to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed."
Where were Liberals when HBO's program 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' aired an episode where the main actor urinates on painting of Jesus. When confronted HBO would not apologize."
In The Hill this week Eboo Patel, Founder and President of Interfaith Youth Core group from Chicago writes,
In America, we don’t discriminate against people of any religion
In America, we will not be divided by faith.
In America, everyone has a place.
In America, we are better together.
How naive.
Michelle Malkin writes in a recent post at Townhall.comThe Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage
Shhhhhhh, we're told. Don't protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don't burn a Koran. It'll imperil the troops. It'll inflame tensions. The "Muslim world" will "explode" if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the "Muslim world" not ready to "explode"?
At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual
Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.
In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran.
In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company's "Air" logo looked like the Arabic script for "Allah."
In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever's ice cream logo -- which Muslims claimed looked like "Allah" if read upside-down and backward (can't recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).
Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy's Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell
That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant -- which they considered an affront to Allah.
In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, you guessed it, the Arabic script for "Allah."
In 2007, Muslims combusted again in Sudan after an infidel elementary school teacher innocently named a classroom teddy bear "Mohammed."
Protesters chanted, "Kill her, kill her by firing squad!" and "No tolerance -- execution!" She was arrested, jailed and faced 40 lashes for blasphemy before being freed after eight days. Not wanting to cause further inflammation, the teacher rushed to apologize: "I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone, and I am sorry if I caused any distress."
The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.
Now I am not bashing the Muslim religion, there are certainly religious nuts in every camp. I just don’t understand why Liberals are so quick to defend, excuse, pander and support Muslim religious freedoms, claiming tolerance while at the same time fighting to suppress others.
Maybe I do understand, Despite what President Obama says, America is a Christian nation and that drives Liberals crazy.
E-mail: Idaho Conservative Blogger
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama, Senators, Coyotes And Wolves
By Austin Hill
How did President Barack Obama go from a sixty-nine percent approval rating in January of 2009, to being declared “Mr. Unpopular” in Time Magazine last week?
Well, in the context of a succinct, roughly 3000 word editorial, Time Magazine’s Michael Scherer successfully ignored a couple of key words that can help explain the President’s downfall - “wolves,” and “coyotes.”
And if wolves and coyotes are in the mix, then the problem must be somewhere far outside the beltway, likely among the rural Western states, in a place that is either ignored or regarded with contempt by liberal media and Washington bureaucrats – some we can ignore -right?
Indeed the problems are in the West – in the states of Idaho, Montana, and Arizona – and while the problems are region-specific, they point to a broader crisis for the Obama Administration, and illustrate why President Obama continues to offend the moral sensibilities of the American people.
First, let’s look at Arizona.
The Grand Canyon state’s struggle with illegal immigration, and Barack Obama’s lawsuit to punish Arizona for declaring illegal immigration to be “illegal,” are fairly well known (although you may not have heard about the Obama Administration’s second lawsuit in Arizona that was filed just last week – thou shall not disagree with Barack, or thou shall be litigated against).
Over-run public schools, bankrupt hospitals, murder and smuggling have tragically become commonplace in Arizona. So last April Arizona’s two U.S. Senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, asked the Obama Administration for 3,000 additional border patrol agents to be placed on the Arizona/Mexico border.
The smugglers are especially worrisome. Illegally transporting drugs, human beings, and God only knows what kinds of explosives and weaponry, in Arizona these thugs are referred to in the slang vernacular as “coyotes” (pronounced “Keye-yo-tays”). They’re sophisticated, well organized, and dangerous, with radio communications, night vision technology, and just about every other strategic and tactical capability that law enforcement has. And they are gradually winning the turf battle, as they move further north towards America’s fifth largest city, Phoenix.
So in the midst of this crisis, and in response to the Senators’ request, the Federal Government assigned an additional 30 border patrol agents to Arizona (a small fraction of what Kyl and McCain requested), and installed some new road signs.
Yes, “road signs” have been installed to “help” with the assault on Arizona. Some 15 new signs have been put up by the Bureau Of Land Management, warning travelers that they are in an "active drug and human smuggling area" and to beware of "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Oh, and the signs also suggest that you call 911 if you see “suspicious activity.”
Both President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have insisted that the U.S./ Mexico Border is “big,” and cannot be fully secured. Yet our government is spending our money posting signs in Arizona, warning American citizens that they are not safe in their own country.
In Idaho and Montana, coyotes are not so much a problem (at least not smuggler “coyotes”) as are wolves. In fact, the Western Grey Wolf has been especially menacing to ranchers in these states because the wolves exist in huge numbers, and they like to attack, kill, and eat cattle.
In response to this problem, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game put in place a statewide “wolf management” program, to allow for the legal hunting of wolves. This worked pretty well until a federal judge declared the Grey Wolf to be, once again, an “endangered species” back during the first week of August, and ordered the wolf hunting to be halted in both the states of Idaho and Montana.
This in turn prompted Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch to request help from the Department of the Interior. Yet, to date, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (an Obama appointee) has yet to respond to the Idaho wolf crisis (one could imagine the feds installing some new “Beware of the Wolves” road signs in Idaho – but thus far, there’s been no response at all).
The regional problems with wolves and “coyotes” in Idaho and Arizona speak to a broader nationwide problem with our U.S government. With Barack Obama in the White House, our government has insisted on intruding into the most private and personal affairs of our lives, while it cannot (or will not) provide the most basic and essential services that we need.
Worse yet, the Obama government is one that is upholding the needs and interests of illegal aliens over and above those of citizens, and the needs and interests of animals over and above those of human beings. This ideologically driven Administration may seem to be a dream come true for some liberals, but a majority of Americans are seeing it as more of a nightmare.
Nightmarish Presidents are destined to become “Mr. Unpopular.” But it requires some moral reasoning capabilities to understand how horrifying our nightmarish President has become.
Don’t expect Washington – or the liberal media – to understand.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
How did President Barack Obama go from a sixty-nine percent approval rating in January of 2009, to being declared “Mr. Unpopular” in Time Magazine last week?
Well, in the context of a succinct, roughly 3000 word editorial, Time Magazine’s Michael Scherer successfully ignored a couple of key words that can help explain the President’s downfall - “wolves,” and “coyotes.”
And if wolves and coyotes are in the mix, then the problem must be somewhere far outside the beltway, likely among the rural Western states, in a place that is either ignored or regarded with contempt by liberal media and Washington bureaucrats – some we can ignore -right?
Indeed the problems are in the West – in the states of Idaho, Montana, and Arizona – and while the problems are region-specific, they point to a broader crisis for the Obama Administration, and illustrate why President Obama continues to offend the moral sensibilities of the American people.
First, let’s look at Arizona.
The Grand Canyon state’s struggle with illegal immigration, and Barack Obama’s lawsuit to punish Arizona for declaring illegal immigration to be “illegal,” are fairly well known (although you may not have heard about the Obama Administration’s second lawsuit in Arizona that was filed just last week – thou shall not disagree with Barack, or thou shall be litigated against).
Over-run public schools, bankrupt hospitals, murder and smuggling have tragically become commonplace in Arizona. So last April Arizona’s two U.S. Senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, asked the Obama Administration for 3,000 additional border patrol agents to be placed on the Arizona/Mexico border.
The smugglers are especially worrisome. Illegally transporting drugs, human beings, and God only knows what kinds of explosives and weaponry, in Arizona these thugs are referred to in the slang vernacular as “coyotes” (pronounced “Keye-yo-tays”). They’re sophisticated, well organized, and dangerous, with radio communications, night vision technology, and just about every other strategic and tactical capability that law enforcement has. And they are gradually winning the turf battle, as they move further north towards America’s fifth largest city, Phoenix.
So in the midst of this crisis, and in response to the Senators’ request, the Federal Government assigned an additional 30 border patrol agents to Arizona (a small fraction of what Kyl and McCain requested), and installed some new road signs.
Yes, “road signs” have been installed to “help” with the assault on Arizona. Some 15 new signs have been put up by the Bureau Of Land Management, warning travelers that they are in an "active drug and human smuggling area" and to beware of "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Oh, and the signs also suggest that you call 911 if you see “suspicious activity.”
Both President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have insisted that the U.S./ Mexico Border is “big,” and cannot be fully secured. Yet our government is spending our money posting signs in Arizona, warning American citizens that they are not safe in their own country.
In Idaho and Montana, coyotes are not so much a problem (at least not smuggler “coyotes”) as are wolves. In fact, the Western Grey Wolf has been especially menacing to ranchers in these states because the wolves exist in huge numbers, and they like to attack, kill, and eat cattle.
In response to this problem, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game put in place a statewide “wolf management” program, to allow for the legal hunting of wolves. This worked pretty well until a federal judge declared the Grey Wolf to be, once again, an “endangered species” back during the first week of August, and ordered the wolf hunting to be halted in both the states of Idaho and Montana.
This in turn prompted Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch to request help from the Department of the Interior. Yet, to date, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (an Obama appointee) has yet to respond to the Idaho wolf crisis (one could imagine the feds installing some new “Beware of the Wolves” road signs in Idaho – but thus far, there’s been no response at all).
The regional problems with wolves and “coyotes” in Idaho and Arizona speak to a broader nationwide problem with our U.S government. With Barack Obama in the White House, our government has insisted on intruding into the most private and personal affairs of our lives, while it cannot (or will not) provide the most basic and essential services that we need.
Worse yet, the Obama government is one that is upholding the needs and interests of illegal aliens over and above those of citizens, and the needs and interests of animals over and above those of human beings. This ideologically driven Administration may seem to be a dream come true for some liberals, but a majority of Americans are seeing it as more of a nightmare.
Nightmarish Presidents are destined to become “Mr. Unpopular.” But it requires some moral reasoning capabilities to understand how horrifying our nightmarish President has become.
Don’t expect Washington – or the liberal media – to understand.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
