President Barack Obama promised to change Washington and boy has he done just that.
Gone are the days when level-headed George W. Bush made sound decisions that kept America safe for seven and a half years; decisions that caused the extreme left wing media to criticize the then-President for making the world hate us.
Now far-left Commander and Chief Barack Obama makes crazy decisions that leave all Americans in danger; decisions that cause the extreme left wing media to applaud the current President for uniting the world in harmony.
Already President Obama has dropped all charges against USS Cole bomber Tariq Al-Nasir Rahaman. (Okay, that's not his name, but I bet most of you didn't even realize it and I don't feel like looking it up.)
And of course it's considered improper etiquette to criticize the President, especially if you once held a similar position.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned that the closing of Gitmo could have catastrophic consequences; a warning that has Democrats up in arms.
"How dare the Vice President break the unwritten rule that prevents former Presidents and Vice Presidents from admonishing their successors! I mean, if you don't include Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, no former Democrat President or Vice President has spoken ill of a Republican in the White House."
"It's especially insulting because Mr. Cheney said something as tawdry as, 'I don't think President Obama should make decisions that put the lives of Americans in grave danger.'"
The Democrats are throwing a hissy-fit over the equivalent of former Vice President Cheney saying, "I don't think it's a good idea" in response to President Obama allowing a group of Al-Qaeda members to enter the country with a nuclear weapon. (Is a group of Al-Qaeda members referred to as a "group" or a "herd"? We'll go with "gaggle" until we figure out the proper terminology.)
The major retort by liberals when asked, "How does releasing a gaggle of Al-Qaeda members into the wild make America safer?" is "It just will."
There is no rhyme or reason behind arguments made by liberals regarding National Security, so they attempt to get by with their version of, "Because I said so."
But why do they stop with terrorists? America has a problem with gangs; why are liberals not calling for the release of gang bangers from prison? I can picture Nancy Pelosi saying, "If we show them we are willing to let them get away with felonious assault, maybe they will stop committing felonious assault."
We could wipe out crime completely if we simply let all criminals get away with the crimes we're trying to stop them from committing!
Wow, these Democrats are smart!
Now that Obama is President, America will be transformed from a nation that refuses to negotiate with terrorists, to a nation that refuses to capture terrorists.
"What did you do?" a Federal Prosecutor will ask a man with dark skin. "I tried to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah," the terrorist will respond. "Oh, you're free to go. That's a relief, for a second I thought you lied to a Federal Grand Jury about the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. You stick with that killing innocent Americans thing, because steroids could get you in a lot of trouble."
I recently viewed a PSA regarding the dangers of steroids, perhaps President Obama is thinking about producing commercials to air on Al-Jazeera warning Muslims about the risks of getting involved with terrorism. He did do his first interview with Al-Jazeera after all.
The problem is, now that we're going to make it easy for terrorists to operate without fear of American resistance, there really is no danger in becoming a terrorist.
Ideally Democrats would like everyone to stop bringing up the annoying little fact that they're making America less safe while they continue putting innocent men, women and children at risk in an effort to appease their base.
After all, if there miraculously is no attack under Obama's watch the Democrats will have killed two birds with one (Nerf) stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment