President Obama promised voters steady diet of “Hope & Change” upon his election to the Presidency of the United States. As it pertains to the ongoing saga known as the ‘War against Terror’, he has more than delivered upon the latter part of that pledge. First, his administration boldly announced that it would no longer employ the term “terrorist” when seeking to describe those whose objective is to murder innocent civilians in cold blood on US soil. Apparently, the term, as used under prior administrations, grievously offended would-be terrorist organizations and/or those who consider noble the desire to commit mass atrocities in strategically planned acts of chilling brutality. Consequently, President Obama has mandated “change”–renewed sensitivity in our ongoing national dialogue with terrorist organizations, lest we hurt their feelings, or dampen their self-image. Not only, in fact, must we alter our vocabulary to improve our image of terrorists, but President Obama insists we seek to engage in substantive dialogue terrorist nations that explicitly hate both Israel and the United States–and which secretly plot to make use of a widespread array of opportunities to bring about our mutual destruction. This is what happens when a naÃ¯ve, though perhaps well-intended, community organizer is elected to the highest office in the land–the world’s laundry list of problems is subjected to an agenda that resembles a quasi-global affirmative action program.
President Obama signaled further the need for change(s) during his recent visit to allied nations from Europe and the Middle East. Mr. Obama profusely apologized for actions committed by the US in the name of the alleged ‘War on Terror’, and any harm or damage that such acts may have caused to our international reputation. The apparent logic is that the US, as a global citizen, must now publicly lament the fact that for the past eight years it has sought vigilantly to protect itself from foreign threats against its own citizens while on US soil. Mr. Obama, from the perspective as a seasoned community organizer, seems to suggest that that a campaign of terror is waged, not by those who seek to kill innocent civilians, but by nations–like the US–which seek to prevent such acts from occurring in the first place. Consequently, Mr. Obama has decried and disavowed the use of techniques that are likely to be entirely necessary, as tools in our arsenal, to effectively combat an enemy so relentless and so dangerous that, at this very moment, it is ready to strike against American targets, including civilians.
President Obama has sent further signals which clearly demonstrate the convoluted logic as contained in his dubious campaign for change in the ‘War on Terror’–one which might be laughable if it were not so downright dangerous. In meeting the Queen of England for the first time, he simply nodded his head, a mere acknowledgement of her presence. However, to the King of Saudi Arabia he demonstrated a servile deference: jumping from his chair and demonstrably enthused, he physically bowed before the royal personage. Overlooking the fact that bowing is not accepted in that culture–and that Obama looked completely foolish–why would the President of the United States display such weakness before a known sponsor of terror?
The most recent signal that the Obama administration is on the wrong track is its stark redefinition of what defines a ‘terror suspect’, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security. Under its new operative definition, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and perhaps even Gandhi would be considered terror suspects. Individuals who believe that life begins at conception (e.g., primarily deeply religious individuals whose moral convictions lead them to decry the murder of any innocent person), who recently served in the military (e.g., those who fought and bled for this great nation), as well as those who–none too frighteningly–consider state and local governments preferable and/or more effective than the Federal government. (It is interesting to note that President Barack Obama as a community organizer sought to engage local communities in an effort to solve problems the Federal government could not address effectively). The Obama administration is now wasting valuable tax dollars in an economic slump tracking groups of people who represent no threat to the US government, meaning that actual threats are being ignored.
Rather than denote change in any way that might be considered helpful or constructive to this nation in its ongoing fight against organized terror, President Obama has signaled to our enemies that the US is at her weakest hour, perfectly willing to relinquish the fight, and begging to be struck with full force. That is precisely the message that Barack Obama is sending to our worst enemies. The likelihood that US citizens will have to suffer another terror attack(s) of a proportion not before witnessed on US soil is now significantly greater due to changes instituted by Barack Obama. When thousands more die in a terrorist attack(s) that could have been prevented, those who blindly follow without questioning, Barack Obama to this abyss will have no one but themselves and their leader to blame.