Americas Primary Grievance with President Obama.

I love polls and statistics and because I love them, I have a very strict view on how they should be conducted and how the information should be gathered. I detest oversampling of key groups and the proper wording of questions is essential. The result can be inaccurate results or in some cases the intentional delivery of flawed results for the purpose of swaying public opinon. So when a Yahoo.com poll shows President Obama leading over Romney among "Nascar Fans" me thinks the bologna detection kit needs to be recalibrated.

Now aside from the results of polls, and the gathering methods used to compile them, their are the issues that provide the context for these results. People answer according to their beliefs, passions, creeds, ideologies, and in some cases ignorance. An avalanche of opinion polls exist all asking regeistered and likely voters, "Who do you support, Obama or Romney?"  Now once you get the results, the mud starts flying in both directions. "Your a racist!", "Wipe off that Kool-Aid mustache",
"Blood Sucking Capitalist", "Occupy Moocher" and the list goes on till Greta gives the last call.

And so without tapping into a resovoir of prepared quick quips and a volume of venoumous vocabulary I will share my opinion as to why I think many Americans "really" oppose President Obama. Dinesh Desouza in the documentary "2016" presented Presidents Obamas upbringing and provided the context needed to understand the influences that created his world view. Their are many reasons why people don't agree with his policies. They believe the policies are socialist or marxist in nature ( which I also believe) The more Americans discover what redistribution is, the more they resist it. But the personal aspect remains unaddressed. If it's not bias fueled racisim, what is it?

It's simple, Barack Obama can't take No for an answer.

It's not any more sophisticated or complex than that. When President Obama makes a decision, it's made. It's final. If Arizona passes an immigration law, he brings suit against the state through the Justice Department. He's done so with Texas, and Alabama as well. While he demeans others for their lack of bi-partisan efforts, he himself is the most partisan of all. He verbally derides his opponets publically. Just ask Paul Ryan and the Supreme Court Justices. When sixty-three percent of the country was not in favor of the new healthcare legislation, he did all that he could to broker votes from on the fence Democrats and gave us Obama Care anyway. When heads of state request a meeting with him, he chooses a guest spot on David Letterman instead.

When it comes to energy jobs, he aborts the keystone pipeline, and imposes a six month moritorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico. When he told House Republicans "elections have consequences" he meant it. If he can't get legislation passed to his liking, he bypasses congress and uses exectutive order. With exectutive orders the President has eliminated the welfare work requirement, and ordered ICE and and INS to disregard existing federal law. He makes recess appointments to the judiciary while congress is not in recess. All of these things help show the character and resolve of our president and so to put them in perspective, I offer the following question:

If President Obama was losing at a game of Monopoly, he would:

A. Quit
B. Cheat
C. Rake the pieces off the board
D. All of the above

If it's not intentional it's...

September 6th, President Obama gave his speech at the Democrat National Committee and received his party's nomination. The next morning, The Blaze released a story showing photos of the President's upcoming campaign stop at the University of Iowa. An American flag two stories tall was left on the ground during preparation for the event. University staff denied being connected with the advance campaign team but made special mention that the flag was never on the ground. It was on a tarp and the tarp was lying on the ground. I hear a resounding "It doesn't matter!" from patriots everywhere. To people who hold the flag of the United States of America sacred, leaving a flag on the ground is not a mere faux pas. It's a deep rooted offense.

But the disrespect to our national colors didn't end there. An inferno of anti American sentiment has erupted in the middle east region. Well their is no question about the intentions. The attack on the U.S embassy in Egypt wasn't a blunder by a decoration crew. It was a full blown assault, as was the attack on our embassy in Libya. Footage of the attacks show our flag being burned, shredded and ripped asunder. When Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the tearing and burning of our flag served as a forewarning, a prophecy almost, that their lives would be lost.


So lets recap. We have an immense blunder by a campaign crew that revealed the indifference of a few. We have thirty or more countries using Old Glory as a means to convey their hatred of us. In my last post, I covered some of the reasoning for that hatred and I don't think that the burning effigies of President Obama by middle east protesters are over a YouTube video.

Now reports are surfacing that the Obama Campaign has created a fundraiser image. The American flag used as a template, the stars removed and in their place, the Obama "O" symbol and the red stripes made to look like streaks and smears. Now their are videos circling the net of President Obama talking about redistribution and collectivism and the symbolism of his new flag isn't going to help. Fifty stars, one for each state and President Obama replaces the representation of those states with his own logo?  Undoubtedly what will happen is we will be assured that the President had no input or prior knowledge of the image. If that is the case, it won't stop Americans from coming to the following conclusions: If President Obama loved the United States Flag or even cared for it, then the incident in Iowa would have resulted in a change of policy, a sensitivity to patriots and potential voters alike. If President Obama understood the connection between the life of the Patriot and reverence for the flag are like conjoined twins, he could empathize with the American public as they watch other nations burn their flag. If President Obama believed in America, he would reverence the flag instead of trying to conform it to his image.

Calling in Well or It's the humane thing to do.

     News reports are coming out about a potential release of a convicted criminal. This individual is sick and in poor health. He is advanced in years and serving his remaining years in captivity is inhumane, and wrong. Well actually a few corrections need to be made. For starters, the reports are coming, but not  from the associated press or mainline cable news networks. It's in the blagosphere and twitter. Another is that the identity of the prisoner is Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. Yes  the one and the same Omar Abdel Rahman that orchestrated the World Trade Center bombing in New York in 1993. (Bush must have been behind that too)  So while Mr. Rahman may be blind and infirm and in poor health, would the majority of Americans favor releasing him?

Well to answer that, lets also add who is pressing for his release. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their current President Mohamed Morsi. "Well isn't that special?" (Dana Carvey- SNL Teacher Lady)  Now before I venture any further, let me clear up some brewing misconceptions that readers might have. I'm not anti Muslim, or Anti Arab. I'm not opposed to his release because Rahman is committed to Islam or any other faith structure. I am opposed to his release because it would be no different than releasing Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy. I list Bundy because his confession and conversion to Christianity does not entitle him to receive less justice. Charles Manson shouldn't go free because his state of mind is in perpetual flux, and Timothy McVeigh (If he were alive) would not be deserving of special consideration because of a frail physique.

A similar situation occurred  on August 29th 2009. Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the bomber of Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed in Lockerbie Scotland, was released due to medical reasons involving his diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The UK officials were told that Megrahi was terminal but upon his release responded well to additional treatment and showed signs of recovery. He actually just passed away May 20th 2012. Regardless of his recovery, Libya got what it wanted, the release of a convicted terrorist. Megrahi was welcomed home to Libya as a hero. A hero that killed 270 innocent people.

So now back to the question? Would Americans favor the release of Rahman? I don't think so. U.S ambassador Christ Stevens didn't receive any humane treatment when he was attacked and murdered by a mob of protesters. If you want an indication of just how weak the world perceives America to be and how easy it is for those abroad to intimidate our President, consider the audacity and gall it takes for a foreign leader to ask a country to release a man who tried to make 9-11 happen in 1993 and this request comes days after citizens of Egypt stormed our embassy and burned our flag to ashes and set in motion the attacks at the Libya embassy. And Obama says that at times "America has shown arrogance." (April 3rd 2009)

Does Motive Matter?

             Looking back this week, after all that has transpired, so many theories and accusations going around. We barely have time to research each one and contemplate their logical consequences. What we know for a fact is that four Americans came home draped under the same flag that is being burned across the Middle East. Is it the video? Is it a deep seeded hatred among extreme Muslims that  can't stand us as a nation and our very way of life is offensive to them?

 Every cable program is going over the time line and asking questions about who knew what, and when did they know it. I only want to know one thing. Why blame the video at all?
By making the video the source of the ire and offense, it doesn't disprove that extremists don't hate America. It just means they have another reason to add to the list. For the sake of argument, let's say it was the video alone. Now were up against a First Amendment wall. If the video is the cause but the U.S constitution prevents the government from doing anything about it...then they will hate us for who we are and all that our way of life represents.

I don't aspire to the conspiracy theories and I try not to as a rule. But I do wonder. If all eyes in Libya were on the embassy and consolate building, who was watching the tons of chemical weapons that Qudaffi had prior to Libya performing it's coup against him?


The more questions we ask, the more worried we become because truthfully, neither scenario is settling in the least. Either were dealing with a religion and culture that can't take any form of criticism without dispensing murder and mayhem, or were dealing with an enemy crafty enough to let us believe thats the case while they plan something more insideous. So whats the course of action? Convince Youtube that censorship is needed to preserve the greater good or perhaps we should discover our roots in procedural justice. Simply put, we don't care why you stormed our embassy, and we don't care what your motive or reasoning was. The fact is it happened and Justice is blind. That means she can't view the content of a Youtube video.