America Was Supposed to Be Safer with Obama

America Was Supposed to Be Safer with Obama

Remember how we were told that America would be safer with Barack Obama as our president?  After all, he is a Muslim, er, knows and appreciates Islam unlike the xenophobic fascist demagogue George Bush.

Indeed, President Obama has gone on an Apology Tour for America, bashing the nation he leads where ever he goes, bowing to every foreigner he can find.  He has done all that any American president could do to humiliate our nation before the world and then some.

And yet terrorists like the Underwear Bomber continues to hate us.   How could this strategy have failed?

Well, it failed for the same reason patriotic Americans opposed this limp-wristed posture from the start: envious anti-American despots are always going to hate us.  As long as our nation is free, as long as our nation opposes evil, as long as our nation has even a facade of capitalism, as long as the neck of America is not firmly under the boot of oppressive thugs, we will always be hated by the enemies of freedom.

We can either deal with that reality and stand firm against tyranny…or we can pretend appeasement may someday actually work, and more people can continue to die worldwide.

The choice is ours…and it will be exercised in 2010 and 2012.

Enhanced by Zemanta

10 Responses to “America Was Supposed to Be Safer with Obama”

  1. I am not a big fan of the appeasement tactics, but the question posed is' are we safer so far under Obama than say…. the prior administration.You are right, these zealots are always going to hate us, but the only way we have of tallying up if we are safer or not is by data, because the rest is subjective. If you look at the total number of American lives lost under the last administration compared to the current, then you would have to say the data, the facts, reveal we are safer.

  2. There isn't yet sufficient history to make the same pound-for-pound comparison in lives lost.

    For one thing, we'd be comparing less than one year to eight years.

    Also, Bush inherited the Clinton defense strategy of stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-the-threat-will-go-away which resulted in 911…and Obama has inherited the more aggressive albeit frequently flawed approach and atmosphere created by Bush.

    Unfortunately we can already tell (and could before last year's election) that Obama is not only going to utilize the Clinton approach, but will throw in a hearty dash of groveling and appeasement–an incredibly dangerous combination in a world that we agree will always be eager to hit us.

  3. I agree that no comparison can be made, but the title suggested we are not more safe and there isn't any data to say one way or the other right now.I am at least somewhat encouraged that we are now focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we know a lot of these delusional scumbags are training and holding out.

  4. The title is based on the bill of goods sold to America by Team Obama during the election last year. We were told that if we just “understood” our enemies and were all sweet to them, all would be wonderful. Many of us knew then that was bull, and after a year of bashing America and bowing, it's been proved bull.

    We have to fight these dirtbags everywhere, including the places you mentioned, but there are more than a few of these Jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere.

  5. Agree totally. Hope you get to watch Nova tonight on PBS channel. Great expose on evolution:-)

  6. I am not a big fan of the appeasement tactics, but the question posed is' are we safer so far under Obama than say…. the prior administration.You are right, these zealots are always going to hate us, but the only way we have of tallying up if we are safer or not is by data, because the rest is subjective. If you look at the total number of American lives lost under the last administration compared to the current, then you would have to say the data, the facts, reveal we are safer.

  7. There isn't yet sufficient history to make the same pound-for-pound comparison in lives lost.

    For one thing, we'd be comparing less than one year to eight years.

    Also, Bush inherited the Clinton defense strategy of stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-the-threat-will-go-away which resulted in 911…and Obama has inherited the more aggressive albeit frequently flawed approach and atmosphere created by Bush.

    Unfortunately we can already tell (and could before last year's election) that Obama is not only going to utilize the Clinton approach, but will throw in a hearty dash of groveling and appeasement–an incredibly dangerous combination in a world that we agree will always be eager to hit us.

  8. I agree that no comparison can be made, but the title suggested we are not more safe and there isn't any data to say one way or the other right now.I am at least somewhat encouraged that we are now focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we know a lot of these delusional scumbags are training and holding out.

  9. The title is based on the bill of goods sold to America by Team Obama during the election last year. We were told that if we just “understood” our enemies and were all sweet to them, all would be wonderful. Many of us knew then that was bull, and after a year of bashing America and bowing, it's been proved bull.

    We have to fight these dirtbags everywhere, including the places you mentioned, but there are more than a few of these Jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere.

  10. Agree totally. Hope you get to watch Nova tonight on PBS channel. Great expose on evolution:-)