Posts Tagged ‘support’

Obama Tanks With Hispanics AFTER His Traitorous Backdoor Amnesty Plan Announced

August 24, 2011

This might be a truly amazing development.  If this trend continues, I will be forever grateful to American Hispanics:

DOH! Hispanic Approval for Obama at All-Time Low Despite Amnesty Move
By John Hill on August 23, 2011

Barack Obama’s desperate move to rescue the Hispanic vote with his amnesty-by-fiat appears to have gained him nothing, and may have even backfired.

On August 18, the Administration announced that 300,000 illegal aliens would have their deportations “indefinitely delayed”, and would also become eligible for “work permits”. The move, termed “backdoor amnesty” by U.S. House leaders Lamar Smith and Peter King, was widely viewed as a transparent attempt to shore up the Hispanic vote before the 2012 elections.

If that’s true, so far it’s an EPIC FAIL: a Gallup poll taken after his amnesty decree showed that Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics fell to its lowest point on record – 44% – 5 % lower than just one week earlier, and a whopping 41% drop since the 85% high soon after Obama took office.

Obama’s advisers appear to have believed the propaganda of their own allies at La Raza (“The Race”) that ALL Hispanics support amnesty for illegals. But that is not the case, as we saw last year after Arizona passed its tough S.B. 1070 immigration law. The Denver Post polled Coloradans next door regarding whether they would like to see a similar crackdown on illegals pass in their own state. 61% said yes. But surprisingly (to the Denver Post), Colorado Hispanics said yes with an even higher margin: 62%.

In Arizona, the media asked LEGAL Hispanic immigrants what they thought of illegal ones. Most gave opinions that surprised liberal commentators – that they opposed illegal immigration and amnesty. Immigrants in this news report summed up the feelings of many:

“We have millions of people from all over the world who want to come here legally, and can’t, because we already have millions of illegals here taking their place. We need to make sure that those who want to come here legally go to the front of the line.”Carlos Cardenas (Legal immigrant and veteran from Panama)

“People say you’re a traitor: they’re your people. And I say ‘No they’re not my people…my people are honorable people who remain (in Mexico).’”Anna Gaines (Legal immigrant from Mexico)

And no wonder. Few are more adversely impacted by illegal aliens than LEGAL immigrants, who compete unfavorably with them for jobs, since they play by the rules and are often priced out of work as a result. And despite the media hype about “record deportations under Obama”, the fact is that the majority of those deportations occurred close to the border, where most of them easily come right back in (like these illegals). And America’s 20 million unemployed are forced to compete with illegals as well, as workplace enforcement has dropped a stunning 70% under Obama. Little or no action is being taken against illegal workers under Obama.

And even for Hispanics who DO support amnesty for illegals, many of them simply don’t believe Obama’s lies anymore. They know he had a ‘Super Majority’ for two entire years, yet did little to push through “immigration reform”. And now suddenly – desperately, as he runs for re-election – Obama is trying to win them back with his “backdoor amnesty” order. So far, it appears to be no sale.

For Americans who respect the rule of law, we can only hope that this trend of plummeting support for the lawless Obama continues right into November 2012 – which cannot come soon enough.

PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION of $10.70 (or any amount your prefer) to Stand With Arizona in honor of SB1070, to help us continue to fight against illegal alien amnesty and push for Arizona-style enforcement laws nationwide: DONATE link. Thank you.

There’s another story that is just beautiful:

California Hispanics Favor Arizona-Type Law For Their State Too
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
by Denny Hartford

Though Colorado Democrats and their pals in the press are trying to downplay (even discredit) a Denver Post poll which asked Coloradans about illegal immigration, the results were compelling. For despite all of the biased reporting the liberal media across the nation has done on the new Arizona law, most citizens of her neighbor to the northeast like very much what Arizona did.

And they’d like it to be the law in Colorado too!

A Denver Post/9News poll conducted in conjunction with The Tribune showed most Colorado voters would like to see the state adopt a similar immigration law to that passed by Arizona.

And note this — a higher percentage of Hispanic voters (62 %) would support a law similar to the one in Arizona in Colorado than would whites (61 %). Interesting. It shows that most Hispanic-Americans understand the Arizona law isn’t about racism or even opposition to immigration. It’s about a state trying to curb illegal immigration only.

Also, the breakdown of the poll results showed a majority of Coloradans supporting an Arizona-type law in all categories: Denver residents (58%), younger citizens (58%), college grads (56%), etc.

Of course, the news is out that the Obama administration is going to challenge the Arizona law in court. But as this poll shows, it’s just one more example of how the President is not only out of step with American citizens, he flat out doesn’t care.

I used to work with a couple of Hispanic women who loved America with a passion that I dare say surpassed my own – and I literally went to COMBAT for America.  Nothing made Sylvia and Esmerelda more angry than illegal immigration and Hispanics who came to this country for handouts. 

Sylvia came from El Salvador, and Esmerelda came from Nicaragua.  Both women came to America legally, and both escaped from miserable conditions in their countries for vastly better lives in America. 

And both women were enraged by fellow Hispanics whom they saw as trying to bring the very hell they had escaped from to the America that they loved and to which they were grateful and loyal citizens.

Sylvia’s son served his country as a Marine in Afghanistan through three combat tours.  He’s home now, safe and sound, but when we worked together Sylvia, Esmerelda and I would pray for his safety every morning before work, and again every evening before going home.  Sylvia enlisted me to pray because she knew I was an outspoken Christian and she knew that I was a veteran – and both things made me okay in her book. 

So I know from personal experience that such noble Hispanics as they are out there.  But it gladdens my heart to see that they might be out there in larger numbers than I dared dream.

Advertisements

The Catastrophic Obama Failure That The Mainstream Media Forgot (As Predicted)

July 16, 2010

First, let us review.  Reflect on the January earthquake that left Haiti a disaster zone.  Obama promised Haiti that “You will not be forsaken.”  Obama promised “unwavering support.”  Obama promised an “all-out relief effort.”

For the record, I promised that Obama would be a total failure.  I also promised that the media – which is so completely in the tank for Obama that we have to go back to Tass and the USSR to find a parallel – would give Obama a pass on his failure.

Who was right?  I was, of course.

USA  TODAY
July 12, 2010 Monday
FINAL EDITION
NEWS; Pg. 1A

In Haiti, ‘we’re headed for a catastrophe’;
Six months after quake, many barriers to recovery

Ingrid Arnesen and Marisol Bello

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Six months after a devastating earthquake flattened Haiti’s capital city, little has changed for Ernst Leo and his 7-year-old daughter, Therissa.

Every night, they crawl into a cramped tent barely big enough to hold a mattress and their few belongings.

For six months, they have lived on the street in a once-thriving middle-class neighborhood. Every day, they hustle for basic necessities. Their bathroom is in the home of a neighbor whose house is still standing, their evening light comes from Leo’s cellphone and their meals from other families who live in nearby tents.

Leo, 33, a computer technician, wonders how much longer they have to live this way or where else they can go.

His wife of 12 years and older daughter died in the earthquake. His house, like most buildings that collapsed, remains a heap of concrete and debris.

“Since January 12th, I’ve never received any aid,” Leo says in French. “Ever since this dramatic event, it’s like life has no meaning anymore. Nothing has changed in six months.”

Six months to the day since a magnitude-7.0 earthquake leveled 60% of the city’s buildings and killed 230,000 people, there are few visible signs of improvement.

Buildings destroyed by the earthquake lie where they collapsed. The presidential palace, which became a worldwide symbol of the devastation, remains a gleaming heap of concrete
.

One of the biggest challenges is helping the estimated 1.5 million people who were left homeless. More than 1,300 makeshift camps sprang up after the earthquake. Food and housing are scarce and expensive, even for the few, like Leo, still working.

“It’s an emergency response still,” says Mary Kate MacIsaac, a spokeswoman in Haiti for the Christian relief group World Vision. “We are still meeting the basic needs of people in these camps … but it’s not sustainable. We need to transition into the recovery or the long-term goal.”

Frustration is high among Haitians and aid groups who say they see halting and haphazard progress toward recovery.

And all of those 1300 camps should be given names relating to Obama as Failure-in-Chief.  Camp Hopey.  Camp Changey.  Camp Hussein.  Camp Gitmo.  And so on.

Barack Obama is an empty suit.  The only things he can do is attend a racist, Marxist, anti-American church for twenty years and read off a teleprompter screen.  Other than that, he is a completely useless fool.

Obama was a failure in Haiti from the very start.

Allow me to reproduce much of my January article in order to once again expose Barack Obama and the mainstream media:

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy
By Michael Eden

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

Obama made all sorts of grandiose promises to help devastated Haiti.  But it is an obvious, glaring FACT that he never bothered to even try to live up to them.  As in so many other occasions, Obama took advantage of the media spotlight to garner attention for himself, and then walked away.

And a media that is more like the party-propaganda machine controlled by Joseph Goebbels than it is the independent watchdog envisioned by the founding fathers has let him do it.

Because they are as dishonest as he is.

It’s an amazing picture today.  The NAACP – nakedly revealing itself as an ideological tool for the left – comes out and demagogues the Tea Party for racism, referring to poster signs that don’t exist, statements that have never been made, and events that never happened, as “proof.”  The NAACP cites the racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at black congressmen by Tea Party members, and an alleged spitting incident involving Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.  It doesn’t matter that even Cleaver went out of his way to distance himself from any claim that he was spat upon.  Nor does it matter that, with literally thousands of recording devices, no one has ever produced any evidence that racial epithets were used at that event.  Or that cameras that clearly were in position to capture the claimed racial epithets proved that nothing racial was actually said.  The charge itself becomes the only “proof.”  Which is profoundly anti-American.  Meanwhile that same organization won’t bother to point out the vicious, hateful racism of Samir Shabazz and the New Black Panthers.

And all the while these events are swirling around, Barack Obama is allowing unknown numbers of poor, oppressed, helpless black people in Haiti to suffer and die.

It’s long passed time that Barack Obama be held accountable for his failures and his false promises involving Haiti. And it’s also long passed time that the American people hold responsible the mainstream media that has become nothing but a propagandist tool.

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Anne Bayefsky yesterday characterized Obama’s foreign policy as “the mouse who roared.”

Words don’t mean anything unless a leader has the character, integrity, courage, and resolve to stand behind them.

In July 15, 2008, candidate Obama roared regarding Afghanistan:

I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month,” Obama proclaimed in a major foreign policy address on July 15, 2008. “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

But now, just six months later, Obama is hiding from his generals and refusing to even LOOK AT his own General’s (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) troop request which will be necessary to carry out Obama’s own strategy.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Obama doesn’t even want to look at it yet.

Here’s the current situation:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:

“Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.”

Here’s the current situation:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House. Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday he isn’t ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

Here’s the current situation:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

The roaring mouse has been replaced by a timid, weak, pandering, patronizing, appeasing – and most certainly DITHERING – president.

Bush used to talk to his troop commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq every week; Obama has spoken JUST ONCE with Gen. McChrystal in the last seventy days.

Obama has spent more time talking with David Letterman than he has his key general in Afghanistan!!!

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

Which answers the question as to why our troops so overwhelmingly supported Bush, and sat on their hands when their new commander-in-chief addressed them.

Charles Krauthammer points out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Reminds me of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said, “I believe myself that … this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.”  Reminds me of Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn openly acknowledging the fact that good news for American troops in Iraq would actually be bad news for Democrats.

The party of cut-and-run is already preparing to cutand run.  On the war they said we needed to fight and win in their campaign rhetoric.

By the way, Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” is right here.  Nearly a year to the day after Obama said “This is a war we need to win,” Obama said (you can go here for the interview):

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

Well, first of all, Obama is factually wrong in his history: Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender to MacArthur.  Secondly, he is utterly morally wrong in his foreign policy.

Let’s compare Obama’s refusal to pursue victory with the strategic vision of a great president:

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s America: winner; Obama’s America: loser.

Let’s turn now to Obama’s abject failure in Iran.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama roared:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran already has them at their whim.

And  in The Jerusalem Post, we get a picture of the REAL Obama:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama had a historic opportunity at the United Nations gathering: he was the first American president EVER to serve as the chair of the UN Security Council.  He had the power to shape the agenda, and confront Iran over its now overwhelmingly clear nuclear weapons program.

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

Anne Bayefsky described how Obama utterly failed to force any kind of showdown with Iran – even when the opportunity was literally handed to him.  She concludes by saying, “There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Remember that pandering, appeasing, pathetic weakness when Iran gets the bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it.  Remember that when they launch wave after wave of terror attack with impunity.  Remember that when they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send the price of gasoline skyrocketing to $15 a gallon.

As for Israel?

Only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis believe Obama hasn’t sold them down the river; by contrast, 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.

Hearkening back to the Carter Administration which Obama’s frighteningly resembles, Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia is a better friend of Israel than the United States.

I believe God will supernaturally protect Israel when they are attacked by an enemy that will be emboldened because of American abandonment of Israel and a perception of American weakness.

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

I had crystal clear clarity when I heard that Barack Obama’s pastor of 23 years shouted:

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America, God damn America!”

And Barack Obama’s incredibly weak and pandering response was that:

Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

I believe that God WILL damn America under this President.  And I believe that that damnation has already began.

A Time to Ponder: If US Attacked Again, Will We Still Favor Obama’s Dismantling Of Bush Safeguards?

September 11, 2009

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action.  Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack.  And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.  We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001.  Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

Democrat Jack Murtha denounced as war criminals and murderers Marines who were later proven to have been innocent.  Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  Democrats openly attacked Bush’s “surge” strategy that proved to be the difference in turning the war around and providing victory for the United States.  And Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Now I believe myself that this war is lost” even as our military was valiantly fighting on foreign soil to win.  Barack Obama joined Democrats in voting to defund the troops fighting overseas as a means of politically undermining George Bush.  Democrats denounced the credibility of General Petraeus even as liberals ran a New York Times ad entitled, “General Betray Us?”

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.”  Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.”  We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack.  Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays.  Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

As I reflect on the hours of that terrible day of 9/11, I remember Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets and holding up ‘V for Victory’ gestures.  I remember people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the skyscrapers rather than endure the heat that would have murdered them even more agonizingly.  I remember Democrats and Republicans arm-in-arm singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol Building – at least until Democrats determined to undermine virtually everything they had previously supported.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I just wonder what will happen if we are attacked again.  How will we respond?  What will we want?  How will we demand our president act?

Will Americans say, “We agree with President Obama.  Let us hasten our dismantling of our intelligence apparatus to show the world our good will.”  Or will there be a dramatic swing back to the strategy envisioned and implemented by former President George Bush, based on aggressively taking the fight to the enemy, remaining in those fights, and winning them?

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today.  Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming.  And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama?  Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation?  Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead?  Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack?  What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran.  Is such a country a threat?  Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them?  The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time.  One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  What do we want our president to do about it?  Everything?  Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.