The election of 2008 was no doubt an historic event in American history.
We elected the first multi-racial president who has lived in various countries amongst many different religions and cultures â€“ a man who grew up in the Muslim faith as well as the Christian faith. He also received one of the finest educations available.
Given his background, there are many questions about where Barack Obama's true allegiance lies. However, one thing we do know for an absolute fact: Barak Obama is 100 percent lawyer. He was trained as a lawyer, thinks like a lawyer, acts like a lawyer and is a lawyer. Thus, he views everything through lawyer's eyes.
To a lawyer like Barack Obama, terrorism is a legal issue, not a war. He views terrorism much like Bill Clinton did. Clinton had no "legal" position to hold Osama bin Laden when we had him in our grip. There was no charge Clinton could file, so he let him go. Within a few short years we experienced the horror of Sept. 11. Why? It was a lawyer's approach to a problem â€“ a legal problem he felt the courts should adjudicate.
Is it smart to allow known terrorists to lawyer up and see if a sharp, wing-tipped lawyer can find a technicality and get the terrorist released? Should Clinton have ignored the lethal potential of a sworn enemy of this country because, in his mind, he had no legal authority?
Haven't we seen enough innocent children suffer the pain of similar warped thinking when a well-trained lawyer with the help of a liberal judge releases a child molester back on to the streets to rape again? Or when brave border patrol officers go to jail while a confessed drug trafficker is released on a technicality? Or when illegal aliens who break the law are rewarded with food and health care instead of a trip to jail and a one-way ticket back to their own country?
Is anyone really willing to take the issue of terrorism out of the hands of the military and place it in the hands of the lawyers? Do we really believe liberal judges and lawyers can be trusted with America's safety given the track record they have earned with repeat offenders.
Mr. Obama wants us to believe Gitmo is a tool of recruitment for al-Qaida. So he proposes to close Gitmo and transfer the prisoners to Supermax to eliminate this alleged tool for recruitment? He cannot be serious! The conditions at Supermax are a bit more hostile than the accommodations at Guantanamo. Yet the jihadists will be appeased?
Mr. Obama would have you believe that Gitmo keeps the enemy from surrendering in the field knowing they will be sent to our prison in Cuba. But surrender can be expected if the promise of Supermax awaits them? Barack Obama is delusional.
Hey, don't get upset. That is how lawyers think. They convince themselves, then present their convictions with a convincing argument that what they propose will produce positive results. But there's one problem. Each of those words start with "con." The stock-in-trade of a good lawyer: Con the jury; con the judge. Do what it takes to get your client off.
They say in a courtroom, the first thing to die is the truth. Can we afford that approach when we are talking about terrorists who have sworn with the promise of their very lives to destroy our nation?
Mr. Obama is careful to say he will not release those who would be a "threat" to America. Leaving a tremendous amount of room to release many who are "not a threat"? Whose definition of "threat" are we using?
How about the military? The folks who fight, bleed and die to keep our nation safe. I prefer to trust their judgment, not the lawyers. How about you? They are fighting the terrorists every day. They don't pontificate about them in air conditioned law offices in Chicago. They live amongst them in the 120 degree heat of the middle Eastern desert. They watch their every move knowing to not do so is certain death.
Make no mistake about it America: You have a lawyer in the White House, not a leader. He's a lawyer who uses the law when it is convenient for his agenda.
He ignored contract law when transferring the equity
of GM to the unions while simultaneously wiping out the bondholders. Yet he cites the law to convey rights to terrorists in the U.S. court system.
Can the country afford to have such a subjective use of the law by a single man who is not held accountable by Congress or the press? Both sides of the aisle allow Mr. Obama's decisions to go unchallenged for fear they will be seen as unpatriotic. During the Bush years it was patriotic to challenge every move the president made, yet just the opposite applies today?
What Mr. Obama is doing without any critical analysis should concern every American. Where is the civil debate on the issues? Where is the press? Should we allow Barack Obama to use the law according to his personal choices with no regard for the Constitution?
There is no doubt the stagecraft of this administration is a sight to behold. Mr. Obama is on TV several times every day. He gives speeches that mesmerize viewers while advancing some very dangerous policy â€“ crafted by a lawyer, not a leader. He makes closing arguments like the finest trial lawyer and leaves the jury spellbound. But what about the truth and the Constitution?
Yes, we have had an historic event in America that should make us all proud. We have overcome years of backward thinking. But left unchecked, we may lose all we have gained if the separation of powers our founders depended upon for accountability do not kick in â€“ and soon.
We can forget about expecting the press to do the job. They died during the election when they drank the Kool-Aid of their new messiah until they overdosed. Therefore We the People must support the members of Congress and the media who are willing to challenge this unchecked demonstration of power.
Historian and moralist Lord Acton wrote a letter in 1887 to Bishop Mandell Creighton to express an observation and opinion he had made about this very issue. He wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Many are suggesting Mr. Obama is the greatest man to ever serve as president. The year 2009 is no different than 1887.
Back To Commentary Archives | More Commentary @ WND.com Archives