Advocating on Behalf of the American Military and Defense on the War on Terror

The Three Most Radioactive words in American politics today:

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

Supporters of Barack Obama, a universe heavily comprised of journalists and fainting housewives, had a hissy fit this week after syndicated talk radio personality Bill Cunningham had the nerve to refer to the Illinois Senator by his real name:  Barack Hussein Obama. 

It wasn’t just liberal Democrats who were shilling for Obama this week, liberal Republican John McCain came to Barack Obama’s defense.  When asked if he thought it was acceptable to speak aloud Obama’s full name, McCain responded: “No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.” 

McCain’s comments were illuminating on two fronts.  First, it was a reminder of why the Republican base will never become energized for a McCain candidacy.  Second, it showcases the challenges we face in winning the War on Terror.

When the ground rules for the battle of ideas is set so that speaking the truth is forbidden, then the other side is obviously winning the war for hearts and minds.  It’s bad enough when “the other side” refers to the Democrats. 

 

But on this issue we’re talking about “the other side” being radical Islamic jihadists who want to kill us.  The fact that the Democrats are their allies is an ancillary point. 

The reaction to the Drudge Report’s posting of a picture depicting Obama in Muslim clothing was similar. Newsweek’s Andrew Romano wrote indignantly: Over the past few months, it's become clear that there are some shady people out there bent on spreading the claim----completely, inarguably, demonstrably false--that Obama is a "crypto-Muslim Manchurian candidate." 

You catch that?  Completely.  Inarguably.  Demonstrably.  False.

 For a moment I thought he was referring to Newsweek’s own reporting, but no, he was flakking for Obama as most reporters have. The problem for Obama’s supporters, and esteemed friends such as Senator McCain, is that there is a reason that the turban photo, and the Senator’s name being Barack Hussein Obama, strike a chord with people.

It’s not unfounded racism or prejudice or narrow-minded thinking that creates a problem for Senator Obama, but rather the Senator’s own weaknesses as a candidate and as an American patriot that cause his campaign heartburn. 

The Barack Hussein Obama who refuses to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem – even as his Democrat rivals stood stoically with their hands upon their hearts – is a candidate who will invite skepticism and doubts.

 It was Barack Hussein Obama who brought upon himself questioning of his patriotism when he announced he would no longer wear an American flag lapel pin and derided those who did for displaying false patriotism.

 I wonder if Barack thinks attacking military recruiting centers is patriotic?   I ask because Barack Obama’s friends at Code Pink and MoveOn.org have been active with campaigns against military recruiting offices, but Obama has not uttered one word to denounce these attacks.

 Given that none of these people wear the American flag pin on their clothing, Barack must find them to be embracing “true patriotism” while they smash the windows of recruiting centers and write in red pain the words: “murderers” and “rapists.” 

And of course it is Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama who only recently declared at a televised event that her husband’s campaign for president marked the first time in her adult life that she was proud to live in this country. 

These are the reasons that many Americans are suspect about Barack Hussein Obama as America’s next Commander in Chief.  No matter how hard Obama’s supporters urge everyone to ignore the man behind the curtain, the fact remains that Barack Obama is a poor choice to lead this country at a time of war. 

This nation would be poorly served to be led by an ignorant and inexperienced liberal who embodies a European-style approach to foreign policy.  Yet such is the resume of Barack Obama.  Flighty talk of bombing our allies (Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan) and surrendering to our enemies (giving in to al-Qaida in Iraq) is the same sort of flawed thinking that European leaders tend to enjoy. But of course, the Europeans have historically had the luxury of having the Americans come in to play the role of adult in standing up to the world’s bullies. 

 Whether it be Hitler’s Nazism or the long plague of communism, it took leadership from the United States to stop the spread of tyranny. Barack Hussein Obama does not have within him the mettle to lead the free world, and he lacks the appreciation and pride in this nation’s heritage to represent us to the rest of the world.   He would be a disaster for all the reasons that European socialists love him – and the Europeans can have him, because the least proud moment of my adult life would surely be the day that the American people elected him to serve as our Commander in Chief.