The LSM and liberal half of the blogosphere has been going on and on nonstop giving the gutsy president full credit for the capturing of Bin Laden.
Now as in the past, many conservatives have tried to explain their opposing views to the left but in futility, since the left gets stuck in their platitudes and bumper stickers. They never learned the quote, “Don't judge a book by its cover.” These leftists walk around with a know-it-all attitude and don't bother learning from elders, history, or facts. The liberals’ brains are programmed to only think in slogan form. Obama captured Osama! The who, what, when, why, and where that was once considered the ABC’s of journalism has become almost nonexistent when it doesn’t conform to their ideology. Yes, Osama was captured and killed under Obama’s presidency, but what led to his death? Our intelligence forces got their lead from al Qaeda members that have undergone water boarding- an effective tool to get terrorist members to start talking. This and other interrogation methods were authorized and put in use under Bush’s presidency constantly coming under the criticism from the left until these techniques were disrupted by Obama and the left because he felt it was too harsh and offended some softhearted leftists.
This is by far not an isolated incident where the left has responded without thinking. In ’08, when the economy was at the brink of collapsing due to the housing/mortgage crisis (because mortgages were given to people who could've never afforded it and should've never gotten it) the liberals only knew and still know to say one thing: Bush is to Blame. After all, the housing market collapsed during his presidency. What they forget (intentionally or unintentionally) is what caused this crisis to begin with? Who authorized mortgages to people that were never able to afford it in the first place and why? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history is aware that Carter started these programs and remembers when they were greatly expanded under Clinton’s era. True, while some conservatives in Congress renounced these programs at that time others didn’t out of fear having the race card thrown at them or for other reasons. However, it is clearly the Democratic Party and their ideology that supported this and similar programs. They believe in fighting for so-called equality, previously saying that it’s not fair that not everyone should be able to own their own homes and therefore forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t ever repay them. Nowadays, one can find them crying crocodile tears over the torture of terrorists! The conservative motto is and has always been that everyone has the freedom to choose how to lead their life and those that work hard and are successful can afford their own homes while others that are not so successful although they do or don’t work simply can’t. And the government definitely has no right or business mixing into who should or shouldn’t be getting mortgages!
The same is with the health insurance. The left cries in a pitiful voice that all shall have equal rights to health care including one who has never purchased insurance and then gets sick and is then obviously denied from purchasing a plan. What is next? If you wreck your vehicle you should be allowed to then buy insurance? Maybe after ones’ home burns down the insurance companies’ should be forced to allow you to buy a plan? What the left obviously doesn’t get is the definition of insurance and how an insurance company operates. Insurance is purchasing a policy in advance and constantly paying lesser amounts so that in the scenario that one gets sick/house burns down/car gets totaled etc. the insurance company steps in and reimburses the owner of the policy. The insurance companies have the ability to reimburse the owner of the policy only because they collect fees from so many members monthly and most people thankfully don’t have to collect their policies.
And by the way, for those of you who blame it all on the executives and CEO’s of Wall Street, yes there are some corrupt people in Wall Street as there are in just about everywhere you look, but by and large the CEO’s and executives from Wall Street’s goals are to build and expand a successful business. When one blames an entire group as in; all banks are bad, there’s obviously something wrong with that. The banks would’ve never given as one can see from the past until the federal government found it necessary to intervene. It was obvious to all who gave, received, and authorized these mortgages that the possibility of it being repaid was close to nil, however, forced to comply, the banks issued those mortgages. When the housing market collapsed out came the very same people that forced the banks into this business and portrayed them as the bad guys on Wall Street who took advantage of the poor all to make an easy dollar. Barney Frank and his cohorts’ intention were twisted from the start. They wanted to give people something they couldn’t afford claiming that it’s unfair that some do have while others don’t. Instead of trying to right this supposed wrong by trying to help these people earn more and be successful on their own, he gave them temporary ownership on something that he knew wouldn’t last. After all, this made them appear as “The party that promotes equality and justice for all,” while simultaneously creating an additional bloc of Democratic voters that remain dependent on federal aid.
Now back to Osama Bin Laden. Obama was against the “torture” of terrorists. He stopped the CIA from employing these methods and closed the black sites where these techniques were in use. Obama fought for terrorists’ rights and wanted to try KSM in Manhattan in a civil trial which would’ve given him the same rights a citizen has! So yes, Osama was captured under Obama’s watch, and he gave the ok to execute him, but that’s just about the total amount of credit that the gutsy Obama deserves. After all, he’s the one that stopped the very programs that pointed our intelligence in the right direction. The proper behavior expected from Obama at his press conference was to give credit where credit is due, to the heroic SEALS’, our tireless intelligence agency and so forth. He would’ve then heard from me and all other conservatives that yes, Osama was caught under Obama’s watch and he gets credit for that. However his entire focus was how “I” said when to shoot and “I” built up the CIA, among many other “I” statements which many were not even the truth, that the right is compelled to straighten it out for those seeking the truth. For one, he patted himself on the back for the buildup of the intelligence committees while in fact, he’s the one that put many limits on the CIA and stopped them from continuing to use the enhanced interrogation methods which were so successful in squeezing some info out of these terrorists and actually led to Osama’s death, Obama’s attorney General even threatened to investigate those that employed and allowed those techniques. And if he meant the SEALS in that statement, they have been operating for the last several decades.
It actually just hit me that if the previous president would’ve been Obama or someone with a similar ideology to Obama, many of our policies Bush had instigated would’ve never been implemented. Obama would’ve never allowed the CIA to water board those three tough guys, we wouldn’t have gotten the info which helped lead us to their leader, and Osama would still be mocking us in his mansion and plotting evil plots against the American people as he’s been doing right up to his death!
So to all of you liberals singing into your microphones and drinking over your keyboards that Obama’s path to victory in 2012 is guaranteed, let me make one thing positively clear. The American people are not going to fall for your bumper stickers and slogans such as Obama got Osama. Liberals get swept up with their emotions, but the rest of the country lets logic reign. Hope, hope, hope, is all you heard in 2010, and generally the word has positive connotations, but you know what? Saddam Hussein had great hopes, as did Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin and many others who hoped to kill, destroy and decimate entire populated areas. I’m not comparing any of the above not to each other and definitely not to Obama. My point is that hope is not always positive, and the left should recognize that. The same is with change. Obama and his cronies jumped onto the bandwagon in Egypt because the people were fighting for change, something the American people had voted for in 2008. But as is now clear to all, is that change in Egypt is way not positive in relation to America. Mubarak was an ally, a friend to America and tough on terror, while the Muslim Brotherhood which is gaining more and more of the power in Egypt is an undercover terrorist group and is anti-American to say it softly. And this is where Obama and the left are totally wrong. He jumps at the sounds of hope and change blindly, no matter who what when or where.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, anything with a seemingly negative connotation is immediately interpreted as such. Interrogations for terrorists, oh no! Military trials for KSM and his peers, no way! It doesn’t sound compassionate enough!
The 2012 campaign will be focused not on bumper stickers, but on the important topics. Who stands at the right side of the debates offering solutions that will resolve some of the serious issues this country is facing? An “R” before your name won’t guarantee the automatic support of your party’s support, if your ideology and voting records don’t match the people’s will. This may and probably will result in many heated primaries against RINOs, so that when the general elections arrive the choice between the candidates will be clearly defined.