Liddick: Obama and a state of discord (column)
On Your Right
Late last Thursday, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Harnett was driving down a street on patrol when Edward Archer, a local Muslim convert who had “pledged allegiance to ISIS,” stormed across the street firing at least 11 shots from a 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Although hit three times, officer Harnett returned fire and helped pursue Archer, who was arrested nearby.
On Thursday, July 16, 2015, Mohammod Youssef Abdulaziz opened fire on a Navy operations center in Chattanooga, Tennessee killing five. Mr. Abdulazziz, who was not a member of a terrorist group, nevertheless penned a number of anti-US and anti-Western screeds; both family and friends reportedly noticed “changes in behavior” following his return from a trip to Jordan early last year.
On Dec. 9 of last year, ISIS acolyte Tashfeen Malik and her husband Sayed Rizwan Farook … Well, we all know what they did.
In tonight’s State of the Union address, our president, oblivious to all save his “legacy,” will proudly announce that America and Americans are safe.
We are not, and he is largely responsible.
From his capitulation to the Mullahs of Tehran, to his insistence that the most dangerous terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay be released regardless of the concerns of his military advisors and in the face of the clear probability of their return to terrorism, to his willingness to overlook the sheltering and succoring of violent criminal aliens by some government entities, he has and will continue to expose this country and its citizens to unnecessary danger.
And that doesn’t even take into account what he — together with his willing accomplices in the Congress — are doing to the military and other national security organs through the ungodly hash that passes for a budget process these days.
Yes, Paul Ryan, the blame attaches to you, as well.
There will undoubtedly be high-flown rhetoric tonight; the president is very good at reading speeches. There will be laud for the victories of Obamacare, without mentioning the rapid rise in premiums paid for by “anyone else” and the flight of insurers from the program. There will be triumphalist talk about recent retaking of land from the ISIS “caliphate,” with nary a whisper about the Islamists’ appearance in Libya, Somalia, Kenya, Afghanistan and right here at home. Nor a cautionary note about the confessional conflict between Iran and its Sunni neighbors now quickly emerging in the region, thanks to this administration’s inattention and inaction.
Neither will there be mention of the most dangerous emerging trends: A revanchist Russia led by a man who knows how to use force to get his way; an increasingly aggressive China seeking to fill a power vacuum our president has created in Asia; or a nuclear-armed, destitute husk of a state led by a child who gives new meaning to the term “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.” And Pyongyang’s partner in research: the president’s darling Iran.
There will be much tonight on the vastly improved U.S. economy and on job creation — ignoring the queasiness of our international trading partners, the fact that more than 10 percent of working-age Americans have simply stopped looking for work or that most of the jobs created are part time and consist of form-filling, burger-flipping and selling stuff made by others.
There will be bright, shiny objects to distract the media and other willing dupes. “Gun control” will be one. The narrative will be simple: Faced with Congressional inattention, the heroic President had to take action on his own to “save lives.” Unmentioned will be the constitutional role of the Congress to compel cooperation from an autocratic chief executive, and the simple fact that his proposals are based on lies.
“Common-sense gun control” would not have stopped the events at the beginning of the column. Enforcement of current law might have stopped Mr. Archer, Ms. Malik and Mr. Farook, but, since they all obtained their firearms illegally, one hardly thinks an additional law would have impeded them if current laws did not. In Mr. Abdulaziz’s case it might have, but action by others was required.
What might have made a difference in each of the three cases is early reporting of what one might call “obsessive fervor” coupled with erratic behavior — observed by family or friends of all these shooters, but not called to the attention of authorities. If he really wanted to keep Americans safe, the president might devote some time to that error of omission. And to the effective practice of profiling. Remember, it wasn’t a Norwegian granny who shot officer Harnett; sometimes, who one is warrants a second look. It’s that “eternal vigilance” thing.
But don’t count on hearing that. There’s a legacy to reinforce tonight, a legacy of beautiful theories to which the American people’s security must be sacrificed …
Morgan Liddick writes a weekly column for the Summit Daily.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.