The Obama Administration tells us that they have a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees. The problem with that is that the Obama Administration said that the average person would save $2,500 by the implementation of Obamacare; it said that the Stimulus program would restart the economy; it said that ISIS was a Junior Varsity (JV) type terrorist organization; it said that ISIS was "contained." So, excuse me if I am wary of its statements on a "robust" vetting system. But, if so, why not tell us what that is? Run it down for us and please be specific.
The real question I have is why the Obama Administration seems intent on bringing Syrian refugees, many of whom are jihadists, into the United States while at the same time is deporting Christian refugees from Iraq and the clutches of ISIS? Are these not the same refugees fleeing the same dangers, the difference being only whether they are Christians or Muslims? And, if he is a Christian, as he claims, why does he always defer to Muslims in any instance of choice?
I am not going to pretend to know anything about Barack Obama. I have not researched his lineage, or his religion, or his childhood. It has long been moot. I recognized that we wanted a black president for all sorts of reasons. Obviously the black population wanted someone like them in office. Okay, I want someone like me in office, too, only I don't consider just being white as being like me. There are lots of white people and black people I don't want in the office of the President of the United States and there are very few who I do want in that office.
The main criteria for any president should be a love of country and through that love an undying determination to protect it and the citizens of it. Objectively, does that sound like a description of Barack Obama? Barack Obama is, and by his own proud admission, not that sort of president. I think he would gladly point out America's flaws as he sees them and as proudly point out his efforts to "correct" those flaws.
The first flaw that Obama recognizes is that this is a predominately white nation. He would like to correct that, first with opening the southern borders while at the same time enforcing the northern border. What is the difference? It is the difference between Christian refugees from ISIS and Syrian refugees from ISIS. The Syrian refugees are even better than Hispanic border jumpers, because they are both non-white and Islamic. That they are infused with Jihadists just makes his vision better as they would naturally attack whites or Christians in their terrorist attacks. Even better, he could stand on his podium and condemn the acts of violence while he has done everything he could, as president, to make them possible. We have already seen examples of this where illegal immigrants have committed horrendous crimes against the citizens of America with the encouragement of silence from the president and the continuation of the policies that have enabled them.
This is the administration we are expected to believe has a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees.
Knowing that I will be accused of hating Barack Obama and that is the source of my criticism, I will just say that I don't hate Barack Obama. To hate Barack Obama is to hate those who put him in office, which is a very good portion of the citizens of my nation. It is not his fault that the electorate put him in office twice. It is not his fault that he "fundamentally transformed America" as he promised to do. It is not his fault that the citizens of the United States elected a man who clearly had a past they all knew about, who had beliefs they all shared. How can I hate a man for being who he is and that the electorate of the United States elected twice? What would be the point of that hatred?
I don't even hate those who put Barack Obama in office. It was their support, or guilt, or "feelings" or hopes that made them vote the way they did. That I whole-heartedly disagree with them and their purposes does not make me hate them. It is a struggle, this idea of liberty and self-governance, that cannot be won by hatred and force. Unlike the leftists that have given up on the idea of liberty and self-governance and have resorted to hatred and force to accomplish their goals, I continue to hold onto the idea of making convincing arguments that avoid the confrontation.
Having been given their choice of presidents, Barack Obama, and the cooperation of the House and Senate for a time, we now have the America they wanted. Even with Republican control of the House and Senate, Barack Obama has been supported and enabled so nothing much has changed with that realignment.
So, this is it, this is "their" America. It is much more racially divided; it is much more dangerous; it is much more bankrupt; it is weaker internationally, both militarily and economically; it is much poorer on an individual basis; it is much less "free" with the NSA recording phone calls and reading emails. But, they will never recognize any of it, because they are not rational, these leftist supporters of Barack Obama. Their hatred for what America was overwhelms their ability to see the truth.
Okay, I understand that as well. There are political delusions on all sides, including mine. Even when this nation is thrown into chaos as a direct result of the economic and political policies of Barack Obama and those who support him, they will not see it. They will find it is all the fault of people like me, who lust for liberty and a sense of legal restraint of the government.
The question is what will they do about it? My guess is they will resort to hatred and force as they have so far and that will put me in the place of having to engage their hatred and force with hatred and force. I would much rather simply be left alone to live my life, but if it is their intent to import hatred and force into my neighborhood, that pretty much writes the script for the rest of my life, doesn't it?