My, my, President Obama is sure getting testy with his critics, isn’t he? At a press conference in Turkey at the end of the G-20 summit, he was asked some pretty tough questions about the lack of success in his efforts to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic jihadists of ISIS. His remarks showed a man who was dangerously close to losing his temper.
But he wasn’t angry at the terrorists who delight in murdering innocent men, women and children. No, his strongest ire is directed against any American who dares oppose his policies.
Even Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” who normally is very supportive of the president, had to admit, “I was surprised by his tone. I was surprised by the defensiveness.” And Todd continued, “He didn’t channel what I think a lot of Americans are feeling right now, a little bit of anger, a little bit of resolve and a little bit of resiliency.”
No, the only anger that Obama exhibited wasn’t directed at our enemies, it was aimed at us. And the only resolve he demonstrated was his determination to continue pursuing policies that a majority of Americans oppose.
There was no clearer example of this than in his insistence that this country accept thousands of refugees from Syria, even though ISIS has boasted that their ranks will include some trained and dedicated jihadists.
Dozens of governors have called on the president to halt the program, at least for now. Earlier this week, Paul Ryan, the new speaker of the House of Representatives, and Mitch McConnell, the majority leader in the Senate, said the program should be stopped until top law enforcement and national security officials swear to Congress that none of them is threat to this country. Ryan said Congress would ask the director of the FBI to certify that background checks were completed for any refugees that we accept.
Really? Is there anyone anywhere who actually believes that we can properly vet the thousands of people who have fled Syria — most of them young men, by the way?
The answer is so obvious that even Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who can always be found in the ranks of the committed liberals, has acknowledged that “a pause may be necessary” in Obama’s plans to accept thousands of Syrian refugees into this country.
While the debate rages over accepting more refugees, Washington is awash with rumors that Obama is determined to shut down our facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before the end of his presidency — no matter how much such an action violates the law.
Congress has repeatedly passed legislation forbidding the president from closing the Gitmo prison for terrorists. The latest effort came in the defense appropriation bill that was approved last week. The measure prohibits any funds being used to transfer detainees. The bill was approved overwhelmingly — by a margin of 91-3 in the Senate and 370-58 in the House.
Still, Obama supporters insist that the measure tries to impose an unconstitutional restriction on the president as commander in chief. They say this despite the fact that Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
The Wall Street Journal warned in an editorial on Tuesday:
Yet the Pentagon may soon announce a plan to transfer the remaining 107 dangerous combatants that no other country will accept to a domestic facility such as Fort Leavenworth or the Colorado supermax. Amid Mr. Obama’s many executive rewrites on carbon, ObamaCare and labor this flouting of the law would be the worst.
Just how much more harm will Obama do to this country before his term of office ends? I shudder when I think of the possibilities.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.