Across the world, in the troubled area known as the Middle East, in the Islamic Republic, there is a nation fighting for its God-given freedom, and you don’t seem to care. You seem more content to bask in the glowing media attention and reminisce about your intense popularity in Europe. For days you were silent on the the developing Iranian Revolution, then you issued a weak, limp-wristed, written statement claiming you didn’t want to “interfere” with internal Iranian affairs, even though the presidential election that started this recent chain of events was very visibly unfair and most definitely rigged. Oh, but I forgot, you know all about working with groups that support voter fraud, don’t you? For what it’s worth, Iran just admitted fifty cities had more votes cast than voters registered! What were you waiting for?
Then, days later, responding to pressure from lawmakers and the American public, you finally released something with just enough meat to appease your liberal supporters:
“What you’re seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and–and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we’ve seen violence out there. I think I’ve said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.” (link)
Okay, well that’s all well and good, sir, but where’s the call to action? You spent the majority of your interview once again apologizing for America, the West, and our way of life, carefully side-stepping anything that might possibly resemble hard-and-fast support for a new, democratic government in Iran (these are from the same WSJ article):
“Well, first of all, let’s understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States. that’s an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically. And that’s just not gonna fly.”
And,
“And I’m very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is–and is not.”
I understand the need for a thoughtful approach, but I don’t think anyone is calling for war. All we, as the American people, want is a strongly-worded statement.
Now, perhaps you feel I’m being unfair, Mr. President. After all, you say, I didn’t vote for you, nor do I support the vast majority of your policies. In fact, I do my best to stop them, so why would I give you a fair shake on this subject? With all due respect, sir, I do my best to always treat you and your policies fairly, but at this time of crisis, that is beside the point. The point is, Mr. President, you are the leader of the free world. You set the course for all other democratic republics to follow, whether you like it or not, and your inability to release a quick, concise, and very direct message straight to the Iranian people is troubling. All it would take is two or three sentences. Here, I’ve even written them up for you:
—————–
(SUGGESTED)
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
“We stand with the Iranian people in their fight for democracy. Every people deserves to be free. The United States will do everything in its power diplomatically to assist the people of Iran.”
—————–
See, that’s not so bad. If British PM Gordon Brown can do it, surely you can, too.
Mr. President, the world is counting on you to support those demonstrating in the hope of a Free Iran. People like Neda are dying for the cause of freedom. Isn’t a strongly worded press conference the least you could do?
Sincerely,
Caleb Hays.
P.S. In case you hadn’t heard, Mr. President, Iran already hates us and was blaming us for this revolt even before your first statement. In other words, they’ll hate us whether or not you stand in support of the people of Iran, so what’s stopping you? Even Congress has approved a joint resolution supporting the protestors.
If you were alive at the time, I will wager a bet that you can remember exactly what you were doing, wearing, and thinking at the moment you heard the United States had been attacked on September the 11, 2001. It was a horrifying and terrible moment. Rogue airliners, hijacked by Muslim extremists, had come hurtling into three of our proudest buildings and a fourth, apparently on its way to the White House, crashed into a Pennsylvania field after a group of brave Americans regained control of the jet. In the days and months that followed, one question was on every American’s mind: How do we prevent this from happening again? It was at that moment in our nation’s history we found ourselves confronted with the very human dilemma between our well being and our independence. We had a choice to make; which was more important? Then-President Bush made decisions to protect the American people and our homeland. Some would argue his safety measures destroyed our freedoms and liberties. I disagree, but the lines in the sand had been drawn: how far is too far? When does the battle for a well-defended nation become the usurpation of the liberties of the plebiscite? In the United States, we believe in a system of personal freedoms and liberties; while we must protect our homeland, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of the American citizen.
In the 2002 film directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report, a new system based on the thoughts and visions of so-called “PreCognitives” is implemented as a way to reduce crime, especially murder, in Washington, D.C. From the onset, the everyday population viewed this method of arresting would-be criminals before the crime was committed with mostly admiration and thankfulness. However, as PreCrime detained more and more individuals, it faced an unhappy contingent: the innocent civilians it had erroneously locked up. In a similar manner, the Patriot Act and related laws passed in the years that followed the attack on New York are intended “to protect and defend” our nation from the ever-growing threat of terrorist violence. Many times, they work. From its passage in October of 2001 (“Search Results”) until the debate for its renewal in 2005, the Patriot Act helped convict more than 200 terrorists (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). Former President Bush remarked in a speech that year, “For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence” (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). The Patriot Act was a swift and hard response to the brutal slayings of nearly 3,000 Americans, and it has done much to keep the United States safe. As noted by Kishkunas in his 2003 opinion piece, the Patriot Act, while granting the government a few new law enforcement powers, most combined previously available tools and applied them to terrorists instead of groups such as the Mafia or drug lords. Now, the persons responsible for murdering thousands could be prosecuted in a way that fit their dastardly crime.
However, it is always a dangerous decision to cede more power to any government, especially the federal government, and a strange alliance of far left groups and civil libertarians formed shortly after the bill’s signing by the President (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). They published and continue to publish stories of alleged abuses of power by both local and federal authorities. In April of 2009, another such case came to light, with a widowed mother being awoken in the dead of night by more than a dozen FBI agents bursting through her door, brandishing guns. After grabbing her tenth grade, sixteen-year-old homeschooled son from his bedroom, they served her a search warrant and led him away in handcuffs (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”). Also shown in the newscast by Raleigh, NC CBS affiliate WRAL is the mother telling of how the federal agents also took numerous electronics from his bedroom, including his personal computer, Xbox game console, the router device that connected the household to the Internet. Says the distraught mother, “I was terrified. There were guns, and I don’t allow guns around my children. I don’t believe in guns.” She says her son has done nothing wrong and is being held on charges of domestic terrorism under the USA Patriot Act. Authorities claim her son made numerous bomb threat calls, a charge Ms. Lundeby vehemently denies. After the arrest, sheclaims she has been provided extremely limited access to her son and has little to no solid information about the evidence surrounding the charges being brought against her son.
As usual, there are two sides to this chilling story. Two weeks after the WRAL broadcast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, near where the teenage boy, Ashton Lundeby, is being held contacted the media and claimed the sixteen-year-old is not being held under the USA Patriot Act (Lamb). “This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act,” claimed U.S. Attorney David Capp (Lamb). Of course, the mother disputes this claim (Lamb), and the case continues. But what if the mother is correct, and the federal government is holding him under the Patriot Act, a law that gives them the ability to strip away certain Constitutional provisions from alleged enemy combatants (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”)? Those that subscribe to this theory believe we may be headed for a 1984-style protectionist regime, in which everyday citizens are treated as the enemy. In response to this story, “Southpaw” from the Balitmore Sun talk forums said, “Maybe it’s not “1984″ but it sure feels like it is heading there.” Truthfully, that is a disturbing prospect. The Federal Government maintains that no American citizen has been unjustly prosecuted by this far-reaching law (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”), but that has done little to quell the voices on the far reaches of the political spectrum.
Most people agree we need to work to protect and preserve American lives and our way of life. Is the Patriot Act the end-all answer? In 2005, in a bi-partisan move, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Act needs to be tempered with more protections for the average American citizen (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”). Providing more civil protections to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, is an idea, if followed through correctly, on which most Americans could agree. It only makes sense to continually improve our laws, even those that are already working, and since our government is made up of and works for the American citizen, it is their duty. How should we improve? First, provide more information to the accused person and his or her representatives. Do not hide the entire process under an apparent veil of secrecy. The Constitution provides that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant. They should not have to prove their own innocence. Secondly, admit the USA Patriot Act and related terror laws work and have on numerous occasions fulfilled their promise of preventing further terror attacks in the United States, including a major “second wave” attack that would have decimated the city of Los Angeles (Jeffery). Thirdly, educate the public to the extent it is safely possible regarding the Act’s abilities against American citizens, but not its tools to combat foreigners. While no patriotic American wants the government to show all of its cards to the enemy, if the Patriot Act is to persist, we deserve to know the extent of its powers and how they can be used against us in an arrest or a court of law, just like any other statute.
Every society must deal with the issue of enemies from within and without. It is the responsibility of the citizenry in a republic to demand protection from their government against these forces. However, it is also their job to defend their rights and civil liberties against a power-hungry and ever-growing government. They are the ultimate check and balance. Indeed, it is in them in which the power of government is vested from an active and engaged population cannot be usurped. While the current administration has done away with phrases such as “War on Terror” for “less offensive” substitutes such as “Man-caused Disasters,” (Kessler) the threat of a terrorism on our home soil is as real as ever, and we must not let down our guard. The battle waged between ultimate protectionism and anarchy will continue, but the balance lies somewhere in between. The sweet spot is at the point where citizens lead their own lives, taking risks and working for themselves and the borders are secure, the military strong, and the government following the will of the people.
World President Barack Obama spoke today from Prague, Czech Republic on the need for total nuclear disarmament, calling on the citizens of Earth to create “peace in our time,” to quote another failed politician.
In his speech this morning, Obama delivered the wrist slap to North Korea we’d all been waiting on, at least after the U.N. “surprisingly” failed to act. In a passing, off-hand statement, Obama condemned the launch by North Korea of a ballistic missile, “Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” However, North Korea’s launch was in direct conflict with a 2006 U.N. Security Council Resolution. (See, Mr. President, these resolutions are just words). FOXNews reports, in the end, President Obama addressed the North Korea crisis at least a dozen times. Unfortunately, he said nothing stronger.
The meat of this speech dealt with the utopian fairy world I sometimes (read: everyday) feel he lives in. He spoke of a day when nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary, a day we all hope for, but the president laid out a plan in which a new nuclear non-proliferation treaty is drawn up, and all so-called “good” countries sign, agreeing to drastically pare down their nuclear weapons arsenals. While in liberal theory, this sounds good, it’s unrealistic, just like so many other liberal policies. Sure, perhaps we and Western Europe will agree and actually follow such a treaty, but how does anyone in their right mind believe al Queda or Russia will? Of course they won’t!
The president did said we would maintain large enough stockpiles to fend off any threat from rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea, but I have sneaky suspicion his idea of “large enough” and reality are two different things. If these groups want these weapons, nothing this current administration is apparently willing to do (talk them to death) or the U.N. says is going to stop them from acquiring these weapons.
Lending to his role as a “world citizen” Obama received large cheers from the Czech crowd when he told them his new treaty would provide safe, clean nuclear energy technology to the whole world, and that the U.S. had donated a very large sum of money to the IMF to provide a sort of “global stimulus package.” Mr. President, need I remind you who you serve? As much as I’m sure it pains you to admit it, you are not the President of the Czech Republic, or of the farther-right-than-us European Union. You are the American President, and we have enough problems of our own; we don’t need you galavanting across the countryside of the Old World undermining our security by blatantly telling the terrorists we’re dumping nuclear power.
Around 9:30 CDT this evening the communist North Korean government in Pyongyang launched a missile with the supposed intent of putting a satellite in orbit. The international community, including the United States, was suspicious of this intention, given North Korea’s very public nuclear aspirations. However, besides a few “slap on the wrist” press release exchanges, no one was willing to stop this dangerous act. South Korea is scared out of its mind, Japan is worried, given its proximity, and, well, the United States says this a “provocative” action.
Honestly, is that the best we could come up with? How about a, “If you dare shoot that ‘blasted’ thing into the sky, Kim Jong Il, we’ll shoot it down before you can say ‘Red Scare’.” But did our new President take the necessary steps to keep America safe? Of course not. The “Global Citizen”, South Korea, and Japan all referred the situation to the ever-so-helpful UN Security Council. Sorry to break it to you, Mr. President, but we’ve already administered the slap on the wrist… there’s not much more the Security Council will do.
Now, there is the (slight) chance that North Korea was simply looking to expand its space program. Perhaps all this missile contained was a satellite. But we cannot allow (warning: political incorrectness to follow) evil nations like North Korea to possess the knowledge or technology to launch rockets into space. It’s a small step to switch out a so-called “satellite” with a nuclear warhead, especially with the temptation such a missile provides; this rocket can reach the United States.
Mr. President, I call on you to do you Constitutional duty to protect the United States America and her citizens. Contrary to popular European belief, and those that you seemingly personally hold. your duty is not to the world, it’s to us and to our national interests, including our defense. I’m going to come right out and say it: forget about courting Europe, its leaders are beginning to think you’re an economic fool as it is, anyway. America is not an evil nation, nor are we “arrogant.” That’s you. We’re tired of you tearing us down; sure, we’ve made mistakes, but stick up for our good traits, stand up for America and protect us.
Mr. President, words won’t do it this time, teleprompter or not. It’s time for strong action against North Korea. I’m not calling for war by any means, but we must send a strong message to Pyongyang that launches such as this will NOT be tolerated.
