Does Obama Love America? Does It Matter?

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani recently ignited outrage on the left – and mild criticism by some on the right – by declaring that Barack Obama does not love America.

Two important factors have been overlooked in the generally disapproving reaction.

First, why would Giuliani, a former prominent U.S. attorney as well as a highly regarded mayor during 9/11, who has taken political stands on the liberal side of the GOP, challenge Obama’s affection for America?  It’s not as if, in the characterization favored by the current White House, Rudy Giuliani is some “crazy right-winger”.

Second, are there good reasons to question the motivation that caused the President to act as he has these past six years and explain why he seemingly does not learn from experience?

Rudy Giuliani, I think, was expressing a frustration felt by many Americans, and not just Republicans.  The nature of the ex-mayor’s statements, and the extent to which he defended them, made clear that his opinion was neither off-the-cuff nor ill-considered. 

Objectively, Barack Obama has shown a reluctance to stand up for America.  That trait was on display early on in his presidency when he traveled to the Middle East to conduct what has been termed derisively – with considerable justification – as an “apology tour”.  And even when he speaks strong words about U.S. intentions, they prove to be hollow (red lines, anyone?).  Apart from the evident insincerity of his “word”, his actions reflect a lack of seriousness, even callousness, toward the fate of fellow Americans.  How could anyone supposedly affected by the beheading of a countryman make an announcement of condemnation and immediately thereafter go golfing?

Why does our president not seem to have America’s best interest at heart? Or so the question seems to many Americans.

Giuliani provided his answer.  Is the absence of love the correct one?  Maybe, maybe not.  Certainly, one can easily build a case, as he certainly did, to support the view.  Barack Obama was indeed a “community organizer” inspired by left-wingers.  His pastor for twenty years was openly anti-American. (“G.D. America,” prayed Reverend Wright.)  And Michelle Obama may have spoken for her husband, too, when she proclaimed, after the 2008 Iowa caucus win:  “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

But does the level of the President’s affection for his country really matter?  Or is the proper concern what he actually does and not his reasons?

 

The answer is obvious.  America must live with policies he implements and does not.  Whether he loves – or even likes – America is beside the point. 

[As a lawyer, I may not like my client, but I have a job to do and responsibilities to that person to fulfill.  The same may apply to Barack Obama.]

Personally, I think the President’s attitude toward America is ambivalent.  His background is relevant in making that assessment.  He was raised to be skeptical of America as a force for good in the world.  Compounding matters is that, by personality, he is dispassionate.  Even if Giuliani is wrong, Obama’s cool nature leaves him unequipped to be America’s cheerleader.  So the President’s unassertive disposition in foreign affairs may be more a factor of personality than ideology.  Perhaps.

Yet perhaps not.  If he is motivated significantly by an antipathy toward America, that would explain why Obama still fails to alter failed polices around the world, including relations with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.  His guiding light may be a determination to restrain the exercise of American  power on the world scene. 

Intelligent as Barack Obama is reputed to be, maybe a defense of his conduct can simply be that his obvious arrogance results in obtuseness.

However, if one remains – ideologically speaking – obsessed with America’s guilt and the continuing need to atone for it – what choice does the President have?

Has America returned to the 1930s?

Imagine if you will, that it’s 1939, Hitler has just invaded Poland and England and its allies are on the brink of war.  Winston Churchill, about to become Prime Minister, says “lets not get on our high horse – remember that we were rather vindictive towards the Germans after World War I.  They are understandably still mad at us.” 

If that were the attitude of its foes, do you think the Third Reich would have lost the war to come? 

The point is not that our “reflective” Winston Churchill was being inaccurate, the observation is actually quite correct – but so what?

The job of a nation’s leader is to identify the threats to it and to mobilize and fight the enemy.  The fact that England was not perfect – and in the past had not been right and good in all respects – was irrelevant.  Perhaps it would be a worthy subject in, say, a University of Chicago classroom, but it would have no proper place in a speech by a Prime Minister.  Nor would the fact that western Christians conducted Crusades in the Middle East in the 12^th century, nor that in Salem, Massachusetts “witches” were burned at the stake four hundred years ago. 

So why does Barack Obama make such comparisons when commenting on 21^st century atrocities by professed Muslims?  Is it a plea for tolerance, for understanding people who do evil things?

And if we Americans became more tolerant and understanding of the underlying motivations of Islamic enemies, what is the desired result of such a new attitude? Are we to say to our enemies that although we’re not sure why you hate us, we’ll try to right the wrongs you believe we committed centuries ago?
 

Crazy!

It matters not one whit why the enemy wants to destroy us.  The why is in the past and can’t be erased.   What counts in the present are intentions.  We ignore them at our peril.

The reality of life is that nothing – and no one – is perfect.  Choices always involve shades.  But that does not mean that choices necessarily involve doubt.  Choosing the greater good – or the lesser bad – is always the right decision.
 

For those of us who have long considered America as a beacon of freedom and justice in the world, these are very difficult times.  Has providence forsaken us?
 

Is Barack Obama our Neville Chamberlain?  If so, those who fear for the future of our country ask, where is our Winston Churchill?

Should There Be a Right to Refuse Vaccination for One’s Child?

Does a parent have a right to refuse vaccines for his child?  It’s easy to answer yes if one simply views the question from a parental perspective.  Dad and Mom might think – for personal or medical reasons – that a vaccination is not a good idea.

But what about the health of those who come into contact with the unvaccinated child?  In law school, an early lesson conveyed was that a person’s freedom to do what he pleased ended at another person’s nose.  Or, to make the point more directly, you do not have the right to do harm to others. 

 

For a free society to function, liberty is unavoidably constrained by obligations.  One is reminded of this truism when considering the recent measles outbreak in the U.S., a previously vanquished childhood illness.

A failure to vaccinate means that the person can contract – and spread – the disease to others.

But wait!  There would be no risk of the unvaccinated getting sick so long as everyone else was vaccinated.  True, if the person lived on an island, from which unvaccinated individuals would be barred.  There would then be no one from whom to get it!

Anyway, not exactly a practical answer.

In the real world, the very young and those with special medical problems can’t be immunized.  What about them?  Yes, liberty to make one’s own decisions about one’s life and the raising of one’s own children should be respected and protected.  But a failure to get recommended immunization shots is rather like exposing others to the risks of contracting diseases you are transmitting – a punch to someone else’s nose, one might say.  (And does a parent have a right to expose his own child to unnecessary risks by refusing vaccination for him?)  Society, in the interest of protecting that child and other children, must say no in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

“A Fool for a President”

What a harsh thought and certainly not something any American wants to be true.  But is it?

Does President Obama have a belief in - and trust - people who deserve neither?  Does he act on hopes that others know are illusions?  Does he not recognize that he leads a nation that most of the world looks to – and leans on – for guidance and security?

How else can one define the label?  The dictionary says a fool is “silly, stupid, lacking sense, forethought or caution.”

Barack Obama - a sampling:

*****Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize when he’d done nothing to deserve it.

*****Touring Mideast capitals and asking for forgiveness for America’s misdeeds

*****Expecting that Putin’s hostility to the West was generated only by Bush’s aggressive personality

*****Believing that radical Muslim terrorism would die with Osama Bin Laden

*****Thinking that ignoring previously drawn “red lines” would have no consequences

*****Etc.

It would appear, therefore, that the term “fool” is applicable, indeed, to the present White House incumbent.  Certainly, the label is not unique to this president.  George W. Bush, for one, was a fool when it came to Iraq.  He did not understand the naiveté displayed in America’s effort at nation building.  But, to his credit, he learned.

 

All of us, presidents or not, are fools at times.  Some of us learn not to be; others ignore life’s lessons. 

It is not noted with satisfaction that Barack Obama falls into the latter category.  Just the opposite.  Who wants a fool for our Commander- in- Chief for the next two years?