Parents and Employers Finally Speaking Out Against the Administration

| Comments (2)

I have waited weeks for the parents of those Americans lost one month ago when our diplomatic outposts in Libya were attacked by terrorists to speak up.  As a mom myself, I could not imagine sitting back while elected and appointed officials played games with America and American lives.  Telling us that “the movie did it.  Telling us it could not be helped.  Telling us they care.  And, most stridently, telling us it wasn’t their fault.  I couldn’t imagine enduring their crocodile tears, their excuses, their feigned concerns and their continued apologies to those who hate us.

But it was their fault, and beginning yesterday, with the congressional hearings targeting the attacks of that terrible day, as well as who knew what and when, the resulting panic among those responsible is palpable.  See them squirm and stammer, insisting they always labeled it terrorism, they never said it was a movie, and most stridently, it wasn’t their fault.  Coinciding with this comes an interview Pat Smith, mother of slain state department official Sean Smith, gave to CNN, where she spoke the truth that every parent, every family member, and every American should be speaking.  She made clear her lack of appreciation for the artificial condolences, stalls and lies offered to her by this president, this secretary of state and their people.  She shared her private hell and her growing anger, and I hope she understands that we all, parents or no, we share her fury and her loss.  And, like her, we will not believe one word this government offers on this or any other subject.

While we have waited weeks for this, and hope the other parents will follow her lead, we have waited years for business owners, large and small, to join the chorus of voices also finally speaking out about what this president has done to our nation’s business climate, and what he intends to do if he is given four more years to complete the destruction.  This was capped with casino magnate Steve Wynn’s recent interview, where he berated the current president for targeting this nation’s true job-creators with destruction.  “I’ll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs!” stated Wynn, echoing sentiments shared by businesspeople, from mom-and-pop proprietors to Fortune-500 executives, across the nation.  Well said, Mr. Wynn, but if I’m not mistaken you boasted of your vote for this “lecturing” president four years ago, and he has indeed pursued everything he promised long before you cast that vote, but at least you’re on board now.

And now, in this swirl of financial and national-security chaos, we await tonight’s vice presidential debate, the democrats crying that “debates don’t matter,” “Libya doesn’t matter!” (and it’s not our fault!), hiding behind Big Bird and Elmo, and pinning all their hopes for change on Joe Biden.  Meanwhile, they cannot deny the wave of great courage that has begun to spread across our land with a momentum that may ultimately prove to be unstoppable.  Here’s hoping it has already reached that point.

You Get What You Vote For…

| Comments (0)

February 7, 2010 | Comments

A question to all who voted for this President back in November of 2008, to all who voted for a man who made it clear that he would be soft on terror, that he could seduce and pacify all who seek to kill our children and destroy our nation with nothing but his golden words (his “gift,” he calls it). So how about it? How has it worked out for you? Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy now that your kids are safe and secure within the new world this man’s “gift” has given us?

Maybe you are feeling warm and fuzzy, but I have to tell you, I’m not feeling it. One year after this man’s magnanimous coronation, it appears that those who wish to kill our children and destroy our nation have not been so pacified, so seduced. Indeed we have been repeatedly attacked by terrorists on our own soil since this President was sworn in back in January, 2009. As we all know, this hit a crescendo on Christmas Day when the so-called “underwear bomber” made his attempt to bring down a plane over Detroit. Fortunately, his fellow passengers embodied more courage than what we find in our current administration, and they refused physically to permit this man’s success.

Not to be overshadowed or influenced by that courage, the administration stayed its course. The “alleged” terrorist was interrogated for a mere 50 minutes, and then, ostensibly by order of Attorney General, Eric Holder, the suspect was read his rights as though he were an American citizen. (Just a note here: Contrary to what the White House and Holder may claim, no one in this or any administration takes such drastic action without approval from the President, whether we speak of reading a terrorist his rights or trying terrorists in civil court on American soil.)

Whatever the “alleged” terrorist said during those 50 minutes caused the leaders of the United Kingdom to place their country on high alert. What did we do? We made sure the “alleged” terrorist got properly lawyered-up.

This was only the beginning of the terror landscape we face for 2010, for last week, as part of an annual briefing on the threats to our national security, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), asked Dennis C. Blair, retired Admiral and Director of National Intelligence:

“What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the US homeland in the next three to six months? High or low?”

The Admiral’s response: “An attempted attack, the priority is certain, I would say.”

His four fellow members on the panel, which included CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, agreed.

So no, not feeling the warm fuzziness. Rather, as I’ve said before, elections have consequences, and I see no clearer evidence of this than in the current state of our nation’s security — or lack thereof. For future reference, let’s all remember: Be careful who you vote for. He or she may just get elected. And I think even those swept up in the fervor a year ago are starting to see how devastating the consequences can be.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Texas Aftermath

| Comments (1)

November 6, 2009 | Comments

We know more now than we did yesterday afternoon when it was announced that a number of people had been killed and injured at Fort Hood Army Base in Texas. The original story held that there were presumed to be three, possibly more, shooters. They tell us now it was a lone gunman of Middle Eastern descent, an army psychiatrist, a colonel, and a Muslim, who was soon to be deployed to the Middle East and was allegedly not happy about it. And they tell us that he is still alive.

Within hours, the usual suspects in the media – no doubt responding to the alleged religious affiliation of the shooter – were making valiant efforts to control the damage, informing us that this was an obvious case of post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that the alleged perpetrator had never been deployed, this brilliant media diagnosis quickly became a punchline. I’m sorry, we just don’t have the patience for this anymore. This time, we are not tolerating even a hint of the political correct mindset that – by overlooking the threatening, suspicious comments this shooter has allegedly made about his country, the war and his religious beliefs — probably contributed to this terrible event. So take your amateur psychology to a more receptive elsewhere – to the White House perhaps.

No, the rest of us see this for exactly what it is: a terrorist attack and nothing but a terrorist attack. To refer to it as anything less, to offer the alleged perpetrator an agenda-riddled excuse for his heinous acts, is to insult and degrade the people who have died by his hand, as well as the American heroes who stopped him.

Also disgraceful was the President’s immediate response, which was preceded by his first stroking a crowd of bureaucrats in keeping with his original PR-stop plan that afternoon (as we know, this President has a tough time working off script). His poorly arranged response seemingly, but, not all that surprisingly, devoid of any compassion or pain for the victims and this country did not go unnoticed, especially coming as it did after an election that proved truly disastrous for him and his party only days before. He still has not commented on that election, and it was obvious he would have liked to ignore and evade Fort Hood, too.

But most America’s can’t ignore and evade Fort Hood – nor do we care to. We have been swept back to that terrible morning of September 11, 2001, acknowledging another devastating attack on our America, fearing for our loved ones and the loved ones of others, and looking to our country to show the strength and power for which she is legendary. We did it then. We do it now.

While we pray for the victims and their families, we look to the history and the founding documents of our country as the blueprint for traversing the days ahead. Granted there will be plenty who will try and stand in the way, who will tell us that the true perpetrator is the former President of the United States (which has been done already); who will label this a simple case of post-traumatic stress disorder (again, already done); and who will insist this falls under civil, not military jurisdiction (still waiting for that one). No matter. The revisionists can save their breath. We the people just aren’t listening to that anymore.

Betsy Siino | Comments