Americans first. That’s how the US President should prioritize. Instead, ours continues to bow to others at the expense of Americans. This time, being sensitive to the needs of Americans falls behind being sensitive to the wishes of Osama bin Laden and his supporters. Now that that monster, the one behind so much pain and destruction to the US, is purportedly dead, the feelings of his followers are being handled with kid gloves while Americans are once again being told, “Just trust me.”

Obama refuses to produce photographic evidence that bin Laden is dead. Why? One reason given is that he doesn’t want to incite violence against our troups. Really? He expects us to believe that killing their leader won’t rile terrorists up, but showing proof of it would? He says that it would be morally wrong to upset bin Ladens followers by showing such proof. Was the killing of American children and men and women morally wrong? And who elected Obama our parent? I think we can individually make our own moral choices, and our own decisions on whether or not to view such a photo.

Americans need to believe that bin Laden is gone. We don’t need to hear another round of “Trust me.” We need the President to have earned our trust to begin with, and then to keep it by not being shifty when we require proof of such an important claim.

Something smells rotten, and I wish Obama would help clear the air.

We have a President who refuses to do the will of the people or even to meet Republicans in the middle on some very major issues. Even now, after voters have made known their disapproval of the actions of an unchecked Democratic Senate and presidency, Obama is too egotistical and out of touch with US citizens and reality to bend. Yet somehow certain overly-liberal voices scream that if things come to a standstill it will be entirely the fault of Republicans. Well I, for one, am glad to have representatives with the clout and the intent to effectively stop the runaway train we’ve been on. It’s unhealthy to have too much of any one thing at a time, and we overdosed on Democrats in the Senate. Time to detox.

That these Black Panther thugs (found via The GTL) were allowed to intimidate voters at a polling place in 2008 for any length of time is outrageous enough. Standing in front of a polling place door with a nightstick and yelling things like “You’re gonna be ruled by the black man, cracker” at voters should land you behind bars in short order. Shorter still when you don’t show up for your appointed court date.

The bigger outrage is that when it all came down to simply a sentencing, the Justice Department under US Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the case. The reason given by the Justice Department? The defendants didn’t show up for their hearing. Fabulous.

Nearly another year has passed since the incident. There has been next to no media coverage in relation to the love fest over Obama. There has been no accountability, because even after nearly two years citizens don’t seem to expect it. Obama’s administration has shown here that it’s alright, as long as you support him or are at least not the wrong color, to show up at a polling place with a weapon to intimidate voters.

Dear US Citizen,

   Feel safe?

The President now has definitive plans to challenge Arizona’s law that enforces existing federal immigration law. Obama has insisted that he is unable to gather this country’s resources to protect our own soil against invaders. And just as the US Attorney General was ignorant about the text of the AZ law even as he threatened US citizens with fighting the law, Obama is ignorant about even the existence of our uniform, long standing federal immigration law.

May this weakling traitor not succeed in destroying our country.

Traitor. It’s a fitting title for someone in a leadership role who stands against those he is supposed to stand for and with. In casual political conversations I have applied it to Barack Obama, who is so often at odds with the citizens and the fabric of the country he was elected to represent. Is Obama a traitor in any legal sense? Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution addresses treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So treason is levying war against our country or giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Obviously, Barack Obama has not stood in a field alongside enemy troops and taken aim at us. But how might this section apply to his handling of the flood of illegal aliens into our country?

When Arizona enacted SB1070, a law to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States,” his administration apologized to China for the law, he threatened to challenge the law without it having even been read by the US Attorney General, and he let the President of Mexico address our Congress in opposition of the law. On this issue, Obama’s show of solidarity with Mexico’s leader certainly must qualify as giving comfort to our enemy, an enemy if only in that he does not wish for us to stop the citizens of his country from illegally pouring over our border. From invading us.

Obama’s stance against enforcing our immigration laws, the Arizona one in particular, aids our enemy. On border security, he allegedly told Arizona’s Senator Kyl, “The problem is if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reforms.” So Obama is potentially blackmailing and endangering US citizens in another instance of aiding our enemy.

While I’ll continue to have my personal opinion on whether or not Obama has betrayed our country, only time and the actions of the US as a whole will tell if his acts are worthy of anything more than an unfavorable label.

We don’t need a national health insurance plan. We have plenty of health insurance schemes to choose from, including government run fumbled programs. Obama is putting an additional government run health insurance plan on the table, and is possibly open to making it mandatory for every American to have health insurance. Maybe we’re not supposed to notice that insurance and actual medical services are two completely different things.

The idea of tax supported health care made available for every legal US citizen is not what bothers me. I think we need it. A healthy country is a stronger one, and it would benefit us as a whole the same way a solid infrastructure and educated citizens benefit us.

The need for health insurance should be eliminated entirely, and doctors and pharmacies should be paid directly, in full, by an efficient government office for necessary procedures and medicines. Contributing to the efficiency would be the lack of paperwork pushed around. No more middleman siphoning money while denying coverage for practical and needed medical services. No need for patients to carry any card other than their driver’s licenses or ID’s. It would also eliminate the need for existing government run health insurance programs, which are faulty and wasteful.

There is the argument that we shouldn’t all have to pitch in to pay for health care for those who, for whatever reason, aren’t working. But we’re going to pay for it when the uninsured sick or injured go to the emergency room. And our society pays when people aren’t healthy enough to contribute.

I think Obama’s plan would only create one or more new government agencies that bumble along like existing insurance programs, leaving us with even lighter wallets and many citizens still without necessary health care.