Contact Craig R. Smith


After the Democratic debate last week, trusting a Democrat president in 2009 to keep America safe will require "the willing suspension of disbelief" on behalf of every citizen. The debate answered the question of where a socialist Democrat stands on the issues of the day.

While I could address each area the candidates danced around, two in particular caught my eye. They should catch your eyes as well. Illegal immigration and the threat of a terrorist bomb going off in an American city. Let's start with illegal immigration.

Not one of the Democratic hopefuls is willing to close down sanctuary cities. It is just that plain and just that simple. Apparently if a Democrat is our president, he or she will not enforce the federal laws they will swear to uphold. Not a single candidate. These same candidates repeat over and over how the rule of law is so essential to our nation; yet will not enforce the law. I guess the rule of law is only important to Democrats when Scooter Libby is on trial.

When pressed, Gov. Richardson said he would allow local law enforcement to ignore federal law. He believes sanctuary cities should not abide by federal law. He wants "earned legalization and not amnesty."

The people of New Mexico deserve a refund on this guy.

Sen. Joe Biden would allow cities to ignore federal law. Hillary and Obama would also allow sanctuary cites as well and Hillary was emphatic that there is "no choice." Obama believes in ignoring federal law and enforcing "moral law." So it is clear where these folks stand on illegals entering the country.

That should be enough to make every citizen nervous about a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office. As more and more illegals commit heinous crimes, kill innocent Americans and drain our system of resources; Democrats like many of their RINO buddies in Congress will do nothing to stop the flood of new illegals entering daily.

I know, they just want to feed their families but where does it stop? If they break the law to get here and then can't find work, is it acceptable for them to break into a grocery store and steal to feed their family? How about becoming a contract killer for the mob? That is a job less and less Americans want to do. If you allow one law to be broken, how many other laws are you willing to look the other way on? Where is the "moral law" in that Obama?

The most terrifying question of the night came when Tim Russert asked a Jack Bauer-type question. In essence the scenario was: If we got lucky and captured the No. 3 guy in al-Qaida, and we know there is a bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is, don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon, Russert said. While the scenario is just that, a scenario, I sure want to know what our president would do. Wouldn't you?

Mr. Obama made it clear. "We cannot sanction torture." But he would do everything it takes to keep America safe. That should make us all feel better, shouldn't it? He would talk about it and be articulate, and he would keep us safe. All wonderful ideas. but we know he would not torture. Spoken like a true democratic leader.

Biden said "No way would I allow torture." He has it on the word of 17 four-star generals that torture doesn't work. He went on to claim that is how we got into Iraq. I guess the bad intel on WMD came through torture. Tell that to KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. Hillary says torture cannot be the policy. "Torture does not work." She claims there is no evidence it works, and she would use appropriate treatment.

Then it hit me.

Tim Russert never mentioned torture he said, "beat it out of him." I have been beaten up before and I would not categorize it as torture. Apparently to a Dem beating a guy up is torture. If that is true, they should spend a minute or two on YouTube. Torture is occurring in America every few seconds by their definition. Especially among our youth.

What was fascinating about this question was it was a scenario laid out by beloved 42nd President William Jefferson Clinton whom, much to his credit, would have beaten it out of the guy and kept us safe. He would have found a way, either by finding or pardon to make sure he didn't let the bomb go off. Not anymore. Even Hillary, Bill's co-president wouldn't do what Bill would do and made it crystal clear she would have a good talking to her man when she got home that night.

Across the board, the candidates were unanimous. They would let the bomb go off before they would think to hurt a poor, innocent, cuddly No. 3 al-Qaida terrorist. What is it about this unnatural affection the Dems have for terrorists? They would let thousands die to make sure they don't upset Osama Bin Laden or his pals? If a good butt-whooping would result in saving lives, this group of politicians would rather let people die? Maybe the Dems see them as future voters. Can't alienate a potential voter if you are a good Democrat. Heck, crazy cousin Dennis Kucinich views it as "strength through peace." All five feet of him is going to be strong through being peaceful. Hope Dennis never has to face what Nick Berg faced.

After watching this circus for two hours, I thought I would be exhausted, but "I ain't feeling no tired." I am ready with all my being to expose the most irresponsible and reckless group of candidates America has ever seen. I haven't heard much from the Independent or Republican candidates yet, but I can tell you America can ill afford a Democrat in the White House. Health care, taxes, social security, gay marriage, spending and all the other issues will not matter if we lose our freedom to the terrorists or worse yet, if we are dead.

The first priority of a president must be to keep the citizens safe. If the Democrats are to be believed in what they said in this debate, that cannot and will not happen. To think otherwise, to quote the poet Samuel Taylor Cooleridge or the band Modest Mouse, would require the "willing suspension of disbelief." Hillary isn't very original. In order to discredit Gen. Petraeus, she stole her line from a poet and a music group. Sad.

Back To Commentary Archives   |   More Commentary @ Archives

© 2007 Craig R. Smith. All Rights Reserved.     Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions  |  Links