From political analyst Michael Barone, complaining about Obama’s attitude to foreign policy:
This is not a president who has prioritized human rights in Middle East policy, as evidenced by the cold shoulder given to Iran’s Green Revolution protesters in June 2009 and by the long inaction in addressing the problems of Syrian refugees, now flowing into Europe.
All of which makes more grating Obama’s denunciation of Americans critical of his call to admit 10,000 refugees here. In Antalya he accused them of closing their hearts to victims of violence and of being “not American” in suggesting prioritization of the Christian refugees who have been singled out for torture and murder.
He could have acknowledged people’s qualms as legitimate and argued at greater length, as former Ambassador to Iraq and Syria Ryan Crocker did in the Wall Street Journal, that we have processes in place that would effectively screen out terrorists. Or have proposed, like Speaker Paul Ryan, a pause before accepting any. More.
Reality check: Oh for heaven’s sakes. Check the government benefits stats for the United States. Obama and his handlers know perfectly well what they are doing. To the extent that people are not and maybe cannot be gainfully employed apart from government, they are not judges of government and, over time, lose the ability to assess risk opportunity, and reward. The fact that they “oppose” something the government does means nothing much.
When Americans are killed by terrorists, they make work for government employees. They do not (legally) vote or collect benefits any more, but others do. So what has changed?
And perhaps most will vote for his successor to keep the benefits coming. Why is this so difficult to understand? Could we not have a serious conversation about what it means, instead of the perpetual outrage over obvious outcomes?
See also: US slips again in world freedom index