Obama worldview gives lovers of jihad encouragement

 The entire world pays attention to the words and deeds of U.S. presidents. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that jihadists around the world are encouraged and feeling their oats again.

Umar the Christmas bomber did everything but send a telegram to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing his desire to martyr himself and murder 300 innocents. The Fort Hood shooter had "Soldier of Allah" beneath his name on his business card. These people got through the system due to the upside-down, politically correct worldviews of the Obama administration.

Throughout the campaign Barack Obama repeatedly crowed his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay facility; our top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, is going to give those poor oppressed souls who have been known to behead Americans on video their days in court. In general, it was espoused that it was time to be "kinder and gentler" to such folks; after all, how much different could they be from the president's old buddy and mentor, Bill Ayers, who once attempted to blow up the U.S. Capitol? What lover of jihad would not be pleased?

Until we catch some people named Smith, Jones or Parnell from places like Iowa or Kansas with explosive shoes or underwear, do you think we might ought to focus on those with names like Khalid or Umar who spend summer vacation in scenic, opulent Yemen?

Profiling? Yes, please.

Also, I am one of those stodgy souls who happen to believe that one's worldview colors all issues.

Let me be clear: Human life is cheaper than ever -- unless you are trying to sell the takeover of the health care establishment of a once-free people -- and perhaps, just perhaps, if your personal worldview induces you to be the most radical, pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate in history, maybe the thought of a few folks blowing up on airliner is not that disturbing ... until you think about it for three days or so.

If I sound particularly strident, so be it. After what I have seen in 2009, I am going to say and write exactly what I think until hell freezes over.

And, since I have swerved into both health care and abortion, consider this. The vaunted Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 had as its basis an unwritten "right to privacy" hidden somewhere in the constitution. The story of Justice Blackmun's inventive legal rationalizing is interesting and merits study by non-lawyers, but my question is simply this: If the "right to privacy" is so important as in the case of abortion, which is presumably a "health care" issue, why is it now permissible for Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al to completely invade every other area of an individual's health care, to the point of perhaps fining, jailing, and refusing treatment by government mandate? The thought of having the feds involved in doctor-patient relationship decision-making is absolutely captivating.