Don’t get me wrong; I’m delighted that all the men are home safe and sound and that the pirates are dead. However, I do not consider the capture of a private American cargo vessel thousands of miles away a “threat” to our “national security” the same way the AP apparently does. Yes, it’s a crime, and yes, it should be punished, but playing this up as some kind of national security win for President Obama is absurd on its face.

Obama, in what I can only hope was a cocaine-induced delirium, has decided to take a hard-line approach against pirates in the same breath as belittling the threat of Islamic terrorists. Instead of the “War on Terrorism” we now have “overseas military contingencies”, and instead of terrorist attacks, we now have, “man-caused disasters”. But Obama is sharpening his cutlass to lead a raiding crew against Somalian pirates?

Furthermore, this was not a U.S. military ship that was captured. It did not happen in an area where it could be a threat to the United States itself. But if Obama is this concerned with Somalian pirates, should he not be at least half as concerned with the al Qaeda fanatics who attempt to murder Americans frequently as well?

If the Obama Administration wants a “win” on national security, how about doing something other than bowing to the whims of homocidal maniacs in North Korea and Iran? How about securing Iraq instead of leaving it to the al Qaeda savages? How about securing the border instead of promising not to enforce immigration law?

Thank God the captain of the ship was all right, and God bless the Navy SEAL teams. But this victory had little to do with Barack Obama and even less to do with U.S. national security.

Besides, if Obama plans to make the world free of piracy, he’s still got a ways to go.

That’s right: the Department of Homeland Security has released a report to law enforcement agencies warning that the election of the First Black President (TM), the deepening recession, and the return home of “disgruntled” soldiers from the Middle East is a potent cocktail for right-wing and white-supremacist groups.

For the past eight years, we’ve heard nothing but how stupid George W. Bush was, but even Bush didn’t display the stunning stupidity of the Obama Administration. This idea that Obama is the smartest president we’ve had in years has been slapped down pretty hard recently for those who have been paying attention and not drinking the kool-aid, but this is just a whole new layer of dumb.

Let me clue you in, Mr. President and Secretary Napolitano: the American people aren’t half as angry about the recession as they are about the fact that your government is using an “economic crisis” as a tool to bludgeon those who disagree with you. Your exploitation of the economy to push through a massive spending bill that you didn’t bother to read is what has us angry, and your broken promises that you wouldn’t raise taxes are what have us angry.

The danger of white supremacist groups pales in comparison to the danger of such groups as ACORN which have used race-baiting and fraudulent legal claims (claims you yourself argued for, Mr. Obama) to bully the nation into giving them exactly what they want. In a nation where simply opposing your policies is the most vile racism, I would think that last person that wanted to strain the race card to its breaking point was you, Mr. President. I would have thought that twenty years in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah “US of KKK-A” Wright would have cured you of your compulsion to see racism at every turn, especially since in twenty years you didn’t see it there at all.

And one last thing, Mr. President. Returning troopers aren’t disgruntled because they were in a war. And if they make trouble for you, consider the reasons. Might it have something to do with the fact that you said they were killing innocent civilians? Is it because you’ve ordered a humiliating retreat from Iraq, where we had a good chance at success, in favor of Afghanistan, which historically speaking has never ended well? Is it because, in order to sop to your lunatic leftist base in the federal budget, you’ve floated proposals to make those brave soldiers who have been injured in combat pay for their treatments out of private insurance?

Mr. President, think about what you’re doing, and think about the way you’re doing it. I understand that Rules for Radicals was a good book to have on your nightstand when you were just a Chicago thug, and it may even have been useful for battling the Clinton machine in the primaries. But you’re the President now. This isn’t the campaign, this is governing. You are the President of the United States. Maybe it’s time to act like it.

Q: Is it completely insensitive and tone-deaf for the Obama Administration to attempt to appoint pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican?

A: Is the Pope Catholic?

The rumor that Caroline Kennedy was being floated as the fourth choice for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican wasn’t exactly shocking. The Kennedys are quite possibly the most famous and powerful Catholic family in America. And if you don’t count infidelity (JFK, Teddy Kennedy, etc.), enthusiasm for the slaughter of the unborn (Teddy Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy), and killing a girl (Teddy Kennedy), they’re actually pretty good Catholics!

But what is shocking is that the Obama Administration has, according to the Washington Post, already tried to appoint three pro-choice (NOW lexicon for: supports abortion as a method of medical necessity, casual birth control, and mid-week entertainment) ambassadors to the Vatican. First Obama gives Gordon Brown DVD’s, then they don’t work, then he gives Queen Elizabeth II an iPod and his tacky wife hugs her, now he’s trying to force the Pope to deal with someone who encourages an activity that the Pope’s faith (and also the faith to which Obama claims to cleave) finds morally repugnant.

This is akin to sending Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Klansman, to be an ambassador to the post-Apartheid South Africa, or sending Ted Kennedy to be an ambassador to Mary-Jo Kopechne’s family, or sending John Bolton to be an ambassador to the UN (and we saw the hysterics the left went into about that).  It’s extremely offensive, and I’m surprised that nobody at the White House or State Department thought to float the idea that perhaps they should appoint an ambassador that doesn’t hold views that are reprehensible to the host nation.

Meanwhile, Americans are chafing under the burden of taxes even during a recession–and trust me, they’ll need to pay their taxes in order to finance the massive debt and deficit that the Obama Administration rammed through Congress earlier thisy ear. But according to Reuters the Obama Administration has sworn sympathy for “tax delinquents”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the sentiment. If I had my druthers, I wouldn’t pay my taxes so that the fat cats in Congress can bribe their semi-literate constituencies with pork projects into re-electing them. But that’s not how the system works.

I can understand why people are afraid, though. Many people are filing for the first time this year, and they don’t know the tax code. The tax code is thousands of pages long and the Secretary of the Treasury himself can’t even figure it out–so it’s fitting that the Obama Administration is promising leniency.

If you’re a college graduate and don’t pay your taxes, on the other hand, there’s a good chance you’ll be appointed to the Obama Administration. I hear there’s a position open as Ambassador to the Vatican.