To the Editor:
Loyalty is regarded as an admirable quality. However, there are times when loyalty must be relinquished. Typically loyalty is seen within political parties and allegiance found in government leads to both positive and negative consequences.
Since President Obama took office, he has taken countless actions that many would regard as negative. Just look at two of his transgressions.
On one count he released five Muslim terrorists. Their crimes are equal to or greater than those committed by the worst criminals of World War II such as Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and Mussolini. Without debating the character or guilt of Bergdahl, his return could have been achieved with money. This would have prevented this scum from returning to the battlefield.
On the other count, Obama has, in effect, by both his actions and inactions, issued an open invitation for invasion of our unprotected southern border. There is no full accounting of the infiltrators. Conditions are similar to how the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management would supervise a “catch and release” program. The invaders could be coming from anywhere in the world. As a consequence, a massive flood of infiltrators is endangering the health, safety and financial stability of all Americans.
Just these destructive actions, alone, are cause for the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation to question or renounce loyalty to Obama. To the best of my knowledge, not one member has ever uttered a single peep about these events. Why have not Senator Reed, Senator Whitehouse, Representative Cicilline, or Representative Langevin expressed a single objection to the president’s lack of leadership? Loyalty to the party or the president should not trump loyalty to the citizens they represent.
If the gentlemen disagree, perhaps they will individually explain how these two transgressions, alone, benefit the United States, Rhode Island and the citizens they represent. Examination of their detachment from these major events may cause voters to question and relinquish their loyalty to the collective delegation.
C. Christopher Sirr