Many of us have been speculating for years about Obama's affinity for this country as founded. He promised to fundamentally transform this nation -- something he wouldn't have done if he embraced the American idea.
There is so much evidence that Obama has a different feeling about America than all of our past presidents that it borders on disingenuous to pretend otherwise. What other president has ever denigrated the Founding Fathers as "men of property and wealth"? What POTUS has repeatedly apologized for the United States and its record? Obama has done so, often on foreign soil, complaining to Europe about America's arrogance, admitting to the Americas that we have sometimes dictated our terms, telling the Turkish Parliament that we have "our own darker periods in our history," sending a letter to the Afghan president apologizing for coalition forces inadvertently burning copies of the Quran but failing to object to the killing of U.S. troops in return, apologizing to Japan for our nuclear bombing of its cities, criticizing Americans for distrusting Islam, and even going so far as to blame America for the rampant gun violence in Mexico. What other president has belonged to a church whose pastor was openly racist and anti-American? What other president has scoffed at the idea of American exceptionalism?
What other president has bad-mouthed his own country's record on civil rights to the United Nations Human Rights Council and submitted U.S. laws and policies to that council for review? Has another POTUS married someone who admitted to never being proud of America in her adult life before her husband was elected president?
Even venerated conservative commentator Thomas Sowell has said, "I think this is a man who has enormous resentments toward this country, especially towards those people who have flourished and prospered here." Giuliani's statement was neither outrageous nor unique. Some of the rest of us have been talking and writing about it for years now.
What about the media's hysteria over Walker's refusal to contradict Giuliani, saying that Giuliani was free to speak for himself and that he was not going to comment on whether Obama loves America.
What is wrong with that answer? Why should the media ask Walker about it? He didn't make the statement. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank skewered Walker for "avoiding anything that might resemble leadership," because Walker wouldn't condemn Giuliani and because he hadn't fallen for the media's loaded question on whether he believes in evolution.
How would either of those questions inform voters about Walker's presidential qualifications? His refusal to jump through their hoops, however, shows he is a strong and confident enough individual not to be manipulated by press vultures whose goal is not to inform the public but to discredit their ideological opponents by, for example, cornering them into revealing they are essentially Neanderthals for not believing we came from Neanderthals.
If mainstream reporters are so interested in such questions, why don't they ever ask Democratic candidates and public officials similarly uncomfortable questions?
Why don't they ask professed Catholics such as Vice President Joe Biden how they can square their pro-abortion rights stance with their faith? Why don't they ask Democratic presidential aspirants whether they believe that transgender "women" should be allowed to use public restrooms set apart for females? That the universe exploded out of nothing apart from supernatural causes? That the United States faces a serious threat of terrorism from any group other than Islamists? That President Obama was correct in depicting the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shootings as "workplace violence"? That Islam has really been woven into America's national fabric? That we can defang the Islamic State group by finding jobs for its members? That Obama was justified in deceiving the country on Obamacare, as revealed by his adviser Jonathan Gruber, or in lying about his position on same-sex marriage, as admitted by his adviser David Axelrod? That it was OK for Obama to issue executive orders relaxing immigration enforcement mere weeks after he admitted he had no constitutional authority to do so? That Obama actually sat in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 17 years and didn't ever hear him slamming America and white people? That Republicans are waging a war on women because they oppose government subsidies of contraceptives? That it's wise for Obama to telegraph that he will not, under any circumstances, "put boots on the ground" to fight the Islamic State? That it's in America's interests for Obama to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay back into the battlefield against us? That it's OK for environmental activists to fly their private jets around the world and increase their "carbon footprint"?
Why don't the media ask likely Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton whether she truly quarterbacked the squelching of husband Bill's "bimbo eruptions" and how she can reconcile that with her advocacy for women's rights and dignity? Was it OK for Bill's handlers to degrade Bill's paramours as "trailer trash"?
Or if the media really want to be relevant, why don't they ask Democrats what they plan to do about entitlement reform -- seeing as in a matter of a few decades, our entitlement outlays will exceed all of our tax revenues.
The mainstream media won't ask any of those questions, because they are not interested in fair play or in bringing out relevant facts about the candidates' positions. They are shameless advocates for President Obama and the Democratic Party. Period.