Recent headlines tell of President Obama asking members of Congress to give him “war powers” and report the president saying the debate tying up funding proposals for Homeland Security is jeopardizing national security.

Both of these matters are tremendously important to our country, and it’s clear the president faces major opposition on both issues. Obama’s immigration plan, which would receive funding under the Department of Homeland Security, is a major roadblock in the minds of many in Congress, and giving Obama the green light to launch military actions against ISIS, al Qaida and other radical Islam terrorists causes many lawmakers to have reservations.

It would be interesting to know the real reasons behind these reservations or roadblocks.

There are normal, legitimate questions about both the war powers matter and the funding for Homeland Security, which includes funding for the president’s immigration plan. However, it’s likely many of those in Congress, as well as a majority of the public who question or opposed these issues, do so because they don’t trust Obama to take the right actions in either matter.

Late in his 2008 presidential campaign, he told an audience that they were only a few days away from being able to bring about fundamental changes in America. He was elected and set out to make those changes through executive orders and violating or twisting constitutional, congressional or presidential rules or procedures.

Obama has shown his ideas and feelings about the role of the U.S. in international affairs. He almost apologizes for Uncle Sam. How would he use his war powers?

The issue of not having “boots on the ground” engaged in live military action is misleading the public because there have been and continue to be U.S. forces carrying out specific actions such as identifying missile targets. There certainly are “contract” fighters directed by U.S. officials.

The president has not leveled with the public. How can the public or members of Congress have confidence he would use his war powers in the best interest of the nation?

Former U.S. secretaries of Defense and former, as well as active generals and senior officers say the president takes the advice and initiates military actions put forward by a handful of political appointees and ignores the advice of experienced, well-trained military professionals.

Political advisers are more concerned about popularity and voter approval than what might be in the best interest of the country. Which path would Obama follow?

Just this question is enough to cause many in Congress to hesitate to approve war powers authority for the president. How much are they willing to trust the president to do the right thing?

On the Homeland Security matter, Obama has said the funding to protect our borders is his top concern because it affects this nation’s security.

It seems he already may have compromised national security by his actions that have allowed thousands of illegal immigrants to cross our borders. How many of these illegals might be well-trained individuals who may be directed to carry out terrorist attacks here in the U.S.?

If ISIS, al Qaida or other radical Islamic groups truly intend to see their flags flying over buildings in Washington, D.C., how better to get their followers into America than to plant potential terrorists in the steady lines of illegals coming into the U.S.?

If national security is a top priority, why favor a plan that welcomes and encourages the illegals and, once they are here, grant them the rights and freedoms of legal Americans?

The vast majority of Americans and those in Congress want a president to have the power to call for military actions when necessary and craft reasonable immigration policies. But they count on the president making correct and timely decisions, not taking politically motivated actions.

Unfortunately, there is not the trust in Obama that the country and its citizens deserve. Obama has two more years in office and it would be great for the country if, by his actions, he could play the role of a statesman rather than a highly partisan politician.