Clueless, Hopeless, Doorless!

====
Gun Free Zones come with a cost - lives of innocents unable to defend themselves.  For a president surrounded by protection, perhaps he cannot understand the distinction or maybe he remains caught up in his own unwilling web  because he is smarter than everyone on the planet he lives on because he does not live on planet earth! (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
I understand the current criticism of The FBI for failing to detect the current terrorist killers but , in all fairness, Obama has prevented the FBI and other such agencies, charged with defending our nation, from pursuing their duties because they cannot initially proceed on the premise Islamists are radicals.  Language has meanings and being able to use descriptive words triggers more options.

Second, the agency is undermanned and is very busy investigating those who break our other  laws from stock manipulation to Hillarious and her private E Mail matter regarding the mishandling of classified information etc..

The head of The Savannah FBI office is a friend and he spoke for me over a year ago and mentioned, then, the negative impact sequestering has caused his office's performance. 

Obama has proven to be more interested in buying votes by increasing the level of entitlements than protecting our nation. even though he has doubled the deficit since taking office. Under maintain a car and it catches up with you in time.

Secondly, Obama's failed policies have caused an increase in the level of problems The FBI is being called upon to investigate and yet, their manpower has not expanded to match these increased demands.

Does The FBI screw up?  Sure they do because that is what humans often do and the challenges from radical Islamists have increased as their ability to do harm has vastly improved.

As the level of domestic 'episodes' increases eventually Obama will be forced to respond but he prefers to lead from behind so it is unlikely he will get ahead of the curve. Obama is a half measure president.  Containing the ISIS JV team is Obama's stated goal and containment is simply a more fashionable word, a more Politically Correct way of saying I am committed to losing! But then, that too is what losers do!
===
Liberals, Progressives and PC'ers seem unconcerned about porous borders because they believe America is a nation that provides refuge and because we have a statute whose base embodies these iconic lines: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. Yet, I bet Liberals, Progressives and PC'ers live in houses with doors.  I further bet they keep them shut when they go to bed and probably when they leave for work.

If I am correct, am I missing something? 

Since doors cost a lot of money, as do locked ones, think of all the money Liberals, Progressives and PC'ers could save if their homes were built without doors.They could give these savings to charity.

Think how inviting their homes would be for those who were thirsty or needed to use the bath room or take a nap.

If Liberals, Progressives and PC'ers were really compassionate it would seem to me they would live in homes without doors.

Biting satire? Damn right but laced with a bit of logic as well?  You decide!
===
Enough with the satire,now for some humor.  (See 2 below.)
=== 
Senator Lindsey Graham will not become the Republican candidate because he is too Southern, too logical, to embarrassing and, of course, too tough.

http://youtu.be/qvTaZKpVxzg

====
 Dick
========================================================================
1)

Will Gun Free Zones Protect Our Children From ISIS?

by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen

Originally published at the Washington Times

Will gun free zones protect our children from ISIS?

To even ask this question, in the wake of events in Paris and San Bernardino, is absurd.

---

Dick: I spoke to the National Defense University about the challenges we face in the Long War and how we can develop a strategy to succeed earlier this week.
Read the speech transcript here

---

We are historians, a field that, like oncology, often requires us to assess grim realities. Unfortunately, history offers no shortage of grim realities like those the people of Paris faced last month. And yet from from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to Paris to San Bernardino, they often take us by surprise. These events remind us that tragically, our sense of safety is often more illusion than reality.

So as historians, what is the lesson we should take from the recent attacks? What are the dangers to which we’re willfully blind? What are the grim realities we’ve been allowing ourselves to ignore?

Surely one lesson of Paris must be that there is no such thing as a gun-free zone. Paris has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, on a continent where guns are notoriously difficult for law-abiding people to obtain.

No doubt the people of Paris felt safe in this state of unilateral disarmament. They had been assured of their security. Ordinary Parisians didn’t have guns, and neither did most of their police officers. For a time, they had the luxury to consider this a mark of civilization.

After the barbarity of last month’s attacks and the Charlie Hebdo massacre earlier this year, it should be obvious that this is a luxury no Western city can afford. Grim reality has reasserted itself, and once again the cost of our willful blindness has proved devastating.

The truth of this should be clear for all to see, even if, for ideological reasons, those in the White House and State Department refuse to admit it. The methods of violent Islamic supremacists are not a secret: low-tech attacks against soft, undefended targets in order to spread the greatest level of terror and carnage. In a free society, there are more such targets than the police can possibly secure on their own against determined enemies such as these. And in the face of such a threat, we have no choice but to prepare good, law abiding citizens to defend themselves and others in their communities.

In the United States, we have been blind to our most exposed target in part because the threat is so unthinkable. Yet the grim reality is plain: our schools--and as a result, our children--are extraordinarily vulnerable to those who would do us harm.

The only measure of defense at most of our schools is a sign that reads “This Is a Gun Free Zone”. If the perils of this policy were not so atrocious, the hubris would be laughable. It reminds us of the sign that hung in the Gettysburg town cemetery forbidding the discharge of firearms--on the exact ground where Union soldiers would be forced to make a desperate stand against Pickett’s Charge. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, the battlefield is not always of our own choosing.

If you are a parent dropping your child off at school tomorrow, stop for a moment, look at that sign, and ask yourself, “Does this really keep my child safe from the threat of war?” If you are a college student, take a good long look at that sign. Your life or death might be affected by the mentality behind it. And if you are a teacher or professor, ask yourself, “Really: what do I do if that sign doesn’t stop them?”

Every parent, every teacher, and especially every school board member needs to rethink the defense of our most vulnerable and innocent target: our children in our schools. We must rethink how we ask our instructors and students to react to a school attack--for surely the current policy of a sign on the door--and, if that fails, to lock the door, lie down and wait for the danger to pass--is exactly what our enemies expect.

If you doubt the seriousness of the threat, just run a search on the “Beslan Massacre,” the 2004 attack by Islamic radicals in Russia that resulted in the deaths of more than 300 children. Or research the attack late last year on a school in Pakistan. Or the kidnapping of hundreds of girls in Nigeria. These are chilling stories. And they could happen here.

We need a rational debate about that grim reality. Do we really have more to fear from trained personnel--the teachers and administrators who devote their lives to our children’s education--being allowed to carry a concealed weapon than we do from those who would do them harm? Can we at least trust the former military or law enforcement among them?

Our communities and especially our schools need planning and training. Our children’s lives may depend on our willingness to think realistically about protecting them.

Your Friend,
Newt

1a)This is a very interesting article by my favorite Thomas Sowell on where in the Holy Hanna who we. are looking for to stomp on Hillary and get our country back.  Read and share it.

There is a painful irony in a recent decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on the side of Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, whom the U.S. Department of Justice tried to stop from making charter schools widely available to minority youngsters in his state.

The Circuit Court's decision over-ruled a lower court decision on the side of the Justice Department, which was opposing the large-scale creation of charter schools in Louisiana, on grounds that this would interfere with long-standing federal government efforts to racially integrate public schools.

In short, Governor Jindal's attempt to give minority children a chance for a better education prevailed against the attempts of the political left to use these children as guinea pigs for their theories about mixing and matching students by race.

What made the Circuit Court decision ironic and painful was that this decision came right after Bobby Jindal had withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Nor was he the first governor to withdraw from the campaign for a presidential nomination. Nor is he likely to be the last.

Some of us think someone who is going to govern from the White House ought to have had some experience governing somewhere else before, if only so that we can get some idea of how good — or how bad — he is at governing.

How good someone may have been in business, or in a profession, or as a member of Congress, is no real clue to what that individual will be like when it comes to governing the country.

Certainly choosing a first-term Senator on the basis of his political rhetoric is something that has not turned out well in the case of Barack Obama, and may turn out to be truly catastrophic, as international terrorism spreads.

The withdrawal of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and then of Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, are major losses — not because we know that either of them would make a great president, but precisely because we have no idea whether either of them would have been great or awful.

The primary campaign is supposed to help us find out such things. Instead, the media have turned this into a side show about Donald Trump.

Nor was this all media political bias. The Fox News Channel, which broadcast the first "debates," opened up the second-tier candidates' session with a question about Donald Trump, who was not even present, rather than about the nation's problems, which have been all too present.

The media instinct for the flashy and clever irrelevancy seems to be non-partisan. The fact that we may be at a crossroads in world history does not seem to spoil their sense of fun and games.

Much of the time that could have been spent bringing out what candidates with governing experience have to offer was spent instead interviewing not only Trump himself but even members of his family.

This year the Republicans have had a much better qualified set of nominees to choose from than in previous election years. But most of them may be gone before we have learned enough about them to know whether we would have been for them or against them.

We may already know as much as we are likely to know about the three first-term Senators — Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — since they have no governing records to be examined. We may also know as much about the candidates from outside politics — Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina — as we are likely to know.

It is the governors who have a record that goes beyond their rhetorical skills. And it is those records that need to be examined.

A complicating factor in this and some previous Republican primary campaigns is that there are so many conservatives splitting the conservative vote that it may guarantee that some mushy moderate gets the nomination, but cannot get enough Republican voters to turn out on election day.

At this point, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey seems to be the kind of articulate conservative candidate who can galvanize Republican voters to turn out on election day to vote, and perhaps even attract some Democrats with that political rarity, straight talk  

=================================================================================
2) For years, I thought that I ought to get a better grip on Spanish so that every time I visit a McDonalds I could understand the service/check-out person.  Then I thought my next move was to learn Indian so I could also understand my doctors and the person that answers the phone when I have a warranty problem. 

And so should you. 

In order to continue getting by in America, we all need to learn the NEW English language!  Practice by reading the following  conversation until you are able to understand the term

"TENJOOBERRYMUDS”. 

Sad, but true.  By the time you have finished this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND. 

With a little patience, you'll be able to fit right in. Now, here goes.

The following is a telephone exchange between you, a hotel guest, and room-service somewhere in the good old U.S. of A. today:

Room Service : "Morrin. Roon sirbees."

Guest : "Sorry, I thought I dialed room service."

Room Service: " Rye.  Roon sirbees . . . morrin!  Joowish tu oddor sunteen???"

Guest: “Uh . . . Yes, I'd like to order bacon and eggs.."

Room Service: "Ow July den?"

Guest: “. . . What??"

Room Service: "Ow July den?!?... Pryed, boyud, poochd?"

Guest: "Oh, the eggs!  How do I like them?  Sorry . . . scrambled, please"

Room Service: "Ow July dee baykem?  Crease?"

Guest: "Crisp will be fine."

Room Service: “Hokay.  An Sahn toes?"

Guest: "What?"

Room Service: "An toes . . . July Sahn toes?"

 Guest: “I . . . Don't think so."

RoomService: "No?  Judo wan sahn toes???"

Guest: "I feel really bad about this, but I don't know what 'judo wan sahn toes' means."

RoomService: "Toes! Toes! . . . Why Joo don Juan toes?  Ow bow Anglish moppin we
bodder?"

Guest: "Oh, English muffin!!!  I've got it!  You were saying 'toast’.  Fine . . . Yes, an English muffin will be fine."

RoomService:  "We bodder?"

Guest:  "No, just put the bodder on the side."

RoomService:  "Wad?!?"

Guest: "I mean butter . . . Just put the butter on the side."

RoomService: "Copy?"

Guest: "Excuse me?"

RoomService:  "Copy...tea..meel?"

Guest: "Yes.  Coffee, please . . . And that's everything."

RoomService: "One Minnie.  Scramah egg, crease baykem, Anglish moppin we bodder on sigh and copy . . . Rye ??"

Guest: "Whatever you say."

RoomService: "Tenjooberrymuds."

Guest: "You're welcome."

Remember - I said "By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND ‘TENJOOBERRYMUDS' . . . and you do, don't you?"

=================================================================================