Obama is coming back to The White House
instead of staying in South America and teaching
dancing. (See 1,1a and 1b below.)
===
There is always a price one pays or benefit one receives for any action. Perhaps we are paying that price now in terms of candidates.
The price we have paid for Obama relates to his culture, how he was raised, his relationships, the fact that he was never truly tested for the position he sought and now holds.
We have only ourselves to blame for our lack of judgement, our inability to discern because we substituted emotion for reasoning.
===
Will Islamist terrorism force elitists to come together with common folk for their mutual benefit or will the difference in status cause both to lose the battle? Stay tuned. (See 2 below.)
===
Allen West offers an expanded version of what he thinks will happen regarding Hillary.
We discussed as much when he was here and stayed with us and we both are on the same track.
The Hillary "Geni" will eventually come out of the bottle one way or the other.(See 3 below.)
===
And now for a little Godly humor before the various holidays:
Preview YouTube video CHRISTIANITY - by Dave Allen
====Dick
========================================================================
1)
Belgium is having its 9/11. President Obama is the leader of the free world, the de facto leader of NATO, and as Brussels burned, he stayed in Cuba, enjoyed some baseball - then jetted off to Argentina as planned.
========================================================================
1)
PIERS MORGAN: Twinkle-toes Obama might be a demon at the tango but when it comes to reading the public mood he's tone-deaf
What the hell is wrong with Barack Obama?
Why does he not seem to have a clue how to behave when major atrocities happen around the world?
The ISIS terror attacks on Brussels were Belgium’s 9/11.
Belgium is a long-time loyal U.S. ally and fellow member of NATO.
Obama, in his capacity as President of the United States, is supposed to be ‘leader of the free world’ and therefore, de facto, leader of NATO.
That alone should have demanded he immediately abandon his jolly in Cuba, where he is cosying up to a dictatorship, and return to Washington to lead the global response with a powerful statement from the Oval Office.
Belgium is having its 9/11. President Obama is the leader of the free world, the de facto leader of NATO, and as Brussels burned, he stayed in Cuba, enjoyed some baseball - then jetted off to Argentina as planned.
Particularly as up to a dozen Americans were wounded in Brussels, and for all he knew, possibly dead. One U.S. couple is still missing and unaccounted for.
But Obama had other ideas.
He stayed in Cuba, made a cursory 1-minute statement about the Brussels bombings, then went to the baseball game at Havana’s Latinoamericano stadium.
Even more extraordinarily, once he was there he allowed himself to be filmed laughing and joking with Raul Castro, the pair of them raising their arms in a joyful crowd wave.
This, surely, was outrageously insensitive to the grieving people of Belgium, not to mention the families of those wounded and missing Americans?
As former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani put it: ‘You don’t send a picture of yourself laughing while people have just been blown up at a level that is the equivalent of September 11 to one of our allies.’
When asked what difference it would have made if Obama had cancelled his South American tour, Giuliani explained: ‘The difference is that it would have made people feel that he’s a leader, that he’s in charge. This would be like Franklin Roosevelt remaining at Warm Springs when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.’
Exactly.
‘It’s very important not to respond with fear,’ Obama blustered, trying to explain his bizarre behaviour as fury erupted.
Yes, Mr President.
But it’s even more important for the most powerful man in the world to show some damn respect.
Just imagine what Americans would have thought if within hours of 9/11, the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair had gone to a football match and been seen giggling and clowning around with some dodgy communist despot.
All hell would have broken loose, and rightly so.
It’s also vital in this situation for a U.S. president to let the perpetrators of such evil know America means business when it, or one of its allies, is attacked.
Yesterday, Obama merely reiterated that his strategy to defeat ISIS remains airstrikes, intelligence and arrests. Tactics which have so far proved singularly unsuccessful in stopping them.
Retired 4-star general and former Director of National Security, Michael Hayden condemned Obama’s plan as ‘under-resourced and over-regulated.’
‘The United States is dropping 20 bombs a day on ISIS,’ he said, ‘that is not a relentless campaign.’
As with so much of Obama’s foreign policy, it smacks of his infamous reputation for ‘leading from behind’.
Obama insisted yesterday that getting on with normal life is the best answer to terrorism. He said, ‘a lot of it is also going to be to say: You do not have power over us. We are strong, our values are right.
You offer nothing, except death.’
Wow. I bet those murderous medieval monsters are trembling in their suicide bomber vests at those stirring words, Mr Obama!
Not.
The truth is that ISIS increasingly DOES have power over us because its own ultra-violent campaign has made many people now deeply fearful of going about their normal lives in the way Obama suggests.
What I suspect the terrorists are really thinking is that if the U.S. president is so relaxed about them blowing up Brussels that he can go to watch baseball immediately afterwards, then they have nothing to worry about and can continue, with impunity, committing massacres on people also ‘going about their normal lives’.
I am reminded of Obama’s reaction when ISIS beheaded American journalist James Foley.
He made a quick speech saying how dreadful it all was, then, just seven minutes later, he was filmed teeing off on the golf course and laughing with some mates.
That was a disgrace, and so is this.
By stark contrast, France’s Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, declared; ‘We are at war. We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war.’
Absolutely right.
It IS war, a particularly evil war being waged directly at innocent civilians and it’s a war that we are currently losing.
Paris was hit hard twice within a few months, in concert halls, restaurants and football stadiums.
After the first attack, at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon, the world’s leaders gathered together in Paris to march in solidarity.
All except President Obama, who stayed at home and watched TV.
It looked terrible, like he didn’t care.
And to be harshly frank, I don’t think he did much.
The president has always seemed disturbingly detached from the true scale of the threat which ISIS poses to the world, quietly believing it to be ‘not America’s problem’.
From the early days of the terror group’s surging growth, he dismissed them as a bunch of amateurs.
Specifically, he said this days after ISIS overtook the Iraq city of Fallujah in January 2014: ‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it’s accurate, is if a jayvee (junior varsity) team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.’
That shocking complacency means that his administration has never really had a proper plan for destroying ISIS.
I genuinely think Obama hoped and assumed they’d just gradually wither and disintegrate.
Instead, they’ve grown steadily stronger, richer, deadlier and more popular to recruitment from disenfranchised, poor, angry young Muslims.
And a major part of their ability to do this has been America’s refusal to properly engage with them.
When a head teacher lets unruly kids run amok in a school, they get emboldened to behave even worse and get others to join them. With great power comes great responsibility and I think this president is failing us all when it comes to the so-called Islamic State.
Last night, to compound his ineptitude, Obama was seen awkwardly strutting the Tango in Buenos Aires with some hot female Argentinian dancer. He even looked like he’d been having lessons, so laboured and precise were his deliberate moves.
One again, the optics were appalling.
What kind of message does this send to ISIS, other than this outgoing U.S. President is now so demob happy that he’s got time to practice and perform the Tango as they wreak their hideous acts of violence?
It’s pretty obvious that Obama’s now mentally checked out. He clearly just wants to stick any big problems in the next president’s in-tray and focus instead on how history will now record his own legacy.
From a very selfish personal standpoint, Obama knows that ending the cold war with Cuba is a more easily achievable tick on his CV then trying to defeat a very formidable terror group which can’t be beaten in his tenure.
Rudy Giuliani, in his passionate attack on the president, said the attacks in Brussels, a NATO ally, were ‘just like an attack on us.’
Yes they were.
And history will now forever remember that when Belgium was knocked to its knees, Barack Obama went to a ball game and danced the Tango.
Shame on you, Mr President.
1a)
Obama’s Vacation From History
Argentina.
Trump’s bluster and doubling down on his talk of torture and bans on
Muslim travel was satisfying to many of those who rightly fear the
administration isn’t doing enough. But his lack of a coherent policy for
fighting ISIS — other than a pose of toughness — is as evident as is the foolhardy nature of his isolationist comments about NATO. Cruz’s talk of
policing Muslim neighborhoods had a kernel of truth in that police and the intelligence establishment need to keep eyes and ears open about possible incitement. But his comments conjured up an occupation of American
Muslim neighborhoods that is exactly what we don’t need since such
measures are likely to discourage assimilation. If neither of them lost many
GOP primary votes with their comments, neither did they inspire much confidence in their command of the issue.
But instead of focusing on Trump and Cruz, it was the president’s behavior
and comments that are still deserving of the most scrutiny. Having
blundered the U.S. into the current conflict with an ISIS organization that
still controls a huge territory in two countries and is strong enough to send
its terrorists into European cities, the president proceeded to act this week
as if the real problem was how to answer critics of his determination to stick
to his schedule, go to a ballgame with Derek Jeter and then hit the dance
floor at his next stop.
While the Obama communications team was caught off guard about
criticism of pictures of the president playing golf soon after the news broke
of ISIS beheading an American hostage, this time, they were better
prepared for questions about the president’s jaunt to the ballpark. They
insisted that Obama’s casual behavior shouldn’t be compared to George W. Bush’s decision to stay in the classroom reading to kids after learning about 9/11. They spoke of the symbolism of baseball, cited the precedent of
Boston’s response to the 2013 Marathon terror bombing and, of course, shoveled out the standard line about not letting the terrorists win.
But if these arguments fell flat, it was not so much that a president is well-advised to steer clear of lighthearted activities on the day of a terrible
tragedy as it is because Obama doesn’t seem to take the war against ISIS seriously, even when he’s not wearing cool shades and doing the wave
with a dictator.
Ironically, the day before he went to the game Obama defended his trip to
the communist nation even though it had not made any of the progress
toward democracy or more respect for human rights that he had initially
said would be needed before a presidential trip could occur. In his remarks,
he spoke about not wishing to be trapped by history. That’s an important
theme the president has often sounded as an excuse for decisions that
ignored important lessons of history. Despite his lip service paid to the issue while in Cuba, the president clearly doesn’t think human rights is a priority.
His intent was to pursue détente with the Castro regime regardless of its
conduct or whether U.S. actions would better the lives of the Cuban people. Like the trip to the game, the Cuba excursion was not so much a matter of
making history but ignoring it. The same applies to the president’s stubborn refusal to act as if the war on ISIS is a big deal.
He has in the past blamed the public’s fear of terrorism on the press and
made it clear he considered it less important an issue that global warming.
That attitude has been evident ever since he was reluctantly forced to
declare a U.S. commitment to a war against ISIS in 2014. Since then that
war has been fought on the cheap. The Islamic State remains in control of
vast sections of Iraq and Syria and still able to carry the war to the streets
and airports of European capitals. Obama’s promise to destroy ISIS has
turned out to be empty words, as U.S. and allied forces conduct a
lackadaisical war that shows little sign of ever resulting in the end of ISIS’s
reign of terror.
Just as was the case after the November terror attacks in Paris, the
president’s low-key reaction to Brussels is not so much a question of demonstrating calm in a time of crisis as it is a sense that what has
happened is not important enough to cause him to rethink his strategy, let
alone disrupt his schedule. If he said in Argentina that there is no “plan B”
about dealing with ISIS, it is not because he really thinks the current
strategy is working — which it obviously isn’t — as it is that he doesn’t view
the war against the group he once dismissed as “the J.V.” is the main focus
of American policy. Nothing, not even a wave of terrorism or failure in the
Middle East, is enough to distract him from his refusal to face facts.
While Obama dismissed Trump and Cruz’s comments as not serious, his clinging to a remote control war in which the U.S. leads from behind isn’t
that much better. There has to be something in between the calls for
“carpet bombing” he decried and the minimalist offensive he has
authorized. The longer ISIS is allowed to stay in place and to strike out at
the West, the more it will be seen by the Muslim world as the strong horse
that is beating the West. There may be no perfect strategy that is cost-free, but if the ill-considered words of the Republican candidates resonate with large numbers of Americans, it is because they sense Obama’s apathy and understand a more vigorous approach of some kind is necessary.
It would be far better if someone who had a better sense of what is
appropriate behavior at a time of tragedy and crisis was leading the country. If the president were ready to make the war against ISIS a priority or to
reconsider failed policies, he could go to all the ballgames and dance as
much as he liked. The problem here isn’t optics. It’s the president’s
disinterest in employing all the resources at his command in pursuit of a
decisive victory. The president not only lacks a sense of urgency. He is on vacation from history not because he’s in Cuba or Argentina but because he thinks his pet projects really are more important than the Islamist war on the West.
1b) OBAMA’S IDEOLOGICAL HOLIDAY IN HAVANA
THE SPLIT SCREEN TOLD THE STORY: ON ONE SIDE, IMAGES
OF THE TERROR BOMBING IN BRUSSELS; ON THE OTHER,
BARACK OBAMA DOING THE WAVE WITH RAÚL CASTRO AT A BASEBALL GAME IN HAVANA.
ON ONE SIDE, THE REAL WORLD OF RISING GLOBAL
TERRORISM. ON THE OTHER, THE OBAMA FANTASY WORLD IN WHICH ROMANCING A GEOPOLITICALLY INSIGNIFICANT CUBA — WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF DEMOCRACY OR HUMAN RIGHTS YIELDED IN RETURN — IS CONSIDERED A SEMINAL
ACHIEVEMENT OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.
CUBA WASN’T SO MUCH A LEGACY TRIP AS A VANITY TRIP, VINDICATING THE DORM-ROOM ENTHUSIASMS OF ONE’S
STUDENT DAYS WHEN THE SANDINISTAS WERE COOL, REVOLUTION WAS KING AND EVERY OTHER FRIEND HAD A
DOG NAMED CHE.
WHEN BRUSSELS INTERVENED, SOME ARGUED THAT OBAMA SHOULD HAVE CUT SHORT HIS TRIP AND COME BACK HOME. I DISAGREE. YOU DON’T LET THREE SUICIDE BOMBERS
CONTROL THE ITINERARY OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. MOREOVER,OBAMA’S NEXT STOP, ARGENTINA, IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT AND HAD JUST ELECTED A FRIENDLY
GOVERNMENT THAT BROKE FROM ITS LONG AND CORRUPT PERONIST PAST.
NONETHELESS, OBAMA COULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT THE BASEBALL. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND TO BE YUKKING IT UP WITH RAÚL EVEN AS BELGIAN AUTHORITIES
ARE PICKING BODY PARTS OFF THE FLOOR OF THE BRUSSELS AIRPORT?
OBAMA CAME INTO OFFICE BELIEVING THAT WE HAD VASTLY EXAGGERATED THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AND ALLOWED IT
TO PERVERT BOTH OUR VALUES AND OUR FOREIGN POLICY.
HE DECLARED A UNILATERAL END TO THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR AND HAS DOWNPLAYED THE THREAT EVER SINCE.
HE FREQUENTLY REMINDS AIDES, REPORTS JEFFREY GOLDBERG OF THE ATLANTIC, THAT MORE AMERICANS DIE ANNUALLY OF BATHTUB ACCIDENTS.
IT’S NOW BEEN SEVEN YEARS. THE REAL WORLD HAS STUBBORNLY REFUSED TO ACCOMMODATE OBAMA’S PACIFIC DREAMS. THE ISLAMIC STATE HAS GROWN FROM JV TEAM TO WORLDWIDE THREAT, OPERATING FROM LIBYA TO
AFGHANISTAN, SINAI TO BELGIUM. IT IS WELL INTO THE INFILTRATION PHASE OF ITS EUROPEAN CAMPAIGN, WITH 500 TRAINED AND HARDENED CADRES IN PLACE AMONG THE ESTIMATED 5,000 JIHADISTSRETURNED FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. THE INCREASING TEMPO AND SOPHISTICATION OF ITS OPERATIONS SUGGEST THAT IT MAY BE POISED FOR A CONTINENT-WIDE GUERRILLA CAMPAIGN.
IN THE FACE OF THIS, OBAMA REMAINS INERT, UNMOVED, DISPLAYING A NEGLECT AND INSOUCIANCE THAT BORDERS
ON DENIAL. HIS NONREACTION TO THE BELGIAN MASSACRE — HIS 34-MINUTE SPEECH IN HAVANA DEVOTED 51 SECONDS TO BRUSSELS — LEFT THE WORLD AS STUNNED AS IT WAS AFTER THE PARIS MASSACRE, WHEN OBAMA DID NOTHING. WORSE,
AT HIS NOW NOTORIOUS NOVEMBER NEWS CONFERENCE IN TURKEY, HIS ONLY SHOW OF PASSION REGARDING PARIS
WAS TO BERATE ISLAMOPHOBES.
DAVID AXELROD CALLED OBAMA’S RESPONSE “TONE-DEAF.”
BUT THAT MISSES THE POINT. THIS IS MORE THAN A MERE MISTAKE OF PRESENTATION. REMEMBER HIS REACTION TO
THE BEHEADING OF THE AMERICAN JOURNALIST JAMES
FOLEY? OBAMA MADE A STATEMENT EXPRESSING HIS SYMPATHIES — AND THEN JUMPED ONTO HIS GOLF CART FOR
A ROUND OF 18.
HE LATER TOLD CHUCK TODD THAT THIS WAS A MISTAKE.
“PART OF THIS JOB IS ALSO THE THEATER OF IT,” HE
EXPLAINED, “IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS COMES NATURALLY TO ME.” AS IF POSTPONING A BUCOLIC
RECREATION WAS A REQUIRED PIECE OF POLITICAL
PLAYACTING RATHER THAN A PRESIDENT’S NATURAL
REACTION — A MIXTURE OF SHOCK AND SORROW — TO THE TERRIBLE DEATH OF A CITIZEN HE COULD NOT SAVE.
IT’S NOT AS IF OBAMA IS SO SUPER COOL THAT HE NEVER
SHOWS EMOTION. JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, HE TEARED UP WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT THE SANDY HOOK SCHOOL SHOOTING. THAT WAS THE WORK OF A PSYCHOTIC. BUT WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT THE WORK OF ISLAMIST TERRORISTS, HE OFFERS FLAT PERFUNCTORY WORDS.
I CANNOT FATHOM WHY. PERHAPS HAVING LONG SEEN
HIMSELF UNIQUELY QUALIFIED BY BACKGROUND AND
HISTORY TO MAKE PEACE BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST,
TO NOW RECOGNIZE HOW BADLY THINGS HAVE GONE ON HIS WATCH IS TO ADMIT BOTH FAILURE AND THE IMPOSSIBLE GRANDIOSITY OF HIS ORIGINAL PRETENSIONS.
WHATEVER THE REASON, HE SEEMS GENUINELY UNMOVED
BY A MENACE THE REST OF THE WORLD VIEWS, CORRECTLY, WITH HORROR AND INCREASING APPREHENSION. HE’S BEEN
IN OFFICE SEVEN YEARS, YET SEEMS UTTERLY FIXED ON HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND PRE-PRESIDENTIAL OBSESSIONS: SHUTTING DOWN GITMO, RAPPROCHEMENT WITH IRAN,
ENGAGEMENT WITH TYRANTS (HENCE HAVANA), MAKING THE OCEANS RECEDE (HENCE THE PARIS CLIMATE TRIP). NEXT
WE’LL SEE YET ANOTHER USELESS WASHINGTON “SUMMIT” ON YET ANOTHER OBAMA IDEE FIXE : ELIMINATING NUCLEAR MATERIALS.
WITH THE WORLD ON FIRE, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT GOES
ON IDEOLOGICAL HOLIDAY. AS WAS SAID OF THE BOURBONS: “THEY HAVE LEARNED NOTHING AND HAVE FORGOTTEN NOTHING.”
===================================================================================
2)
How to Defeat Radical Jihadism
It will require Western elites to form an alliance with the citizens they’ve long disrespected.
These things are obvious after the Brussels bombings:
In striking at the political heart of Europe, home of the European Union, the ISIS jihadists were delivering a message: They will not be stopped.
What we are seeing now is not radical jihadist Islam versus the West but, increasingly, radical jihadist Islam versus the world. They are on the move in Africa, parts of Asia and of course throughout the Mideast.
Radical jihadism is not going to go away, not for a long time, probably decades. For 15 years it has in significant ways shaped our lives, and it will shape our children’s too. They will have to win the war.
It will not be effectively fought with guilt, ambivalence or double-mindedness. That, in the West, will have to change.
The jihadists’ weapons and means will get worse. Right now it’s guns and suicide vests. In the nature of things their future weapons will be more sophisticated and deadly.
The usual glib talk of politicians—calls for unity, vows that we will not give in to fear—will produce in the future what they’ve produced in the past: nothing. “The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium,” said the president, vigorously refusing to dodge clichés. “We must unite and be together, regardless of nationality, race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” It is not an “existential threat,” he noted, as he does. But if you were at San Bernardino or Fort Hood, the Paris concert hall or the Brussels subway, it would feel pretty existential to you.
There are many books, magazine long-reads and online symposia on the subject of violent Islam. I have written of my admiration for “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood, published a year ago in the Atlantic. ISIS supporters have tried hard to make their project knowable and understood, Mr. Wood reported: “We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change . . . and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.” ISIS is essentially “medieval” in its religious nature, and “committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.” They intend to eliminate the infidel and raise up the caliphate—one like the Ottoman empire, which peaked in the 16th century and then began its decline.
When I think of the future I find myself going back to what I freely admit is a child’s math, a simple 10% rule.
There are said to be 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Most are and have been peaceful and peaceable, living their lives and, especially in America, taking an admirable role in the life of the nation.
But this is a tense, fraught moment within the world of Islam, marked by disagreements on what Islam is and what its texts mean. With that context, the child’s math: Let’s say only 10% of the 1.6 billion harbor feelings of grievance toward “the West,” or desire to expunge the infidel, or hope to re-establish the caliphate. That 10% is 160 million people. Let’s say of that group only 10% would be inclined toward jihad. That’s 10.6 million. Assume that of that group only 10% really means it—would really become jihadis or give them aid and sustenance. That’s 1.6 million. That is a lot of ferociousness in an age of increasingly available weapons, including the chemical, biological and nuclear sort.
My math tells me it will be a long, hard fight. We will not be able to contain them, we will have to beat them.
We must absorb that central fact, as Ronald Reagan once did with a different threat. Asked by his new national security adviser to state his exact strategic goals vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, Reagan:
“We win, they lose.”
That’s where we are now. The “they” is radical Islamic jihadism.
Normal people have seen that a long time, but the leaders of the West—its political class, media powers and opinion shapers—have had a hard time coming to terms. I continue to believe part of the reason is that religion isn’t very important to many of them, so they have trouble taking it seriously as a motivation of others. An ardent Catholic, evangelical Christian or devout Jew would be able to take the religious aspect seriously when discussing ISIS. An essentially agnostic U.S. or European political class is less able. Thus they cast about—if only we give young Islamist men jobs programs or social integration schemes, we can stop this trouble. But jihadists don’t want to be integrated. They want trouble.
Our own president still won’t call radical Islam what it is, thinking apparently that if we name them clearly they’ll only hate us more, and Americans on the ground, being racist ignoramuses, will be incited by candor to attack their peaceful Muslim neighbors.
All this for days has had me thinking of Gordon Brown, which is something I bet you can’t say. On April 28, 2010, in Rochdale, England, Britain’s then prime minister accidentally performed a great public service by revealing what liberal Western leaders think of their people.
At a campaign stop a 65-year-old woman named Gillian Duffy approached him and shared her concerns regarding crime, taxes and immigration. Mr. Brown made a great show of friendliness and appreciation. Then, still wearing a live mic, he got into his Jaguar, complained to his aides about “that woman” and said, “She’s just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour.”
That was the authentic sound of the Western elite. Labour lost the election. But the elites have for a long time enjoyed nothing more than sneering at the anger and “racism” of their own people. They do not have the wisdom to understand that if they convincingly attempted to protect the people and respected their anxieties, the people would feel far less rage.
I end with a point about the sheer power of pride right now in Western public life. Republican operatives and elected officials in the U.S. don’t want to change their stand on illegal immigration, and a key reason is pride. They’re stiff-necked, convinced of their own higher moral thinking, and they will have open borders—which they do not call “open borders” but “comprehensive immigration reform,” which includes border-control mechanisms. But they’ll never get to the mechanisms. They see the rise of Donald Trump and know it has something to do with immigration, but—they can’t bow. Some months ago I spoke to an admirable conservative group and said the leaders of the GOP should change their stand. I saw one of their leaders wince, as if I had made a faux pas. Which, I understood, I had. I understood too that terrorism is only making the border issue worse, and something’s got to give.
But I doubt they can change. It would be like . . . respecting Gillian Duffy.
Though maybe European leaders can grow to respect her, after Brussels. Maybe the blasts there have shaken their pride.
========================================================================
3) Here's what I think Is really gonna Happen to Hillary
Y’all keep asking, so here’s what I REALLY think is gonna happen to Hillary…
As you know, I’m so greatly privileged to travel and speak across the country. This past week I was over in Walton County, Florida and down in Tyler, Texas.
There’s a certain question I always seem to get asked either before I speak in receptions, and most certainly during a Q&A session. It always comes down to, “What do you think will happen with Hillary Clinton?” My response is pretty much standard: ask Valerie Jarrett.
So I figured I would share a more in-depth assessment with the broader allen west.com audience.
The first thing we must all admit is that there is no love lost between the Clinton and Obama camps. There’s a grudging understanding between the two; one of required mutual need. It’s a tenuous relationship that could be severed in a heartbeat.
Y’all remember the Bill Clinton declaration from 2008 during the South Carolina primary that the race card was being played on HIM? Such a shock for the previously anointed, 7“first black president.” And then there was Hillary Clinton screeching “shame on you Barack Obama.” I must admit, seeing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama making nice about each other is about as disingenuous as a rattlesnake inviting a rabbit to dinner.
Obama bringing Hillary Clinton in as his secretary of state reminds me of the maxim, “keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.” And therein lies the whole situation revolving around these “emails” of the former secretary of state.
It’s not just what Clinton has done – I’m quite sure everyone knew about her in-home private server being used for official government “classified” information sharing. The real issue is, what does Hillary Clinton have on Barack Obama?
Let’s be honest, if any member of the U.S. military had done 5 percent of what Hillary Clinton has, they’d be doing the perp walk into Ft. Leavenworth. But nah, not good ol’ Hillary of Chicago; she’s running to be the commander in chief.
Those emails have something that implicate the Obama administration, hence why she plays the game of chicken regarding those emails being made public. However, if Attorney General Loretta Lynch does not prefer charges, i.e. indictment, well, she, and Obama, have another problem — and in turn it’s a problem for Hillary Clinton.
What will those investigating FBI agents do — including, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey? The word on the street is that they’ll walk. And if they walk, then they’ll talk — and there will be a whole lot of ears, along with ink and paper. Truthfully, it’s not the emails about which the Clintons should be most concerned. It’s actually the dealings of the Clinton Foundation. Now, if Obama can drop the guillotine on Hillary Clinton about the Foundation, and not the emails, he won’t blink to do so.
There is immense distrust between the Clintons and Obamas, and President Obama knows his legacy is not secure with the former secretary of state. She may be touting the Obama policy agenda right now, but you can bet your bottom dollar that once elected, Hillary Clinton will abandon any and everything Obama.
It will be all about her — and the progressive socialist left may just be boneheaded enough to trust her. Here is what I want y’all to look out for: the point of no return. If and when President Obama begins to make the overtures, covertly so, to support Clinton as the Democrat nominee, it may signal that Hillary is clear from him. But that does not erase the dark specter hanging over her head.
Do I think the jury is still out? Yes, and one of the reasons why is because all of a sudden, Massachusetts uber-progressive socialist Senator Elizabeth Warren has broken her “cone of silence” and is now speaking out. And you know what is perplexing?
If Donald Trump is such a loser against Hillary Clinton — then why is the progressive left going bonkers about stopping him?
Why are they out protesting? Shouldn’t they simply embrace and encourage Trump to get the nomination? I truly believe the Democrat Party doesn’t want to face Trump in a general election. He is a wild card and does not fit any of the templates the liberal left loves to use against GOP candidates. And that causes another huge problem for Hillary Clinton: running against someone who knows her and Bill inside out and isn’t afraid at all to attack.
With all this said, here is what should easily disqualify Hillary Clinton from the candidacy of the presidency of the United States. Hillary Clinton abandoned Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it. She didn’t even have the courage of conviction to go on the Sunday shows and talk about what happened at the Special Mission Compound which was under the State Department. Why was the U.N. Ambassador sent out on those Sunday shows?
And this is supposed to be the front runner for the Democrat Party? This is supposed to be a person that moms and dads, wives and husbands, children and grandchildren are to trust their loved ones to protect when deploying them into harm’s way?
In my opinion, Barack Obama’s dream ticket is still Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. America’s nightmare ticket is anything the new American Socialist Party, formerly known as the Democrat Party, offers for president and vice president. Currently the Democrats are offering up a serving of an avowed socialist and a liar — that is not debatable. The only question is whether or not we can add another adjective to the latter: criminal felon.
===========================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment