Of Course President Obama is Disappointed by the World - He Doesn't See Reality

A biographer has told the world that he feels that President Obama is disappointed in the world.  Really?  Well my most obvious response is that many in the world are very disappointed in him as well.  But there is more to this.  He is disappointed in the world because he views with rose-colored glasses on how the world should be instead of what it actually is.  

He truly believes that if we just make the minimum wage a little higher people will get lifted out poverty.  Although we have raised the minimum wage throughout the years and we still have poverty.  So the latest is a "living wage".  Which is just another myth that will never work on a national level.  

If the government just gets involved we can make the world more "fair".  He doesn't seem to understand that life isn't fair, nor will it ever be.  

If the rich just give more of their money, the poor will get more.  Again, this is just another myth.  President Obama is a perfect example of that.  He has made less money in 2013 than he did in 2014, I didn't get more because he has less.  Nor has anyone else.  

He never seems to understand that many of the people who are stuck in cycles of poverty are so because they make bad choices.  Now, I have this crappy part-time job.  Many of the people I work with are on some type of public assistance.  Yet they have smart phones.  I don't have a smart phone.  I can't spend over a hundred month on the bill.  I don't live in the projects because I spend my money differently than they do.  I make different choices.  I am not trying to disparage the poor, but studies have shown over and over again that they very successful people makes choices in their lives that allow them to become that way, while the poor make very different choices that also allow them to stay in their circumstances.  It may not be the way it should work, but it how it works.  This is reality.  You want to change the cycle of poverty, teach them how to make better choices.  Giving them enough money to survive does nothing except allow that cycle to continue.  

Obama thinks if the U.S. is just nicer the problem of radical Islam will magically disappear.  No it won't Mr. President.  These are people who are true believers in the ideology.  Most of them are willing, no eager, to die for what they believe in.  They look at becoming a martyr as the very best thing that Allah has to offer.  Until that is marginalized within the Islamic community it won't change.  You cannot "Co-exist" with someone who wants you dead.  This is reality.  

President Obama doesn't seem to think that real evil exists in the world.  Putin may not be evil, but he certainly does believe that Mother Russia should rise again.  He and buddies on the left scoffed at Gov. Romney when this came up at the debate.  The running joke was the 80's wants their foreign policy back.  It was Romney who saw the reality and those on the left that see the world as they think it should be instead of how it is.  

Yes the world disappoints President Obama.  Maybe, just maybe, if he stopped seeing those rosy hues, he can begin to understand that life isn't fair.  Evil does exist and those evils have to be confronted with strong leadership, not the moving red lines that those in Syria are laughing about all the while killing their own people completely unabated.  

The Middle East on Fire - Some Observations

The deadly protests are spreading, and not just in the Muslim world.  They have now reached the shores of The United Kingdom.  Protesters have died in at least 3 countries, but it is still early yet.

We have seen verbal attacks on free speech, that should terrify every American.  Especially when they come for the press that is trying to carry water for the President.  Instead of focusing on the real issues, the press is attacking Governor Romney.  One can make the argument that the embassy in Cairo was trying to create calm by sending the message it did.  Fair enough.  But in President Obama's speech on the matter the next day, it seems the press missed this sentence:

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,

The United States does no such thing; Urine Jesus, The Da Vinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, and let us not forget the lovely billboards that the rabid atheists display every year at Christmas.  Governor Romney's statement was not only accurate, it needed to be said.  The first, guttural, reaction of the Obama administration was to cower to the demands of lunatics that use any excuse to kill people, and then lecture us on what we should and should not say.

The really sad part is, that many of the people at these protests are useful idiots who can't see for themselves that they are being used by extremists. They gin up these people about how America hates them and is trying to destroy Islam. The vast majority of Americans could have cared less about Islam before 9/11. Many didn't even know who UBL even was, even though he already was involved in the deaths of Americans. The hatred they feel is something that the terrorists have brought upon them and they are too blind to see it.  But I am supposed to curtail my rights to free speech to make them feel better about themselves.  No such luck buddy, not happening.

Free speech does not mean that people can say what they want as long as it doesn't offend anyone else.  It means that people will be offended, because at some point an opinion that you don't agree with will be voiced.

The statements that have come from the leaders in The Middle East contain the same type of asterisk.  The Prime Minister of Egypt:

"We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film's producers within the framework of international charters that criminalise acts that stir strife on the basis of race, colour or religion."

You can read my response to him here.

The reports are saying that there was advanced warning of these attacks (which only goes to show this has nothing to do with some stupid movie trailer) yet the embassy in Cairo had marines without bullets and Benghazi had virtually no security whatsoever.  Whomever is in charge of the security for the oversees bases at State should be fired for cause.  Immediately.  This was posted online before the attacks even took place, it is hard to deny that there was not some form of advanced warnings of the attacks.

We keep hearing from the media and those on the left that we should be understanding of the feelings of Muslims.  One must then ask the question why then is the killing of bin Laden a cornerstone of the President's re-election campaign?  Doesn't this "hurt" their feelings too?  Details, details....

Before any of the violence broke out we heard reports that President Obama doesn't meet with his security people to get his security briefing more than half the time since he became president.  I am not going to use that to base a false assumption that he isn't reading the briefings.  The chances are he is.  President Bush wasn't given this briefing face to face daily either.  But, where I will object is to the fact that the week leading up to the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks the President couldn't make time to meet face to face with these people at least once?  That I find almost unforgivable.  al Qaeda is very well-known for using symbolism in their attacks.  The probability for at least an attempt of an attack on that date was high.  He should be meeting with the security council face to face during that week.  The idea that you can gauge things the same way when you are talking to someone face to face as you do with the highly impersonal written report is simply stupid.  This should have been a priority.

Today the bodies of those who died were flown back to the U.S.  Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton were on hand to "greet" (a term that I hate) the bodies.  Both of which gave a speech that was directed at both the families in mourning as well as the entire country.  I am glad that he made time in his schedule for this duty.

To be fair, President Obama is in tough spot.  The campaign is 53 days (and counting) away.  He is behind Romney in the money race.  While the "polls" are showing Obama ahead in many of the swing states, anyone that knows how to read the internals of a poll, knows that isn't really accurate.  The media driven polls are slanted (a post to come to show you what I mean) to show that Obama is ahead.  The problem is no polling agency has better polling then a major campaign.  The fact that OFA is now spending resources in Wisconsin is very telling indeed.  I do believe that they are fully aware that they are in trouble.  Their polling may not show him losing the campaign, but it shows that he is going to have to work far harder for it then he did in 08.  But none of this is going to make the optics any less shocking.  The first tweet from the OFA campaign today was this:

The election is in 53 days Pitch in $10 now

This was sent hours AFTER the news broke that the German embassy in The Sudan had been breached, an Islamic flag raised, and set on fire.  This comes on the heals of him spending the evening in Las Vegas, an announcement of a very expensive per plate fundraiser in Hollywood, and Jay-Z and Beyonce.  The thing is this, had he cancelled his appearance at least the Vegas fundraiser he would be in far better shape.  They could have sent Joe or some other Obama lackey to fill in.   The media and the left would have eaten up as proof of how hard he was working to for the American (gag) people.  Instead he goes, while there he tells a bunch of campaign volunteers that they are just like the embassy workers.  Really?  Did one of them just get murdered too?  The optics are horrible, and like it or not optics matter.

I can't imagine all the above is helping in his effort to get re-elected.  But, we will have to wait and see.  53 days to go.

Shame on you Mr. Cain - Shame on You.

Today, Herman Cain made a return visit to Fox News Sunday. During his interview with Chris Wallace Mr. Cain invoked a liberal talking point. Mr. Cain wrongly believes that Murfreesboro has the right to deny permits to build a Mosque.

Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state

Oh, really Mr. Cain? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Mr. Cain am I safe to presume that you feel it is OK for the ACLU to continue its assault on Christmas celebrations? Because this is the exact same talking point that is used to stop Christmas trees being put up in town squares across the country. This is the same talking point that allows someone other than the student to decide what they say in their valedictorian speech. This is the same talking point that liberals have been using for close to century to deny the fact that the founding fathers wanted to create a country where ALL were allowed to worship openly, publicly, and how they so choose.

If I want the right to stand up and defend this right against the assaults to faith I see coming from the left, then I must, in good conscience, stand up against the very same assault that I see coming from the right. One of the great things about this country is that you are free to or free not to worship.

This statement is nothing more than fear; fear of radical Islam. Radical Islam is something to fear. Radical Islam does exist in this world. There is such a thing as creeping Sharia. But, for a potential presidential nominee to stand up and display this type of broadbrushing of an entire population of people in this country boggles the mind. This statement is basically saying that every Muslim in this country has been radicalized. This statement is wrong, ignorant, and just downright stupid. I know Muslims that came to this country to escape the extremism that they witnessed in their home countries. They came to this country to be free to worship as they chose to, not the way groups like the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah were trying to tell them they had to worship. They are no more likely to strap a bomb on themselves in the name of Allah than I am.

The last thing we need is yet another president that doesn't understand what is in the Constitution or is willing to pervert it in order to justify a unconsitutional stance. We have had plenty of those and that is one of the reasons that we are in the mess that we are in.

Go here and read some accounts of a conservative who lives in that community. If we allow fear to change who we are as a country and as a people, the terrorists have won. I stand with the Constitution. I hope you will join me.

Radicals, Terrorists, and Common Sense

Congressman King will be having hearings this week on homegrown radicals this week. Of course there is plenty of noise coming from the peanut gallery, calling it bigotry and an attack on all Muslims. Al Sharpton doesn't understand why he isn't investigating the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the Virginia Tech shootings.


That is an easy answer, they were crazy and it had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

Terrorism Noun:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Both shootings were committed by young men with mental health problems and had no political motive. While both shootings did scare people, they do not fit the definition of terrorism. Hence that is why it doesn't need to be investigated by congress. Now, if they choose to do a hearing on mental health in this country then both these shootings would of course be included. But, since this hearing is specifically on the growth of terrorism being committed by Americans they don't belong in these hearings.

 

Al Sharpton is also upset that they are not including the Oklahoma City bombing. The OKC bombing has been investigated by congress, several times in fact. So to include this seems like a waste of time. We also need to look at the fact that we are not exactly having a rash of bombings being done by American's who are upset over Waco and feel that our government has become the enemy like McVeigh said he did. That bombing happened almost 16 years ago and we have not had an incident since. That would say to anyone thinking rationally that it really isn't a big problem. Matter of fact, it sounds like a non-existent one to me.

 

 

 

In less than four months in late 2009 we had the following incidents happen: (source New York Times)

 

• September 19: Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan citizen and U.S. legal resident, is arrested on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Authorities claim that Zazi traveled to Pakistan to receive explosives and weapons training and that he planned to launch an attack in the U.S.
• November 5: Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly kills 13 and wounds 30 at Fort Hood Army Base, outside Killeen, Texas. Early reports reveal that Hasan had been in contact with radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
• November 23: Federal officials unseal indictments against eight people charged in connection with the alleged recruitment of up to two-dozen Somali-Americans to fight with the Somali insurgent group and al Qaeda affiliate, al-Shabaab.
• December 8: The F.B.I. accuses U.S. citizen David Coleman Headley of conspiring with operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani terrorist group, in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Authorities also allege that Headley had planned to attack a Danish newspaper.
• December 9: Five young Northern Virginia men are arrested in Sargodha, Pakistan. U.S. and Pakistani authorities claim the group traveled there to fight alongside Taliban militants in Afghanistan

 There are some realities that have to be faced. The vast majority of terrorism around the world is done in the Islam. Many terrorism experts say that about 7% of Muslims have been radicalized. While that seems like a very small percentage, there are more than a billion Muslims worldwide. That gives a very high number of radicals running around plotting to kill non believers and infidels.

 

7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified and view the United States unfavorably. Among those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were not justified, whom we'll call "moderates," 40% are pro-United States, but 60% view the United States unfavorably.

 

Analyzing and comparing the answers of the 7% with the moderate majority produced some surprising results. By focusing on the 7%, whom we'll call "the politically radicalized" because of their radical political orientation, we are not saying that all in this group commit acts of violence. However, those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups. This group is also so committed to changing political conditions that they are more likely to view other civilian attacks as justifiable: 13% of the politically radicalized versus 1% of moderates say that attacks on civilians are "completely justified."

 

We can keep our heads in the sand or we can take preventative measures to protect our society. It is the job of the federal government to keep the nation safe. That is actually in the constitution, so it seems that the congressman is doing his job.

 

The reality is that this is war that is within Islam. Muslims can continue to blame the American public for bigotry or they can take a stand and do something about the dangerous elements within their ranks and refuse to allow people to kill innocents in their name or in the name of Allah. The choice is theirs.

 

Hey Liberals - Is Pam Geller Really a Paranoid Bigot?

This is will scare some and maybe open the eyes of some others.  I am sure this is not what Christiane Amanpour was expecting.  While there were Muslims not agreeing with him, the question becomes how do know which outnumbers the other?