That President Obama took the memorial as his occasion to push gun control is bad enough and, an insult to the victims and families.
Deflecting his weakness in combating the war on terror, which is what this terrorist attack was, to the gun control agenda is all he had the courage to do. Deflecting a terrorist attack to a gun debate, he said “This debate needs to change.”
But it is much worse. Listen to him. He is equating liberty and freedom with this terrorist attack. That your liberty, your freedom, the Constitution, is what made this and makes acts of terror possible! That your liberty and freedom “requires” terrorist attacks.
OBAMA: This debate needs to change. It’s outgrown the old political stalemates. The notion that the answer to this tragedy would be to make sure that more people in a nightclub are similarly armed to the killer defies common sense. . . . Why it is that we think our liberty requires these repeated tragedies? That’s not the meaning of liberty. . . . If we don’t act, we will keep seeing more massacres like this, because we’ll be choosing to allow them to happen.
Never before in American history have we had a president so unwilling to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States.
The truth about Obama is, he never intended on keeping his oath. He gave that up when he declared he was going to fundamentally change America.
After two Palestinians killed 4 diners in a Tel Aviv restaurant and wounding others before being caught alive, the New York Times writes about how Israelis find solidarity in the aftermath of the attack.
The mainstream media isn’t covering the attack. But The State Department made a statement about it. Deputy Spokesperson Mark C. Toner made it clear how the administration feels about the attack and how if feels about Israel’s response to it.
He made it clear that the United States did not share the solidarity subsequent to that attack that Israelis are feeling. Instead, he admonished Israel five times to not over-react. Not to “escalate tensions any further.” Translation, leave them to fight another day.
This is – I think a couple thoughts on that is – one is that we would just hope that any measures that Israel takes would be designed to not escalate tensions any further. But we certainly respect their desire to express outrage and to protect the safety of their people.
I think what I’m trying to say, Arshad, is that we understand the Israeli Government’s desire to protect its citizenry, or its citizens rather, after this kind of terrorist attack, and we strongly support that right. But we would hope that any measures it takes are designed to – would also take into consideration the impact on Palestinian citizens, or civilians rather, who are just going – trying to go about their daily lives.
And why I prefaced my response by saying that we understand their desire to protect their citizens and to send a message, but we would only urge that any measures that it takes be done under – with the consideration towards the many innocent Palestinians who are simply trying to go about their daily lives.
I think ultimately, first of all, that’s something for the Israeli Government to ultimately decide about, decide on. I’m just simply trying to give a full sense of the dynamics here, which are that this is going to affect thousands of Palestinian civilians who are, again, just trying to go about their daily lives.
Said, again – and let me be very clear – we condemn yesterday’s attack. We completely understand the right of Israeli authorities to ensure the security of their civilians and to carry out measures that they believe will, in fact, provide for that security. I would simply caution – and we’ve said this before – that in carrying out those kinds of measures that they do take into consideration the impact on innocent Palestinians and that they exercise restraint.
Exactly the wrong response to an ally responding to acts of war from a country, or territory, with an elected government that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and, wants them dead. They are no longer renegade terrorists. They are a duly elected terrorist state that has been (with Iran’s help) lobbing missiles at Israel and using suicide bombers for decades. The Palestinian people are the ones who elected Hamas. They have democratically and simultaneously picked their fight and chose their fate. To make matters worse, which explains the administration’s adversarial attitude towards Israel, the United States has been and still is giving $400 million a year to the terrorist government in Gaza, Hamas.
Have you heard similar admonitions of France or Belgium after they were attacked? That the Obama administration is on the wrong side of the war on terror is not even debatable. The mere fact that Raqqa, the ISIS capital, has not been leveled two years ago, and their oil assets were not attacked (pin pricked as they were) until Donald Trump called them on it, is all the evidence you need to come to that conclusion. And that’s if you don’t count the previous post.
With Republicans and the National Rifle Association gun lobby under pressure to respond to the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Trump said he would meet with the NRA to discuss ways to block people on terrorism watch or no-fly lists from buying guns.
No. The response is, Obama’s failure to prosecute the war on terror has made us victims in our own cities. And the pressure belongs on him and Democrats. Not on Republicans and the National Rifle Association.
His failure to protect our borders.
His failure to enforce immigration laws,
his releasing of GITMO prisoners to return to the battlefield,
his insistence on scooping up thousands of Syrian refugees to bring them here, some of who are and will be (according to his own security apparatus) terrorists embedded among them.
His failure to keep tabs on terrorists he had his hands on, like the Boston bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Orlando shooter. All terrorists, all on the FBI’s radar, all on their list, and all let go. Credit Obama’s CVE program for that.
And that doesn’t even include giving Iran $1.5 Billion dollars to fund Hamas and Hezbollah and to expand their nuclear weapons program, or funding the Palestinian Authority and Hamas with hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, so they can attack Israel.
To deflect his failure to keep us safe, his response, is the same as always. Not to let a crisis go to waste. That’s what this is about. In this case, he makes the case for taking away our rights to defend ourselves, a constitutional right, for his inability to protect us from terrorism. In other words, to protect us from the terrorist invasion that he is creating, his response is to disarm law-abiding citizens. This might makes sense if you are a Mullah in Iran, or an ISIS terrorist. But it does make sense to Barack Hussein Obama.
Besides all that, there is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. There is a constitutional right to protect oneself with a firearm. In fact, the right was intended to protect oneself from a tyrannical government. Not a deer or a duck. And never has this been as imperative since the forming of the Bill of Rights when we broke from the tyrannical Crown of King George III.
UPDATED: 6/16/2016, Countering Violent Extremism program added, explains our ineptness in fighting terrorism here.
Officer Jessie Hartnett, shot by a guy who said he did it in support of Islam, is a hero by any measure. Despite being shot at point blank range, and hit 3 times in an arm, Officer Hartnett called for backup then got out of his car and chased the POS and shot him. Keeping him from getting away while his backup collard him. Within minutes, President Obama got on television and gave this sobering statement, ” .” Yeah, that’s right. Not a peep out of him, his Attorney General, or the head of the FBI.
They are, no doubt, working on their “message” before going public. Translation; how can we blame anyone but the perp (except the liberal-progressive Democratically-controlled city), distance Islam from it, politicize it by tying it to the Democratic candidates’ gun control agenda, and make the American people believe it?
And to top it off, the idiotic mayor of Philadelphia, goes on TV to say that what we saw was not what we saw, and what we heard (from the perp) was not what we heard. It’s a double whammy against the liberal agenda, which resides in a perpetual state of denial. Deny that Islam has anything to do with terrorism and attacks like this, and two, they just can’t find any room to support police.
This is soooo not in keeping with the liberal meme. Black man shoots White cop. Not just any Black man. This Black man was inspired, and empowered, by radical Islam. Like it or not, believe it or not, this is a segment of the population that is more susceptible to radicalization than other demographics. Especially those in prison. Unfortunately, the perpetual state of denial that the political left is in means we can expect to see more of this kind of attack on our police.
China approves far-reaching counter terrorism law. Virtual control and access to all internet and electronic communications, to be able to get terrorists who use encryption.
The term, according to Xinhua, is “defined as any proposition or activity — that, by means of violence, sabotage or threat, generates social panic, undermines public security, infringes on personal and property rights, and menaces government organs and international organizations — with the aim to realize certain political and ideological purposes.”
“However, some analysts feel that the purpose of the bill is aimed at control of the Chinese population, rather than curbing domestic and international terrorism.”
BINGO! Well, it’s a twofer.
I tell you. This is the kind of stuff that makes Obama envious. He and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) were soul brothers. That is, in a political sense. Watch for China’s president, Xi Jinping, to be visiting The White House. Oh wait, Xi Jinping was there in September, 2015.
It’s pretty obvious that China wants a part of everything their people do. And sets the standard for what “terrorism” is, to include un-friendly sectors of the country. Like the (ethnic minorities) Muslim sectors.
In the U.S., it would be an Obama wet dream, to have government-mandated access to watch what you do. Especially those bitter clingers you know. IRS, DOJ, EPA . . . imagine the thrill of government intimidation by a visit from some of those letters of the Executive branch. Xi Jinping and Obama have a lot in common in their idea of government and its role. China doesn’t have a Constitution and Obama will not follow the Constitution. Going by China’s definition, it’s not a stretch.
Actually, Obama already uses those letters to intimidate political opponents. Using China’s definition of what terrorism is would make it more fun (from his perspective) and easier to do.
Did you see CNN’s “Fact Check” say FALSE to the Republican candidates statements about DHS failing to vet immigrants, refugees, and terrorists? Of course, they’re wrong. It’s like, it depends on what the definition of ‘vet’ is.
Here is DHS’s guidelines on “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training. It says, don’t see what you see, and don’t conclude what you conclude about terrorists, or where they come from, or what they believe. But if you see them with a bomb in their hand, then you can do something. Basically, it is the terrorist protection act as practiced by the Department of Homeland Security and directed by the Obama administration.
I call your attention to the Don’ts in section C under Goals. Projecting our Constitution to the global war on terror is not a winning strategy. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Who is being protected here? Us, or the terrorists?
Big in the national and local news as well as on the campaign trail is the plight of, among others, the Syrian refugees seeking asylum in this country. Only, they’re not seeking refuge in this country. This administration is hell-bent on bringing them to the United States instead of supporting/protecting them in and around Syria. Some are coming here to Northwest Florida.
When asked if they would rather be home or here, they prefer to be home, or close enough to home so they can return after the civil war is over and ISIS is destroyed.
NGO’s are bringing the “refugees” and embedded terrorists here, financed with grants from the federal government. Attempts to speak to Catholic Charities CEO Christopher Root have fallen on deaf ears. Neither phone calls or in-person requests for a meeting on the subject of the refugees have been returned or acknowledged.
Mr. Root is hold up in a secure office building on Garden Street, just what you might expect for a non-profit Catholic charity. What?
In an attempt to get some transparency, and for Mr. Root to justify why, in spite of administration officials (and the terrorists themselves) saying that there will be terrorists among them, why he feels sacrificing our national security is necessary? I think the reason can be summed up in money. As in grant money. National security? Not the Catholic Charity’s problem.
Below is a letter-to-the editor submitted Dec 1, 2015. It has not been published yet. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of articles and other letters published that are sympathetic to bringing the refugees here. And, at the same time, disparaging those, like many in the country, who want no part of them coming here. Only the leading Republican candidates are talking about helping them in and around their own country in safe zones. People like President Obama are quick to say, “that’s not who we are.” Sorry, but importing terrorists to do us harm is not who we are. Democrats are all-in for bringing them here. After all, Muslims tend to vote 80% Democrat. What he means is, just like illegals flooding our borders on foot, building a permanent voting block is who he is. But that’s not who America is.
It is not just Christopher Root, but the talking heads at UWF who must justify why Syrians must come here, knowing of the high risk of terrorist embeds, and also how plucking them out of their country, continent, culture, and language will be more beneficial, for the refugees.
Letter to the editor follows.
For the U.S. to participate in helping refugees from anywhere when they come here is one thing. But to take them out of their country, continent, culture, and language, to bring them here is not only presumptuous of us to know what’s best for them, but is endangering ourselves in the process.
They need help there, in safe zones, so they can return home when their civil war is over and the dust settles. We had our civil war and no-one left the country. For the Syrians to leave their own country would be taking the opposition to ISIL away. Taking Syria’s future away. That’s not compassion.
What the media and academe won’t tell you is, it’s not the U.S. government bringing them here. It is NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are getting government grants who are bringing them here. Money talks. And money tends to change focus and re-arrange priorities from more important factors like our homeland security from the terrorist hotbed, Syria.
How about someone from an NGO like Catholic Charities, or a university like UWF, make their case that Syrian refugees are better helped with a one-way ticket here, instead of in and around their homeland?
This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president… Everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out.
In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.
A direct quote from the law:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Donald J. Trump managed to bring illegal immigration into public discourse and among all presidential candidates. Right out of the gate. It’s a national discussion we absolutely must have.
Now, Trump is leading the timid and weak again when it comes to asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration from terrorist-infested countries. As insensitive or Politically Incorrect as he sounds, his point is real, serious, and, real serious.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says the enemy’s intent is to infiltrate the refugee populations. The enemy has announced that it seeks to infiltrate the refugee population. The head of the FBI says there is no good data with which to vet the refugee population.
People from both parties from the President on down continue to shift the emphasis away from the real enemy (radical Islam and Sharia Law) and onto Donald Trump, saying that what Trump proposed is UN-constitutional. It is not.
The religion clause pertains to public officials. This has nothing to do with public officials.
The equal protection clause has to do with the states. This has nothing to do with states.
The 1st Amendment is not extra-territorial. You don’t project it overseas.
Trump does not live in the PC world. He lives in Realville. And when an enemy declares war on you, ignoring the threat and their actions is not a winning strategy.
Until all those who are quick to criticize Trump and call for him to drop out of the race get serious about our national security, you can rely on the fact that they don’t have a solution to this problem. Instead, they want to import them. So far, only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do.