"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (Pls note: This is a comedy site and I am a comedian, so don't take anything here seriously. It's all in jest, haha. For entertainment purposes only!)
And if your response is something like, "It's all about guns and Obama HAS been laser focused on gun." I've got one word for you: Paris, where they have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. This particular islamic jihadist was licensed, not just to own guns, but to use them as a government contractor for Obama's DHS (Department of Homeland Security). That, despite twice being investigated by Obama's FBI as a possible terrorist. Obama's government knew he was a terror threat and still allowed him to own guns and work as a DHS contractor. Let that sink in. Here's the deal: The Holocaust was not due to gas chambers and
boxcars. 9/11 was not due to box cutters and jet fuel. The Murrow Bldg. was not
due to fertilizer and Ryder trucks. And Orlando was not due to an AR-15. In a
world of absolute moral equivalence and political correctness it is forbidden,
in an Orwellian sense, to judge because to judge is to discriminate and to
discriminate is wrong. Thus we cannot see politically protected ideologies as a source of evil, and so must focus on objects and material things. It's not the ideology you see, it's the tool used. This is delusional and suicidal. The salafist islamic jihad ideology is the problem and Obama is either oblivious or sympathetic. As Leon Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you." Eight years of cooperation with this ideology will have to be reckoned with at some point.
Remember the Global War on Terror? In the wake of 9/11 it kept us safe from domestic attacks by jihadist islam, and did so right up until the election of Barack Obama. Obama won the presidency and declared that he had no interest in conducting a Global War on Terror, he was withdrawing resources from it, he was closing GITMO, he was ceasing combat operations targeting jihadi islam, and he was focusing his efforts on other things:
Below are 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than radical Islamic terrorism.
In a January 15, 2008presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”
On January 26, 2009, Obama delivered remarks at the White House on the “dangers” of climate change:
These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.
In May 2010, the Obama White House released it’s national security strategy, which said, “At home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security.” The document declared climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”
On September 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.
When you start seeing how these shifts can displace people—entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that—that gets your attention. There’s a reason why the quadrennial defense review—which the secretary of defense and the Joints Chiefs of Staff work on—identified climate change as one of our most significant national security problems. It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.
On September 24 2014, the Obama USDA launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. In a memo posted by Secretary of State John Kerry, among other Obama administration officials, read,“From India to the United States, climate change poses drastic risks to every facet of our lives.”
On October 29, 2014, in an address to the Washington Ideas Forum, Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:
From my perspective, within the portfolio that I have responsibility for–security of this country–climate change presents security issues for us. There’s a security dynamic to that. As the oceans increase, it will affect our bases. It will affect islands. It will affect security across the world. Just from my narrow perspective, what I have responsibility for, that’s happening now.
During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
In a February 2015 address to college students in Iowa, Vice President Joe Biden said“Global warming is the greatest threat to your generation of anything at all, across the board.”
On February 09, 2015, in an interview with Vox, Obama said he “absolutely” believes that the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change.”
On February 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”
During his April 18, 2015 weekly address on climate change, Obama said, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home. And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”
May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”
On July 13 2015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy and Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Kenneth F. Hackett wrote in a joint blog post on the EPA website, praising Pope Francis for dedicating his second encyclical to urging swift action on global warming.
McCarthy and Hackett wrote:
As public servants working in both domestic policy and diplomacy, we understand the urgent need for global action. Climate impacts like extreme droughts, floods, fires, heat waves, and storms threaten people in every country—and those who have the least suffer the most. No matter your beliefs or political views, we are all compelled to act on climate change to protect our health, our planet, and our fellow human beings.
An Obama Defense Department report released on July 29, 2015 says climate change puts U.S. security at risk and threatens the global order:
The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.
The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.
In his August 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
In a September address at the United Nations Climate Summit Obama said, “For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week–terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.”
During a September 28address at the United Nations, President Obama said that ““We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”
So yes, Orlando could have been prevented. It's just a matter of priorities.
According to Barack Obama, Fox News is Faux News. They can't be trusted. They make stuff up. He mocks them, ridicules them, and uses his DOJ to harass their reporters. He has been a harsher critic of Fox News than of ISIS.
This weekend we learned that there actually is a ton of faux news out there, but it's not coming from Fox. It's coming from the Obama administration, and they are proud of it! Just when we thought the Obama presidency couldn't be more like bad fiction, we learned that the guy running Obama's foreign policy is actually an aspiring novelist who regularly feeds fiction to the gullible and overwhelmingly liberal press. (If that sounds like hyperbole to you, you may not know that there is not a single Republican covering this President.) Can't make this stuff up, folks.
Remember that lame story about Benghazi being about a video? Remember that lame story about the Iran deal being about nuclear weapons? Turns out these were false narratives spun out of whole cloth from Obama's propaganda shop. We learned about this only after Obama's foreign policy novelist bragged about it in a NY Times Magazine piece that ran Sunday, May 8th. He refers to himself as a "ventriloquist" feeding lines to the Washington press corps. (The "p" is silent for you MSNBC, NPR, and NYTimesers) They lap up the fictitious narratives and repeat it out to the masses as in an "echo chamber". (Everything in quotes, for those of you "27 year olds... who know literally nothing", is actually from the mouth of Obama's novelist.)
As if that wasn't enough of an affront to both the credibility of Barack Obama and his stenographers in the media, we also learned that Facebook is suppressing conservative news stories and promoting liberal ones. The guy in charge of this operation at Facebook is an Obama/Clinton donor. Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, who run the whole enchilada, make no secret of their leftist politics, yet they sanctimoniously claim Facebook as a paragon of transparency and fairness. (Gee, I wonder if this post will be trending on FB anytime soon?)
And just today, James Rosen, one of the few adults in the Washington press corps., and a Fox News reporter, discovered that eight minutes of his questioning of a State Department spokesperson in 2013, where she openly admits the State Department misleads the American people, was mysteriously edited out of the official video record. These are Soviet tactics, folks! This is banana republic stuff! Without all the delicious bananas, of course.
In other words, the only news bureau not taking dictation from Obama's propaganda shop is ironically the one they refer to as "Faux News".
So Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two best people we have come up with to be the next president. What do we do now?
I would suggest, as I do on many sticky occasions, that we turn to the wisdom of Milton Friedman:
I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
Milton Friedman
Many Americans believe Hillary and Donald are precisely the wrong people. But according to Dr. Friedman they can still do the right things under certain circumstances.
Recall in 1992 when Hillary's husband Bill was elected president with less than a majority of the electorate. Most Americans thought he too was the wrong person for the job. For his first two years he raised taxes, pursued big government, the economy stagnated, and the stock market lagged. The Democrats lost big in the mid-term congressional elections of 1994. In came Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America. Low taxes, free trade, limited government, and welfare reform were the order of the day. The economy went on a tear. Stock market gains were unprecedented. The budget got nearly balanced. And to this day Bill Clinton is known for the strong economy that came after he "triangulated" and signed into law many of the planks of Newt's contract. Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing despite being the wrong person.
Can the electorate make it "politically profitable" for Hillary or Donald to do the right thing despite being the wrong people? Based on the example of Barack Obama I think we have a much better shot if our next "wrong person" is not a "historical first" from a politically favored class of citizens. Donald will not be coddled by the media, Hollywood, academia, or anyone for that matter. He will not be given the benefit of any doubt. He will be held to the highest of standards each and every day.
Hillary? The historic "First Woman President"? Not so much.
