Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category
When I wrote this post about Rand Paul’s foolishness about ISIS, I stuck mostly to highlighting why Sen. Paul’s opinion is dangerous. Today, it’s time to attack the beliefs that form the foundation for that wrongheaded thinking.
Like his lunatic father before him, Sen. Paul thinks that ISIS won’t hurt us if we just leave them alone. That’s projection based on their capital-L Libertarian beliefs. It’s also lunacy that isn’t based in facts.
ISIS’s beliefs are based on a messianic worldview. If ISIS didn’t use the U.S.’s presence in the Middle East as a rationalization for attacking us, then they’d find a different, equally dishonest, excuse to kill people who don’t agree with them 100% of the time.
The proof of this is the fact that hundreds and thousands of Muslims have been murdered because they didn’t subscribe to ISIS’s beliefs. Their crime wasn’t that they were an occupying force in the Middle East. Their ‘crime’ was that they weren’t, in ISIS’s opinion, Muslim enough. If it wasn’t that, ISIS would find a different excuse to rationalize their actions.
Rand Paul isn’t qualified to be the next commander-in-chief. He sees the world as he wants it to be. He doesn’t see the world as it actually is. That’s President Obama’s fatal flaw. That’s one of Sen. Paul’s fatal flaws, too.
Anyone watching this video has to wonder whether Tucker Carlson has paid attention the last 12 years:
Here’s the transcript that calls his analytic skills into question:
CARLSON: The question I would ask, and I’m not endorsing Rand Paul, but I do think you need a moment of national reckoning where we ask a simple question: what is the lesson from the last thirteen years of Iraq? Have we learned anything? How would we proceed differently based on what we just saw? And the other candidates, most of them I would say, are committed to this ‘We’ve learned nothing. The world’s exactly as it was on September 12, 2001. That is not…I don’t think that’s a recipe for success. I …
BRET BAIER: But do you think that this is a pathway to the GOP nomination?
CARLSON: I don’t. I absolutely don’t. Laura is absolutely right. He’s getting hammered. You’re pro-terrorist. Again, I’m not defending Rand Paul. I’m not an advocate for his campaign. But I think the question hangs in the air what have we learned?
LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a big debate out there that has to be had. Will it be had? Will it be had when there’s just one person making the case and an entire field saying ‘Oh no. It has to be this way. It’s an interesting debate. We should have it.
CHARLES LANE: I listened to that soundbite of Rand Paul and was just reminded of why he’s not…of why he’s getting criticism. The things he says are sloppy and superficial. To literally blame the rise of ISIS on the hawks in the Republican Party is just ridiculous. Let’s face it. There are so many other factors that’ve gone into it and furthermore, it isn’t about how do we unring all the bells that were run in the past that may have led us to this point. The problem now is how do we deal with this menace?
If Carlson wants to re-litigate whether we should’ve invaded Iraq, he’s free to do so. It’s just that that’s a waste of time for policymakers. If historians want to debate it, fine. That’s their responsibility.
If Carlson wants to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes again, the big picture answer is exceptionally straightforward. Don’t elect a person who thinks that fighting terrorists is an afterthought. Don’t elect a person who isn’t committed to winning.
One straightforward lesson worth learning is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us in 2007 and 2008 that they weren’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. President Obama has been a terrible commander-in-chief. If she got elected, Hillary would be just as terrible as commander-in-chief as President Obama is because they’re both committed, as they’ve said repeatedly throughout the years, to “ending wars responsibly.”
The biggest lesson Republicans need to learn is to a) trust their generals more and b) loosen up the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that U.S. military forces can efficiently kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. The other shift that’s imperative is that they must make clear that the Sunnis and Kurds will be protected and that Iran’s generals won’t be permitted as military advisors to Iraq.
The biggest reason why the Sunnis didn’t fight in Ramadi is because they were stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they defeat ISIS, Iranian Shiites would wage war against the Sunnis. If the Sunnis waged war against the Shiites, then Iran and President Obama would persecute them.
During the Anbar Awakening, U.S. soldiers fought alongside the Sunnis. They established a trust with the Sunni soldiers. The result was the Sunnis running AQI, ISIS’ predecessor, into Syria. We don’t need to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to obliterate ISIS. Military experts say that 20,000-25,000 troops, combined with an aggressive bombing campaign, should devastate ISIS and restore Iraqi trust in the United States. This time, though, it’s imperative that we negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep a stabilizing force in Iraq. That stabilizing force would keep the troops and the Iraqi government in line, prevent the Iranians from spreading their influence in the region and prevent the return of ISIS.
In 2006, then-Candidate Amy Klobuchar talked daily about “responsibly ending” the war in Iraq. At the time, I was disgusted with the thought of “ending wars” because it didn’t speak to winning wars. Starting in 2007 and continuing through 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked about “ending wars responsibly”. Obama picked up on the nation’s mood first, which propelled him to an election victory.
There’s nothing honorable about “ending wars responsibly” because there’s nothing honorable about losing wars. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lost 2 wars and are on their way to losing a third war (against ISIS) because they quit fighting. When the world’s only true superpower quits fighting against terrorists, it sends the signal that fighting terrorism isn’t a priority.
That’s why the Gulf Arabs humiliated President Obama at his summit. Their leaders didn’t show up because they think he’s sold them out. They’re right in thinking that.
Recently, Hillary’s former associates were asked what her foreign policy accomplishments were. After a minutes-long awkward pause, they settled on Myanmar being her biggest accomplishment. They’re doing Hillary a disservice. Let’s stipulate here that accomplishments aren’t necessarily positives. In this context, they’re noteworthy moments during Hillary’s stewardship of the State Department.
First, she gave the Russians a reset switch, which told them they could do virtually anything, including annexing Crimea. Next, she helped end the war in Iraq, which helped the Iraqi people transfer from being ruled by an oppressive dictator to being governed by an incompetent prime minister to being ruled by a new group of oppressors. Third, she led the fight to ‘liberate’ Libya from Kaddafi’s rule. That ‘accomplishment’ led to terrorists taking over Libya. That led to her fourth ‘accomplishment’. Thanks to Hillary’s shoddy planning for the aftermath of the fight against Kaddafi, terrorists took control of Libya. Those terrorists then assassinated U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other American patriots.
That’s what happens when American leaders aren’t committed to winning wars and obliterating terrorists. I don’t want politicians who will responsibly end wars. I’d want someone like Bill Whittle in control. When ISIS beheaded the American journalists, President Obama was forced into pretending like he gave a damn. Bill Whittle had a different perspective:
Hillary might not be the appeaser that Obama is but she’s still an appeaser.
If we need to increase bombing raids per day to eliminate ISIS, let’s get it done. If that bombing campaign needs forward-located troops to pinpoint where the terrorists are, send them in. But, for God’s sake, let’s not do these things with the timidity and foolishness that have hallmarked the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.
It’s established fact that Hillary isn’t good in settings where real people ask her important questions. That was determined last year during her God-awful book tour collapsed in infamy. That collapse guaranteed that Hillary wouldn’t wage a real campaign if she didn’t have to. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprise by this article:
CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed for her visit. She spoke to four small business owners chosen by her staff in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few questions from the media following weeks of silence. And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.
Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her, oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.
Rest assured of this: Hillary will lose Iowa if she doesn’t campaign amongst real people that are allowed to ask real questions. What’s most important is that she’ll deserve that thumping if she continues campaigning inside the bunker. Anyone who isn’t interested in representing all of America shouldn’t be the next president.
“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather be in there engaging with her.”
Let’s be blunt. This cycle, Hillary’s highest priority has been to minimize her chances of making a gaffe. That’s been an obvious decision on Hillary’s part. The problem with doing that is that she isn’t giving undecided voters a chance to get to like her.
That’s plain foolish.
Hillary can’t win this election with just a base vote, especially when a significant part of the Democrats’ base, young people, are disinterested at best. When Obama brought young people out in droves in 2008, they thought he was hip, he was cool, he had a cult following. Remember this?
Young people came out in droves in 2008 because Barack Obama captured their imagination. Hillary isn’t getting their attention in 2016. The Obama coalition isn’t dead but it’s dying a slow, painful death right in front of our eyes.
If Republicans nominate either Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, they’ll defeat Hillary with votes to spare. Walker and Rubio are fantastic in that they attract young people and they’re people with fresh ideas. Hillary’s freshness ran out circa the time of her talking about the “vast right wing conspiracy.” That’s back when I was young.
A stunning document captured during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound didn’t speak highly of Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the world’s greatest terrorist thought of Hillary and US foreign policy:
UBL: The Secretary of State declared that they are worried about the armed Muslims controlling the Muslim region. The West’s position towards the Libyan revolution is a weak one. The western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.
You can practically hear UBL’s rejoicing in the Obama administration’s use of “smart power’. It’s obvious that he wasn’t afraid of Hillary’s foreign policy, either.
Pacifist birds of a feather flock together.
Actually, these pacifist birds run a foundation together. Follow this link to watch ABC’s interview of Osama bin Laden in 1998. At approximately the 3:50 mark, UBL calls the US military a “paper tiger.”
Our people realize that, more than before, the American soldier is a paper tiger.
Because the military takes its orders from its commander-in-chief, they leave hotspots like Mogadishu if that’s what the commander-in-chief orders them to do. That’s what they were told to do by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. UBL thought that the US military were paper tigers because Bill Clinton lacked the will to fight. Does anyone seriously think that the US military couldn’t have wiped out al-Qa’ida if they’d been given permission to wipe them out?
Bill Clinton once ordered troops into Bosnia. He explained that he was just trying to “level the battlefield.” Bill Clinton didn’t care about winning a war. That’s why he went half-heartedly into a military confrontation.
Based on UBL’s documents, he thought Hillary was as soft as her husband. He nailed it when he said that “the western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.” Certainly, President Obama has abandoned the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, eastern Europe and north Africa. Let’s remember that bin Laden was assassinated in 2011, years before ISIS was called the JV team. ISIS and al-Qa’ida knew that they could operate without consequences with Hillary as Secretary of State and President Obama as commander-in-chief.
With ISIS expanding and Iran destabilizing the Middle East, why shouldn’t they hope for a Hillary administration? If she becomes president, they’ll have the time to plan their next terrorist attack on the United States. They’ll know that they can operate freely and openly.
Bill Clinton was seen by UBL as a paper tiger. Hillary was seen by UBL as a shrinking violet. If we want the terrorists to run rampant until they strike us again, all we have to do is elect Hillary.
During President Obama’s press conference with GCC nation leaders and delegations, he said some utterly laughable things. Here’s the video of the entire press conference:
Here’s the partial transcript I did to highlight what Charles Krauthammer called President Obama’s weasel words:
PRES. OBAMA: I invited our GCC partners here today to deepen our cooperation and to work together to resolve conflicts across the region. I want to thank each of the leaders and delegations who attended. We approached our discussions in a spirit of mutual respect. We agree that the security relationship between the United States and our GCC partners will remain a cornerstone of regional stability and our relationship is a 2-way street. We all have responsibilities and, here at Camp David, we have decided to expand our cooperation in several important and concrete ways.
First, I am confirming our ironclad commitment to our GCC partners. As we’ve declared in our joint statement, the United States is prepared to work jointly with GCC member states to deter, confront and defend any GCC state’s territorial integrity that is inconsistent with the UN charter. In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners urgently to determine which actions may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force for the defense of our GCC partners. And let me underscore that the United States keeps its commitments.
If I recall correctly, Charles counted 5 sets of weasel words in that final paragraph:
- The United States is prepared to work jointly with
- urgently to determine which actions may be appropriate
- I’m confirming our ironclad commitment
- including the potential use of military force
That’s 4 sets of weasel words that mean nothing. Combined, though, they aren’t as frightening to GCC member states as this statement:
And let me underscore that the United States always keeps its commitments.
I don’t recall the exact wording Charles used in conveying what he thinks President Obama’s statement meant but I’ll come close with this paraphrase:
This is President Obama’s statement of abandonment of the GCC member nations.
Remember, this summit was called by the Obama administration to assure them that he wasn’t a terrible ally. These nations wanted a written statement saying that a) the United States wouldn’t abandon them and b) the United States would provide military supplies to GCC member nations. Instead, President Obama stopped well short of those commitments. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have every right to worry that the Obama administration will do next to nothing if Iran tries destabilizing these Arab nations.
UPDATE: Here’s the video and transcript of Charles Krauthammer’s analysis of President Obama’s summit:
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: President Obama trying to reassure Gulf nations by committing to help protect them from external attacks, including not ruling out the potential use of military force and we’re back now with our panel. I gather that you don’t view this as Article 5 of the NATO agreement.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This was absolutely pathetic. If this was meant to reassure the Gulf states I’m sure their hair is still standing on end. Let’s go over this. There are a few ellipses here. In the event of such aggression, the United States stands ready, that’s a weasel word number one, to work with — weasel word number two — with our partners to urgently determine — boy, that’s rough, that’s a weasel phase number three — what actions — well, he doesn’t say what actions, just any actions — that’s the fourth.
And now the kicker, “may be appropriate.” I mean, I have never seen a statement with more caveats in it, which would give any less confidence to any ally. Obama, if you noticed, was reading that. That wasn’t a bad ad-lib. That wasn’t Jeb answering the wrong question. That was a prepared statement for a summit that is meant to reassure the Gulf Arabs that we are not selling them out. That was a sell out announcement.
WALLACE: I was going to follow up with that. The whole point of the summit was to try to assure the Sunni, the Gulf states, the six nations around the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia that we aren’t going to sell them out with Iran and that they can be sure of their security. Should they be reassured?
KRAUTHAMMER: They should be terrified. In fact, in one with of the other answers he was answering the objection that we’re going to be unleashing billions of dollars into the Iranian treasury, which they will obviously use for the mischief, the destabilization that they are doing in the region, including Yemen, Syria, et cetera, threatening the Gulf Arabs.
His answer was, among other things not to worry, is that Iran has a lot of economic needs and they have made a commitment to their people to invest in infrastructure. So, they are not going to spend it, I assume, on Hezbollah, Hamas the Houthis and all the others. That is preposterous. And any Gulf Arab who hears that would be triply terrified.
Josh Earnest isn’t get paid enough to cover for President Obama’s foolish comments about private schools:
Here’s the transcript of Earnest’s interview with Joe Scarborough:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Were you, I am sure you will be asked this question many times in your next press briefing, but the president was critical of people who went to private schools and sent their children to private schools and plays at private clubs and well every alarm should be going off. Do you have that clip? Let’s play that clip first.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Those who are better and better, more skilled, educated, luckier, having greater advantages are withdrawing from, sort of the commons, kids start going to private schools. Kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks. An anti-government idea old disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together, and that, in part, contributes to the fact that there is less opportunity for our kids.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Obviously, the man that said it, went to the best prep school in Hawaii and went to the best private colleges in the United States, his children who I don’t think it’s anybody’s business where they send their children, but if the president is going to criticize people who send their children to private schools he has to recognize, obviously, that he sends his children to the best schools in Washington, possibly America. How does he, is there a self critique against himself, the mistakes he’s made? What was the president trying to get at there?
JOSH EARNEST: Joe, the point the president was making is it’s important for us to recognize it as a country. We all have an interest in investing in the common benefits that our country has to offer. His point is that even if you send your kids to private school, we all have an interest in making sure we have good high quality public schools available to everybody. It’s not that far from the White House that we do have some of the best public schools in the country over in Fairfax County, Virginia.
That is an example. That is also a more wealthy than average county in the country. That is an example of a society of a community that has invested in a common good for the benefit of their community and that’s the kind of thing that we need to see all across the country. Whether that is something as simple as investing in our national parks or local parks or public schools or making sure that every single American has access to quality health insurance.
JOE: So did the president consider sending its children to public schools? Again, none of my business unless he is criticizing Americans who send their children to private schools.
EARNEST: Again, I don’t think he’s criticizing sending people to private schools.
He’s suggesting all Americans need to keep in mind; it’s in our collective interest as a country and as citizens for us to invest in the common good, for us to invest and make sure we have good quality public schools available for everybody so that everybody has a fair shot. Everybody has a fair shake. Everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed and will let their ambition and hard work take them as far as it will carry them. That is what this country is all about. we start to lose sight of those basic values in this country the we start to retract into our own private clubs and schools and lose sight of the fact if we lose interest that we want those public schools to be good.
JOE: Please let the president also, I got a name of a couple public golf courses I’d like to show him. My comment is one of the best. I’d love to take him on a round out there. Public, beautiful.
Simply put, Josh Earnest must scratch his head and what his boss was thinking at times. Actually, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ll help Josh with that. When President Obama starts feeling it, when he’s relaxed, he gets lippy. He starts reflexively criticizing Fox News and Republicans. It doesn’t matter if the facts are on his side. His ideology is all he needs to start a demagogic rant. It’s as predictable as the sun setting in the west.
On a serious matter, though, President Obama just explained why President Obama’s first budget ended the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Fortunately, minority families loudly protested President Obama’s budget and got the DCOSP restored. There’s no denying that President Obama and his wife are elitists that lecturing people because they think they know what’s best.
I wrote here that Saudi King Salman had snubbed President Obama’s invitation to attend a summit on his administration’s negotiations with Iran. This article says that other Sunni Gulf nations are following King Salman’s lead:
- The tiny island kingdom of Bahrain said separately Sunday that its delegation would be headed by the country’s crown prince, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
- The sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said, is also among those staying away.
- Health issues are also expected to keep the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, from attending.
4 of the 6 leaders of the nations invited to the Summit refuse to attend. This is a major public snub for President Obama:
Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at Emirates University, told the Associated Press Gulf leaders were staying away to signal their displeasure over the nuclear talks.
“I don’t think they have a deep respect, a deep trust for Obama and his promises. There is a fundamental difference between his vision of post-nuclear-deal Iran and their vision,” he said. “They think Iran is a destabilizing force and will remain so, probably even more, if the sanctions are lifted. … They’re just not seeing things eye to eye.”
Check out this video:
Though the diplomats will insist Saudi King Salman skipping President Obama’s summit isn’t a snub, that’s definitely what it is:
Saudi Arabia said Sunday that King Salman would skip a May 14 summit of Persian Gulf leaders at which President Barack Obama is expected to offer reassurances over U.S. efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. The decision marks a diplomatic snub from one of the top leaders in the region, and follows U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to the Saudi capital last week.
Foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir said in a statement on state media that the king decided not to attend the meeting, which will be hosted at Camp David by Mr. Obama. The king instead would focus on the Yemen cease-fire and humanitarian aid effort, according to the statement. Saudi Arabia is currently leading an air offensive against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
It isn’t just that King Salman isn’t attending the summit:
President Barack Obama had planned to meet Salman one-on-one a day before the gathering of leaders at the presidential retreat…
When Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his speech to Congress last March, President Obama refused to meet with him. The press reported it as a major snub to Prime Minister Netanyahu. It isn’t a secret that the Saudis aren’t happy with the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran. That’s the topic President Obama will talk about at the summit. Right now, Sunni Gulf states are worried President Obama is pitching them under his infamous bus in his pursuit of a presidential legacy item.
Sunni Gulf states are right in thinking that President Obama has put a higher priority on reaching an agreement with the Iranians than he’s put on solidifying his relationship with Sunni Gulf states. In fact, that isn’t disputable.
Democrats have tried criticizing Scott Walker’s economic policies as a way to argue he’s unqualified to be president. This WSJ op-ed offers some statistics that prove Scott Walker’s more than qualified:
Since February 2011, Wisconsin’s employable population has grown by about 100,000 people, but the number of people employed increased by about 135,000. That means employment outpaced population growth significantly.
But how does it compare with national employment growth? One important measure is the percentage of the employable population that is actually employed, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls the employment-population ratio. The U.S. employment-population ratio has grown 1.5% since Mr. Walker took charge. Yet Wisconsin’s employment-population ratio has jumped 2.5%—significantly more than the national improvement rate. Wisconsin is also gaining ground against other states. In February 2011 Wisconsin ranked 12th in employment-population ratio. It now ranks ninth.
In other words, it’s pretty obvious that Gov. Walker’s policies have Wisconsin heading in the right direction. Those aren’t the only statistics that show his policies are working. Here’s more:
Wisconsin’s current 68.4% labor-force participation rate is particularly noteworthy because it represents an uptick over the past year from a low of 68.1%. Nationally, the average labor-force participation rate has declined to lows last seen during the Carter administration.
The national workforce participation rate is significantly worse:
Since February 2011, the national labor-force participation rate has dropped to 62.7%, from 64.2%.
The national unemployment rate has dropped because people quit looking for work. If the current LFPR was the same as it was when President Obama took office, unemployment would be 9%. Conversely, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has dropped because Gov. Walker’s policies are eating into long-term unemployment.
Another thing that has to be factored into this equation is the fact that Act 10 has shrunk school districts’ expenses to the point that they’re hiring additional teachers and giving other teachers raises. That means Wisconsin is feeling the recovery. That isn’t happening nationally.