Amb. John Bolton weighs in
“To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or knaves.” — Claude-Adrien Helvetius (1715-1771)
I have watched the supposedly smartest man in the world since he was a community organizer and a disciple of Saul Alinsky on the south side of Chicago and he cannot name one accomplishment in his tenure in the Illinois assembly. He never sponsored or co-sponsored one piece of legislation during that time and he never took a position on any legislation as he cast his vote after vote by saying “present.”
Forget about his questionable birth certificate.
Forget about where he was born.
Forget about his foreign passport.
Forget about that his childhood mentor was a Communist.
Forget about his College records that have been sealed.
Forget about his questionable Social Security number.
Forget about his association with terrorist Bill Ayers.
Forget about his money deals with Tony Resko.
Forget that he was raised in the Muslim faith in Indonesia.
Because at this time it is all immaterial, no past President in our history can even come close this man’s questionable past and yet he got elected twice.
Presidents before have made mistakes, because like all men they are fallible. The difference is that their mistakes where made with good intentions and their intent was never to harm the country. I cannot say that about the man who sits in the White House today.
He has told the American People so many lies that you can’t even count them all, and he does it with such a straight face, I think he deserve an Oscar for acting out his fables.
Each day I am getting more and more convinced that he is Muslim and all that time he spent in a Christian church was just another one of those lies. What counts today is who he is and what he stands for. Because there is no other way to explain his responses to Muslim terrorists.
He is torn between his Muslim faith and the duties he was elected to do and in my opinion he is suffering from mental problems. It’s either that or he was born with a black heart.
How can a man who was elected to the highest office in the land, intentionally keep on doing things that are harmful too the country that elected him?
* Six years of the worst economy since Jimmy Carter.
* Six years and the National Debt has increased by 8o% since he has been in office.
*Six years of billions of dollars wasted on solar panels and windmills.
* A trillion dollars wasted on Obamacare that will fail by design.
* An illegal, Illegal immigration bill that has brought many new diseases to this country.
* He has violated his oath of office to obey the Constitution (the law of the land) more than I count.
And in that personality conflict he has become extremely arrogant to members of Congress and basically informed them …”It’s my way or the highway.”
So how sick is he? Very sick because his behavior has been bordering on irrational.
In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope.
The Republican landslide in the last election empowers the GOP to go on the offensive against the now greatly weakened lame duck, President Obama.
With complete control of Congress, Republicans can send him bill after bill with broad popular support reflecting their policy preferences, leaving him no option but to go along, or take very public, unpopular stands reflecting his consistently counterproductive, ideological extremism.
Little appreciated inside the media echo chamber is the impact of November’s historic Democratic defeat on Obama’s standing within his party.
On many issues, Republicans will now be joined by Democrats glad to distance themselves from the now-cratering former shooting star. On some issues, this may lead to veto overrides.
Issue No. 1 — the Keystone XL pipeline — has already been identified by the Republican congressional leadership. The former base of the Democrat Party — blue-collar workers and their families — are identifying with Republicans on this issue. Even Democrat incumbents from blue states can’t afford to alienate these voters.
Further political earthquake issues relate to the president’s crown jewel — ObamaCare. Republicans should pass legislation to repeal Obama’s foolish individual mandate, which even he campaigned against in 2008. It is effectively a tax on the middle class and working people, and Republicans should frame it as such.
The Republican House last week passed a fix to the 30-hour workweek imposed on many as a result of Obama-Care, raising the threshold for the employer mandate to apply to 40 hours. The White House says that will cause many more workers to lose hours, as employers cut back more full-time workers to 39 hours, for which Democrats will blame Republicans.
Republicans should be more aggressive and pass repeal of the entire employer mandate, which is a massively counterproductive tax on jobs. That would fix the 30-hour workweek problem entirely as well.
Republicans should not hold back on any of these popular issues because of an Obama veto threat, or even the threat of a Senate Democratic filibuster. Force the president and his Democrats to take difficult votes and public stands against the people. See how long they’re willing to keep that up.
Unable To Veto
The first week of January 2015’s biggest news—three Muslim jihadists murdering a dozen journalists in their Paris office, another killing four patrons in a nearby Kosher market, and the reactions to these events—leads us to ask what history may teach us about such people and how we may rid ourselves of them.
History has no precise parallel to the growing wave of murders throughout the planet perpetrated by persons who proclaim Allah and Muhammad. To be sure, history is full of instances of persons belonging to a group defined by blood or faith who murder members of other groups to assert some of their own group’s claims, and whose numbers grow by attracting some of their own group to themselves and intimidating the rest. But examining the differences between our present phenomenon and its partial antecedents—even more than the similarities—yields valuable insights.
History’s most touted campaign of assassinations, waged by a group that gave the practice its name, was by the Nizari Ismaili sect of Persian Shia against the Cairo-based Seljuk Sunni regime in the late eleventh century. But the Assassins, whose chief, Hassan-i Sabbah, was headquartered in the Alamut fortress, did not join spontaneously but rather were recruited and trained individually, and killed only the regime’s prominent enemies. Today’s terrorists are not Assassins.
Today’s wave of jihad murders more closely recalls India’s Sepoy rebellion of 1857 insofar as it began as a single incident, but feeding on a complex set of resentments of British rule by Indians, spread spontaneously. More and more Indians who had no prior intention of doing such things took it upon themselves to inflict gross cruelties on the British among them. The Arab slaughters of Jews in the 1920s, which began on a small scale at the behest of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and culminated in the 1929 Hebron massacre, differed from the former in that the role of longstanding, complex, underlying resentments was smaller, that of religion was greater, and that of organization much greater. The Mufti’s forces also intimidated or eliminated fellow Arabs who were unwilling to join the Jihad. Organization and intimidation of fellow Arabs was far more important in the 1954-1962 campaign by the FLN to drive Frenchmen from Algeria by murder, and religion less. By contrast, in the Muslim Brotherhood’s murderous 1990 campaign to drive the FLN from power in Algeria, organization played a much smaller role, religion and spontaneity a much greater one. Throughout history, countless instances of foreign occupation have been accompanied by more or less spontaneous revolts by scattered individuals, localities, and groups.
The closest example to contemporary jihadism of persons rising from quiescence, energized to murder, whose example spread like wildfire and endangered society, is from Europe’s late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Inspired by various prophetae who claimed to embody God’s cleansing wrath against corrupt religious and secular nobles, a baker’s dozen of movements known variously as “Anabaptists” or “Cathars,” led ordinary people to murder their neighbors. Part of their inspiration, like that of today’s jihadists, was the prophetae’s establishment of model states that they claimed embodied God’s promises and whose temporary success energized imitators.
All previous movements that share some of jihadism’s features, however, shared one feature the absence of which sets them far apart from twenty-first century jihadism. Whereas all such movements were trying to destroy societies and polities that pushed back very hard and crushed them by massive, brutal, and exemplary force, lack of resistance to its spread is the distinctive feature of today’s jihadism. Consider how different was the environment of all previous murder movements:
The Assassins really were tools of an institution that represented a well-defined sect, the headquarters of which was in one fortress. After the Mongol invasion wiped out Alamut in 1256, the sect ceased to exist. The Sepoy rebellion ended when British troops stormed the cities where the rebels had taken refuge, and repaid the rebels’ cruelties with interest by bayonetting and hanging whoever was at hand. Vigorous Jewish self-defense augmented British forces’ suppression of the Mufti’s pogroms. French forces stopped the FLN cold in 1956, efficiently targeting a meticulously designed campaign of counter-murder by applying torture intelligently. The FLN, for its part, crushed the Muslim Brotherhood with far less finesse and with brutality that was far more indiscriminate. The several medieval European chiliastic movements ended with slaughters on the battlefield, captives burned at the stake, etc. The leader of the last of these, one Jan Bockelson known as Jan van Leiden, was tortured in the main square of several cities before being placed in a cage and lifted to the top spire of Münster’s cathedral to be picked apart by the birds in the sight of all. The cage hangs there still.
By contrast, of all the countless activities undertaken, plans made, utterances formulated by Western authorities, none have been of the sort that aimed at or envisaged ending jihadism.
In America as elsewhere, “security officials” reacted to the Paris events as they have to all previous others, by promising to track down the perpetrators’ connections: to discover by whom they were recruited and trained, as well as to redouble efforts to keep track of persons who, like the perpetrators, have given reasons to suspect them of willingness to kill. At the same time, they voiced frustration at the fact that the burgeoning number of such people is making it impossible for them to do that, and that they have no means of restricting such persons’ access to the means of slaughter, whether gun or knife or moving car, arson, poison, or mob. Slowly, they are recognizing that, as jihadism spreads, connections and organization are less and less important, that jihadism has acquired a momentum of its own with which they are loath to grapple.
This sense of exasperation, that the phenomenon has escaped our ruling class’s intellectual and moral capacity to understand and defeat it, this contrast between jihadism, which is spreading unchecked, and the lack of plans or prospects for ending it, is causing European and American publics to lose what remains of their allegiances.
All too obviously, such words and deeds as are being deployed against jihadism stand no chance of getting in its way. Typically, Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that the only way to destroy today’s jihadists “is to have the people within the religion turn on them, have the capability to keep them at bay within the countries where they exist.” No one is holding his breath. Meanwhile, the jihadists intimidate more and more Muslims—and Western societies as well. Note that no major American media published the cartoons that triggered the Paris outrage, and all bent yet further to absolve Muslim authorities of any duty to crush the jihadists. Government officials, when questioned about what they are doing to protect their publics, talk about increasing universal surveillance—precisely what has not worked in the past—and say that safety will come in future years.
Meanwhile, whereas in past years only strict Muslims might have become jihadists, nowadays persons with scarce connection to Islam, or none, are joining it as a way of legitimizing their social or personal grievances. This is particularly important in America, where Islam and jihadism are spreading among those who are not of Middle Eastern descent, especially among African American male youth. Why or how radical Islam seems to be increasingly popular among particular minority groups is a topic that few wish to investigate.
In short, it seems that the jihadists, rather than as in the past making war on societies and groups intent on defending their lives, are now feeding off ones that flounder impotently as they suffer. They are less like assassins and more like jackals.
Source: Hoover Institute