|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: November 18, 2015, 06:53:11 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 11-18-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Nov. 18, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1822
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Petulant Obama Mocks GOP on Refugees1
In 2013, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonated two bombs2 near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 264. The Tsarnaev brothers were Islamist radicals and “refugees.” In July 2015, five military personnel in Chattanooga were murdered3 by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez — an Islamist Palestinian immigrant. In other words, refugees and immigrants committing terrorism in the U.S. is not some theoretical hypothetical. It’s already happened. It happened in Paris, too — at least one attacker was a Syrian “refugee.”
But that makes no difference to the man-child in the Oval Office. Rather than assaulting the Islamofascists who commit such heinous acts, he turned his rhetorical fire on Republicans. Again. Still.
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate,” Obama said of his plan to bring in the Islamic Trojan horse4 via Syrian refugees. “Apparently [Republicans] are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”
Obama has never said a word in regard to the long list of orphans left in the wake of Islamist attacks in the U.S. and worldwide. Instead, he prefers hurling insults at his political opponents. That’s what narcissists5 do. And that in itself illustrates a big reason conservatives oppose his plan: It isn’t heartlessness on the part of Americans who don’t want a flood of 10,000 unknown Syrian refugees, it’s distrust of our own government. Remember, this is the administration that ran guns to Mexican drug cartels, targeted conservatives for IRS audit and set up ObamaCare in all its colossally inept glory. Secretary of State John Kerry insists “we have a very capable ability” to vet refugees, and he argues, “I just think people shouldn’t be hysterical here.” But forgive us for not hopping aboard the Trust Obama Express, trusting that he’ll successfully distinguish between those in need and those bent on killing Americans.
Besides, if Obama really wanted to help refugees, he’d quit hammering Republicans for advocating a focus on persecuted Christians. He doesn’t ever admit it, but Christians aren’t the ones blowing themselves up or firing into crowds with AK-47s yelling “allahu akbar.” And yet Christians are the group Obama isn’t admitting6.
Finally, as we said yesterday, the real question is this: Why is Obama burning so much political capital on this issue? First, he’s a narcissist, and opposition usually serves only to make him double down. But second, and more important, he knows if he gives way on Syrians, Republicans will point out that our porous southern border poses a national security threat, which is going to eat into Democrats' appeal with illegal immigrants. His faux immigration strategy7 is to play the issue for political gain. The political capital he’s investing now is all part of the plan.
(Bonus reading from The Heritage Foundation: What a Responsible Syrian Refugee Policy Looks Like for US After Paris Attacks8.)
Kerry: There’s ‘Legitimacy’ for Charlie Hebdo Attack9
Another chapter was written into John Kerry’s long history of anti-American and anti-Western thoughts and actions Tuesday, as he pontificated that there was justification for the attacks10 on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris earlier this year. Jihadists assaulted the satirical newspaper because its cartoonists drew caricatures of Mohammad. “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry mused11, piling on the insult by making these remarks from the U.S. embassy in Paris. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.” And somehow, free expression — the Liberty to level the pen against sacred cows — is not something the West stands for anymore?
And another thought about this particular American in Paris. As an anti-war civilian in 1970, Kerry met with the North Vietnamese delegation during the Vietnam War peace talks in Paris — something Kerry has said was “borderline” legal. We think it was treason12. He then came home and slandered American soldiers in Senate testimony. But by all means, let him represent our nation’s interests abroad.
Jindal Is Out, but Let’s Hope He Lingers in the Wings13
Once considered a potential leader in the Republican Party, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced14 Tuesday he was dropping out of the presidential primaries. “This is not my time,” Jindal said. If money is air and media churn is fuel in this presidential race, Jindal’s campaign died from asphyxiation. Jindal’s résumé15 is as high as his five-foot nine-inch frame, yet he couldn’t get enough money for his campaign to draw attention to himself and the lack of poll numbers regaled him to the pre-debate debates among the tail end of the Republican pack. The reformer of Louisiana was a man focused on ideas. “We spent a lot of time developing detailed policy papers,” Jindal told Fox News. “Given this clearly, unpredictable election season, clearly there just wasn’t a lot of interest in those policy papers.” So Jindal will return to the think tank he started to create “a blueprint for making this the American century.” Hopefully, when the presidential field is pared down, the front-runner will consider the politician-philosopher in Louisiana. He’ll make a great pick for vice president.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Clinton Foundation: Oh, THAT Foreign Money…16
By Lewis Morris
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has refiled six years' worth of amended tax returns to more properly account for revenue sources for the “charity.” Much of that revenue just happened to come from foreign governments — while Hillary was secretary of state.
The returns include tax years 2010 through 2013 for the Foundation and tax years 2012 and 2013 for the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Foundation president and longtime Clintonista Donna Shalala said that the organization was under no legal obligation to refile the forms but was motivated instead by the desire to be transparent. (They keep using that word…)
“There is no change in our bottom line numbers: assets, liabilities, and net assets,” Shalala wrote in a statement. “There is nothing to suggest that the Foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which we report on our website.”
There is also nothing to suggest that Shalala or the Foundation is telling the truth. The fact that these amended returns come during a period of intense scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s White House run cannot be coincidence. Neither can it be mere chance that the years in question coincide with her term as secretary of state.
We’ve reported previously17 about the mounting evidence that the Clinton Foundation was set up mainly as a means of greasing the skids for Clinton’s inevitable White House run. We also explored18 how the Foundation continued to do business with countries that were simultaneously working with the State Department while Clinton was secretary.
Neither the State Department nor the Clinton Foundation found any conflict of interest or any impropriety in the arrangement after independent internal reviews. Well, isn’t that a load off our collective minds? Both organizations absolved themselves of any wrongdoing and we were expected to go on with our lives without any further questions. |
