Orlando, Chattanooga, San Bernardino were their versions of our drone strike. ISIS is using the tools it has.

Trust me, if it could get a hold of long range bombers or missiles, it would fling those at us too.

Obama’s theory is that America is big and being big it can “absorb” the punishment from random violence acted upon it by terrorists.  As long as it isn’t 9/11 types of attacks, most Americans will be upset for a few days and then stop paying attention.

In the case of the Orlando terrorist attack, they may be onto something because a few days after the attack, a small child is eaten by an alligator at Disney World and suddenly the people are tweeting about bad parents and Disney lawsuits.  One kid eaten by a prehistoric critter that didn’t know any better is a tragedy, a hundred dead and wounded men and women, all Americans, attacked by a ISIS drone named Omar is now about guns.

And the sheep are buying it! There was one commentary from a gay advocate blaming guns and demanding we all seek peace.  If this person were actually paying attention to demands of Islam, they would realize peace would be reached by the victorious Muslims a few seconds after the last infidels- including her- where destroyed!

My point is we need to stop acting or thinking like Westerners and start realizing that these attacks and any future attacks which are sure to come is the long range drone strike of the terrorist organization named ISIS. And unlike our ROE’s, where we fret about innocent causalities when making the decision to strike or not, ISIS drones are thinking how do they maximize their causalities. That alone puts them at an advantage of us.

The New York Times can say what they want, knowing full well they are lying in order to serve the globalist agenda.  But we know the truth, and as the NRA points out, we better arm ourselves. Because as long as the Left is offering up candidates like HRC, we aren’t going to get the help we need from the government to stay safe.

The trouble with Obama’s theory is a numbers game.  If Obama and his buddies, including Paul Ryan, bring in 100 immigrants from a fundamentalist culture, with two being actual ISIS plants, but none vetted at all, the danger of another strike has immensely increased.  Think about the numbers.  One terrorist killed and wounded 100 people.  Two terrorists killed and wounded 36 in California. Seven in Chattanooga and in Fort Hood it was 43.  Do the numbers.  That is 143 in just four high profile attack.  1..4..3..  almost 36 a clip! Which means if the two stealth terrorists active, that’s another seventy people dead and wounded.  441 immigrants were recently brought in, with four potential terrorists?  That’s a potential hundred and forty-four dead and wounded!!  And that’s just the start.  Don’t think about the homegrown, Islami-sized crew, like Alton Nolen, a convert who killed one woman and tried to cut the head off another woman.

Do you find that acceptable?

Obama and his people do.

Why? Because those in power aren’t ever going to suffer the “absorption cost” of their plans.  Some think that Obama is some kind of plant. I think the elites on the Right resist that description- as Andrew McCarthy points out by saying Obama is a globalist first and an American second- but I think with “Kitman” in play, we cannot rule one or the other out.

Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence but welcomed into the national-security apparatus. Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

I can tell you that there are FBI/NSA/DOD guys and gals who are saying the same thing I and other cops have said about our PC driven, errant administrations, “Who gives a F how we got here, let’s do something about it!” But Obama will refuse and so will his pant-suited doppelganger when it comes to globalist agendas.

Over in England, a crazy man kills a young MP, who was a supporter of Britain remaining in the EU (the globalist agenda).  Immediately, a little to quickly, the “Remain” group claims the crazy guy is a “Brit-Ex”er and killed her as a political assassination.  His brother said he’s just crazy with no real agenda and hardly capable of reasoning out the details of the conflict.   Regardless, her death is being used to push back the vote that the establishment “Remain” politicians fear they are losing.

On a side note, it is a tad interesting a liberal left wing group that “reports” on domestic threats here in America, and I air quote the reports part because the Southern Poverty Law Center does not do what it claims at all, suddenly finds detailed receipts on this guy from 1999. This group will report on any white supremacists group around, but during my exposure to them, they couldn’t find a Hispanic, black or Muslim gang to save their souls. So it is interesting this group, within hours of the murder, in a foreign nation, decided on its own to research old files and found a receipt from 1999 where this guy bought plans from a American white supremacist group, that showed him how to make  a zip gun?  1999?  Why? Do they run every white murder suspect across the globe automatically?  There is more there for sure. (Like where did he get the ammunition? Did he build it, someone else?)

However, the bigger point goes back to what McCarthy says, there is a large Leftist group out there with an agenda to remake the world into a different shape.  How they get there, how many innocent people get hurt in the process is unknown, as is the “why” they would want to disrupt so many civilized societies.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists: (1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences. (2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq). (3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable). (4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists: (1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences. (2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq). (3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable). (4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

And there it is.  The people Obama thinks he can engage with people who are dedicated in eliminating the world Obama lives in, or at least the world Obama shares with us.  He may want to live in Sharia, since he’d be thought a leader and be able to avoid most of what Sharia demands.

Is he sincere? I don’t think so, but McCarthy does.  I just think Obama is a chaos maker, like most Leftists.   A punisher of past sins of others. And he’s intent on punishing us for what he perceives is our nations atrocities.  It is amazing to see.  But hard to watch.

Update: this guy gets it.

 

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply