Connecting the Terrorism Dots

Our CIA Director is telling a congressional committee this morning that ISIS is working to send many more jihadists to the United States.  One of the main ways they plan to do that is by embedding them among the thousands of Syrian refugees that President Obama has already begun to bring into this country.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton recently doubled down on her pledge to continue and even increase the President’s policy towards giving these refugees asylum in this country, rather than find ways to provide them safety in their own country.

Progressives and our fake national news media appear to be incapable of making any connection between these realities and the constantly growing incidence rate of Islamic terrorist atrocities in the United States.

Connecting dots in a logical manner has never been a strong point for “progressives”.

Also this week, as the nation reels and mourns in the wake of 49 Americans murdered by a rampaging Islamic terrorist, President Obama quietly named a woman who is pretty much unquestionably a radical Islamist to his Council on Homeland Security.  I’m not making this up, promise.

Laila Alawa is a 25 year-old Syrian immigrant who has publicly praised the 9/11 attacks as having made the world a better place.  Although she immigrated to this country at the age of 10, she has publicly renounced any intention of ever becoming an assimilated American citizen.  Her Twitter feed is full of hate-filled, racist tweets towards America and Americans.

This is who our President wants on his Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Progressives and our fake national news media are incapable of making any connection between this sort of insanity and the constantly growing incidence rate of Islamic terrorist atrocities on U.S. soil.

Speaking of our President, today is Thursday, four full days after the Islamic terrorist committed his atrocity in Orlando, and he still hasn’t managed to find a moment to make a phone call to the Governor of Florida.  True, the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, is a Republican, and we all know that this President considers Republicans to be his only true enemies, but every other president since the invention of the telephone would have put in a call to the governor of any state suffering such an attack within a few hours of its happening.

Again, there is no depth to which this President will not stoop in order to divide this country.

Progressives and our fake national news media are incapable of making any connection between this sort of intentionally divisive behavior in the White House and the constantly growing incidence rate of Islamic terrorist atrocities on U.S. soil.

Yesterday I mentioned that the FBI had interviewed the Orlando Islamic terrorist twice and had let him go free both times.  I was wrong:  it is reported today that the FBI actually had interviewed this obvious radical Islamist THREE times and had let him go free every time.  Not only that, but he was not placed on the FBI watch list – contrary to Hillary Clinton’s claims – and he was allowed to maintain his job as a security agent, a job which required a Homeland Security background check.

To understand why he was able to pass that background check and retain that job and avoid being placed on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, go back up and read who it is that our President appoints to his Homeland Security Advisory Board.

Progressives and our fake national news media are incapable of connecting any of these dots. 

They are, however, capable of inventing false connections between this religiously-motivated act and the need for “gun control”, because, you know, inanimate objects are the real issue here.

Hillary Clinton announced that the only things she would change to the current Obama policies would be to institute the following gun control measures:

·         Remove the “gun show loophole” in the background check laws;

·         Reinstate the “assault weapons” ban; and

·         Make sure that no one under FBI investigation could go out and buy firearms.

Here are the problems with these proposals:

·         There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” – it hasn’t existed for years now.  She is relying on the ignorance and stupidity of average Americans in continuing to advocate eliminating something that does not exist;

·         The “assault weapons” ban existed in the law for many years, and never prevented any criminal from obtaining an “assault weapon”.  The policy was repealed because it made absolutely no difference whatsoever;

·         Preventing those under FBI investigation from purchasing guns would of course prevent Mrs. Clinton and all of her top advisors from being able to buy guns, because they are all under FBI investigation as of today.

But seriously, it would make sense for the government to make it illegal for anyone who is on the FBI terrorist watch list to obtain any sort of firearm.  It makes so much sense that Donald Trump met with the leaders of the NRA yesterday to try to convince them to support this change.

If the leaders of the NRA are smart, they will decide to support that change to the law.  It would be great publicity for them, and show they do understand that every right in the Bill of Rights is subject to certain limitations.

Of course, what Mrs. Clinton, her fellow progressives, and our fake national news media studiously ignore is that the Orlando Islamic terrorist was not on the FBI’s watch list, and thus, this change in policy would have – like every other gun control proposal they support – made no difference at all in what took place in Orlando.

All of those people would still be dead, the nation would still be in mourning, and our country would still be less safe, all because progressives and our fake national news media insist upon ignoring and distracting attention away from the real root cause of the problem.

Weekend at Trump, Hillary and Bernie's

Some thoughts on the events of the weekend....

• The Commie (Sanders) swore to one of his California audiences on Saturday that he plans to continue to "fight" (isn't it great how all liberal politicians "fight" all the time?  It's like they all think they could go eight rounds with Ali) "all the way through the convention".
  
  What this actually means is that he's getting ready to concede the nomination to Hillary Clinton if he loses California on Tuesday, and end his campaign.  If you remember back to the day before the Indiana GOP primary, Ted Cruz also swore to stay in the race "all the way to Cleveland" to an audience of supporters.  By 8:00 Central Time the next night, after a crushing loss to Donald Trump, his campaign was over.
  
  If California goes for Hillary, the Commie is toast.  Best bet of the week.

• Donald Trump has a legitimate concern about the impartiality of the judge in his Trump University case, but doesn't appear capable of appropriately expressing it.  Instead of focusing on the judge's "Mexican" heritage (he was born and raised in Indiana), Trump should be talking about Judge Gonzalo Curiel's membership in a radical organization called "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego", a race-based group that is so racist that its name - La Raza - literally translates to "The Race".
  
  Given Trump's support for a border wall and other strategies to secure the U.S. border with Mexico, he has every reason to be concerned about having this case heard by this specific judge.  Unfortunately, the judge's obviously biased conduct of the case only serves to reinforce that reality.
  
  Trump's unfortunate focus on the judge's "heritage" is entirely wrong-headed.  A focus on his associations and membership in a race-based organization like La Raza is entirely appropriate.

• Many of our fake "news" outlets this morning are focusing on the fact that The Most Corrupt Woman in America, in an interview with George Stephanopoulous yesterday, would not affirmatively state that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution confers a right to keep and bear arms to American citizens.  Instead, she would only talk about the "right" of the government to regulate firearms ownership.
  
  To me, this focus is kind of a big yawner. After all, all Hillary was doing was expressing the commonly-held belief by pretty much all of today's "progressives" that individual Americans don't have rights, but the government does.  That is the basic, fundamental, driving principle behind American progressivism today.  Tell us something we don't know already.
  
  My big question about that particular interview is why in the hell is ABC still allowing George Stephanopoulous, who served as senior advisor to Bill Clinton, has contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and is really nothing more than a lifelong Clinton toady, to interview Hillary Clinton under the pretense of objectivity? 
  
  Even more to the point, why does anyone still watch that crap?  I mean, am I the only one who understands that every question and answer in that "interview" has been vetted and rehearsed beforehand?  This is not "news", it is theatre.  No different than Broadway, though not  nearly as entertaining.

•  Matt Damon took some shots at Donald Trump during a commencement speech at MIT on Saturday. Some of the lines were pretty funny.  Good for him.
  
  My only question is, what is it in the makeup of most actors that compels them to start taking themselves seriously once they have achieved major fame?  We see this happen over and over and over again:  Actors who begin their careers focused on making great films or TV shows, perfecting their craft to the point at which they become fabulously wealthy and start winning awards, who then decide that winning those awards somehow makes them smart people who should then start dictating to the "little people" out in flyover country how they ought to behave.
  
  Rob Reiner, having won an Emmy for All in the Family, has been out there telling us all how to act for 40 years now.  Ted Dansen was great in Cheers, and then spent most of the '90s making all manner of environmental pronouncements that turned out to be false.  Susan Sarandon has been doing it for 25 years or so.  Barbara Streisand has been babbling non-stop for 30.  George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, the list can go on and on and on.
  
  What is it in their makeup that makes such people believe that, because they can act or sing or dance, that means that the "little people" should suddenly look up to them as authority figures?  Even more to the point:  What is is in the make up of so many "little people" that they possess so little self-esteem that they actually do listen and give these pompous Hollywood asses a platform from which to pontificate?
  
  Truly one of life's great mysteries.