During President Obama’s testy press conference in Turkey on Monday at which the media – and I mean the mainstream media – asked him REAL questions, Obama made a statement that verifies what many of us have been saying all along. And that would be that his focus is not on “pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning[.]”
Gee, you don’t say. It has been abundantly clear since early on in Obama’s presidency that his idea of “leading” was to sit back and let everyone else do it, that is, “leading from behind,” a “strategy” that is idiotic on its face as Amb. John Bolton highlighted back in February. From the LA Times:
[…] Obama’s national security strategy is most noteworthy for its detachment from reality. In a personal introduction, the president preens about reducing American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan from approximately 180,000 in 2009 to roughly 15,000 today. Then, ironically echoing his predecessor, he asserts that we are “leading over 60 partners in a global campaign to degrade and ultimately defeat” Islamic State. Left unsaid is that Iraq has collapsed as a viable state, and that Islamic State, a threat equal to or worse than Al Qaeda, now controls large portions of Iraq’s territory. What is left over is an Iranian vassal. The prognosis for Afghanistan is little better.
These debacles are presented as achievements. In fact, I believe Islamic State would fall swiftly in the face of strong military measures and political efforts to divorce Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria from its sway. Instead, Iraq is devolving into a new terrorist state, as other countries in the region, from Libya to Yemen, descend into chaos and anarchy.
Nonetheless, Obama writes that “the question is never whether America should lead, but how we lead.” His truly Orwellian notion that “leading from behind” is actually leadership would warm Big Brother’s heart. Sadly, our global adversaries are not deceived. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
And now, Obama is insistent that we allow in refugees that we know for a FACT have ISIS members embedded with them. He claimed at the press conference mentioned above, that this is who we are, that this is our character, and managed to attack Republicans while he was at it. From The Federalist:
[…] Towards the end of the press conference, Obama shifted away from ISIS and targeted Republicans instead. He specifically attacked Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for opposing Obama’s policy of allowing refugees from Syria to enter the U.S. The latest intelligence out of France suggests that at least one of the attackers responsible for Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris entered Europe as a refugee from Syria. (Click here to read the rest.)
It is wrong for these Republicans to be opposed to allow in a group of people we know contain terrorists? Really? Because I kinda thought we were trying to keep them out.
Thankfully, while Obama is “too busy” to worry about such silly slogans like, “winning,” or “American leadership,” there are a number of Governors who DO care about leadership, and keeping the wolves out of the hen house. My governor, Nikki Haley, announced that she was joining the others in not accepting Syrian refugees yesterday. And why would that be? Because, as the Post and Courier reported, it is a matter of this:
[…] “As governor, it is my first and primary duty to ensure the safety of the citizens of South Carolina,” Haley said in a written letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. “While I agree that the United States should try to assist individuals in such dire situations, it is precisely because of the situation in Syria that makes their admission into the United States a potential threat to our national security.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Precisely right. That is Gov. Haley’s duty, and it is also the duty of the President of the United States. He is just choosing to shirk his, and then act all sanctimonious and holier-than-thou implying (not so subtly) that to not accept these folks, terrorists included, apparently, is un-American.
Despite the belittling by Obama on this topic, many Governors have said, “NO” to allowing in Syrian refugees. The Daily Signal has a map that shows at a glance just which states have nixed this idea:
If you watch the following video, you get a glimpse of why it is important for these Governors to take this stand, and hopefully Congress, too. I warn you, this is a graphic video, it is incredibly disturbing, and it is not easy to watch. But I think it is important to see it, to see just what Obama’s “leading from behind” and lack of concern for “leadership,” and “America winning,” has the potential to do to this country (h/t Facebook friend via Israel Video Network):
That is why it is important to not allow a flood of refugees into this country with no way to vet them properly, and to put additional burdens on states and the US citizens who have already spent close to $5 BILLION to assist those from that region. It is past time for countries in the Middle East to take them in, unless the intent is what was described so disturbingly in the video above. That is something I don’t even want to contemplate, but if Obama and the Democrats have their way, I am afraid it could happen here. And from what I saw in that video, such an influx would fundamentally transform our country, and not for the better.
Congress better step up and make sure this CAN’T happen here. While I have every sympathy for those who are truly in danger and need to flee Syria (thanks in no small part to Obama’s “policies” there), there are just too many variables in play for us to know that those whom we may get here will not include ISIS terrorists.
That’s what I think anyway. How about you? This is an Open Thread.