Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Part II

Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Reading the comments in social media is alarming to me. It seems to me that many Christians today are traveling the same path that Islamic radicals are traveling they feel they are right and there is no discussion on the matter.

I believe that the Quran contains passages about fighting and I believe that the Bible contains passages about fighting that we would not agree with in 2016. I believe most Muslims today read those passages in  the same way most Christians read stories from Joshua in our Bible about the killing of Canaanite men, women, and children.  Most Muslims and Christians do not see these passages as commands to kill those who do not share their faith. However there are some Islamic extremists that see the Quran’s passages about the rules of engagement in wars from Mohammed’s time and prior as permission for violent activities and there are some Christians extremists (generally those who translate the Bible literally) that see the violence in the Bible towards those that did not believe as they did as a pass to violence today. The Quran and the Bible all contain passages that are not peaceful and passages that are peaceful. It is how we react and interpret those passages that makes the difference in 2016.

The Five Pillars of Islam are: (1) There is only one God – Christians should not have a problem with that; (2) Pray five times a day – it would be helpful if Christians adopted that practice; (3) Give to support the needy – Christians have always believed that; (4) Fast from dawn till sundown during the month of Ramadan – many Christians practice the tradition of fasting and I believe it is a healthy tradition; and (5) If possible make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime – many Christians go to Israel each year and many more would like to make a pilgrimage to Israel.

You see we have many things in common. Why don’t we try and concentrate on those things. Why do we generalize that all Christians and all Islamist are bad? Why are the extremist on both sides determined to prove that the Quran and the Bible is evil from beginning to end?

There are divisions among Christians and there are divisions among Muslims. Muslims and Christians have their own liberals, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and extremists.

ISIS truly believes what it professes: that it is engaged in a conflict to bring about the end times. The primary enemies of ISIS are other Muslims who do not share their beliefs. The Islamic view of end times involves victory in a climactic battle in Syria among all the nations of the world and God’s people.  I would say the majority of Christians believe that there will be a climatic battle in the Middle East among nations and God’s people. Because Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Extremist believe what they are doing is God’s work they are a difficult force to fight. Is it even possible to win over Christians who think God wants all homosexuals dead and when they voice hated for homosexuals they are doing God’s work or Islamist that believe God wants all Christians dead? I honestly do not know. If it is it will take a mighty work of the Holy Spirit to do so.

The division in the U.S.A. now over racism, disdain for the police, riots in the streets, a few rogue police officers, yelling at  one another on Kelly’s show (FOX) and bigoted social media post does not speak well around the world for the U.S.A. or Christianity. I think a  lot of people around the world and in the U.S.A. believe some American’s are acting as extremist. Many of us want to think of ourselves as a Christian Nation so we should act like it.

Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, expresses how we are to wage spiritual war: never avenging ourselves, never repaying evil for evil, overcoming evil with good. Most of us believe it’s wrong to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a relatively small number of extremists within that group. At the same time, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists within our midst have heightened our concerns about future attacks — from Adam Hamilton. I am not saying we should not use military force against ISIS. I am saying we cannot generalize about any group of people and we must be careful to the best of our ability to target ISIS and not all Muslims in general. I certainly do not want to be associated with literal radical Bible interpreters and many Muslims do not want to be associated with I.S.I.S.

We have legitimate fears about attacks by Islamic extremists, but how do we apply our faith in ways that balance those concerns for people’s safety with our belief that it is wrong to judge someone only on the basis of religion or nationality or gender or sexual inclination?

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21). These scriptures are extreme and it  may be impossible to follow all of them, but the harder we try to follow them the better we will be and the world will be.

We are not battling Islam, because there is no such thing as one Islam. One Islam cannot be extracted from the numerous offshoots, branches, and sects that make the world's 1.3 billion Muslims as ideologically, religiously, and politically fractured as the other two monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam or War on Radical Islamic Terrorist." The terrorists of September 11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism.

It rejects the West and much that it has to offer seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran and sharia (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.  Radical Muslims have a history of violence against American, Western, and even Muslim interests. But the movement did not appear spontaneously it has taken 14 centuries to evolve.

Many Muslims adapted to the fast-paced changes common to Western industrialization and modernization, but some Muslims rejected them. Instead, they created a rigid ideology embedded in the traditional values and laws of the Koran. This is the known today as Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism.

Islamism represents a yearning for the "pure" Islam as practiced by the prophet. Not unlike the American Amish, the movement rejects much that is innovative. Islamist, however, take the rejection of modernity a step further. They perceive those who have introduced these innovations as its enemy.

Islamist Radical Muslim Terrorist not only reject the influence of the West, they reject the legitimacy of their own governments in the Arabic world, which they see as subservient to the West. Therefore the overthrow of these regimes has become an important part of their agenda.

The biggest push for this agenda came in 1928, with the founding of the Ikhwan al-Muslim or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This organization became the cornerstone for most of today's Islamist movements, advocating Islamic beliefs and values as expressed by the common Egyptian. The organization rejected western rule and England's secular influence over Egypt. Obama made a grave mistake when he embraced the Muslim Brotherhood over the dictator ruling Egypt for over three decades.

"The earthquake" came in 1979 when Iran became the first modern Islamic republic, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew Iran's secular regime and established a new order in which sharia became law. Suddenly, Islamism was no longer an ideology of movements. It had inspired a state. America's first violent introduction to militant Islam came shortly after Khomeini's Islamic Republic was established in 1979, when Islamic extremists seized the U.S. embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

Given that militant Islam has plagued America for 22 years the attacks of September 11 should not have been surprising. A trend had been established. So, perhaps the biggest shock of that tragic day was the nation's utter surprise. Psychologically, America was completely unprepared for the attacks - why? I think because our government has refused to make it clear who our real enemy is and name them – all for the sake of political correctness and a President Obama that seems to have some need to defend ALL Islam thinking that we are so naive that if we reject some Islam we will reject it all.

Bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God."

Militant Islam has strongholds in Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, to name just a few countries. The challenge now for the western world is finding ways to destroy the radical infrastructure and arrest or kill militants while bolstering the influence of moderate Muslims.  No one in the Obama administration seems to know how we can accomplish this task. We cannot win without the support of moderate Muslims.  Hatred of ALL Muslims is not going to gain the support of moderate Muslims. Americans must come to terms on who are enemy really is and it is not ALL Muslims.

Until we Americans learn to love ourselves and each other we cannot expect the world to love and respect us. If we want to talk about Radical Islamic Recruitment I would imagine showing the division among our people is a great tool to use in their recruiting. One 30 second video of Americans fighting among ourselves in the streets is worth millions of words. It becomes okay to kill homosexuals if you can demonstrate that even your enemies, the Americans, hate homosexuals. It is easy to claim that Americans are out to destroy you if you can demonstrate that Americans are willing to destroy other Americans that do not agree with them. Finally it is easy to demonstrate that Democratic Laws do not work when we take to the streets and riot over injustice in our country rather than engaging in civil conversations about our differences and injustices.  

I opposed the war in Iraq at the time - Did Donald Trump?

Donald Trump is being attack by Republican politician’s for saying he opposed the war in Iraq and thinks it was a mistake.  I know this is probably shocking to many Republicans and some Democrats, but there were Republican voters back then who possessed the foresight to know that the Iraq War was going to be something we would regret for many years to come. We stood on street corners in front of Federal Buildings around the country carrying signs protesting our participation in the Iraq conflict. Those who opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning took no end of abuse for taking that position.  We were booed, threatened and had cigarettes flicked at us by fine upstanding people passing by who believed the lies being told them by politicians. We were often resented by other protesters because we were older, conservative and Republican – we were not one of them.  

It was not difficult for us to figure out that Iraq was about to become our next Iran. We understood that it was a religious dispute among Muslims that had gone on for generations and no outsider was going to fix it or end it. We felt sorry for the weaker Muslims, but were thankful the conflict had not been brought to our shores and knew if we interfered it would cost American lives and accomplish nothing. Saddam Hussein, just as the Shaw of Iran, had not caused us problems the problems in Iraq were internal problems and between Muslims. 

Rightly or wrongly some of us believed the reason for America’s involvement was oil. If that was the reason then China should thank us for getting involved because they benefit from the oil not us. I always believed some politicians feared a return of oil shortages as experienced during the Carter years and the oil corporation’s feared lost profits and assets in Iraq. The oil industry's political donations may have influenced politicians to make bad decisions. 

I agree President Bush was close to gaining a better Iraq, but he or anyone else would have solved the problems within Iraq and outside of Iraq among Muslims. If we would not have gone in to Iraq then Obama would not have had any American troops to bring home. I also agree that Obama made a terrible mistake in withdrawing our troops after we were engaged in the internal conflicts of Iraq. It did not take a Middle East expert to know that Iran would attempt to fill the vacuum when we were gone.

John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all said at one time or another they would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that they would not have withdrawn our troops after we were there as Obama did. Rand Paul said the same thing, but that's no surprise. Jeb Bush has even made statements that the Iraq war was not a good idea. Do you remember the Kelly question to Jeb Bush “… if you knew then what you know now would you have invaded Iraq” – it took five days for Bush to come up with a final answer? Trumps mistake in stating he opposed the Iraq war was he made it a personal attack on President “W” Bush to upset Jeb Bush. That would have worked if Trump was running as a Democrat, but he claims to be running as a conservative (progressive) Republican.

 With everything that has happened over the last dozen years, including events of just the last year, it's very hard to say that the invasion was a good idea. Iraq has loomed large over every aspect of US politics and foreign policy for more than a decade.

Republican politicians had moved the debate to the 'surge', where they had a much better argument to make. The ‘surge’ created an opening for a political solution, which never ended up happening and I personally never believed would.

 In the 2008 presidential race, the Iraq 'debate' was largely fought over who was right about the surge. Donald Trump has in 2016 brought the debate back into a territory that the Republican establishment does not want to go – should we have invaded in the first place. 

Public opinion has turned decisively against the Iraq war. But political fights recently have largely been fought over ISIS, whether there should have been a full pull-out from Iraq, chaos in Syria, Libya and Yemen and more. Most American I think would agree we have to stop ISIS and other terrorist groups, but Republican politicians and Democrat politicians, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who supported the invasion of Iraq, would like to leave the question if we should have invaded in the first place in the closet never to be revisited again – Donald Trump has opened that closet door.

Would we have the ISIS problem we have today if we had not invaded Iraq – I guess we will never know? The invasion certainly destabilized the Middle East even further. Today we are in such a hellish situation in the Middle East that it is hard to defend the original invasion.  Did the invasion speed up the terror coming to our shores?

I am sorry it is not the ‘hawks’ in Washington that deserve any credit for Iraq it is those politicians who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset. Iraq is a reality and we now must try to make the best of it and unfortunately that probably means leaving troops in the Middle East for many, many years to come – perhaps forever. It means increasing our military presences which means modernizing and increasing our military. It means it is going to be even more difficult to lower our National Debt. But, most of all we must consider Americans may have died and suffered for nothing.

Yes, some Republican voters were arguing at the time against invading Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. imminent enough to justify an invasion. Some Republicans and I was one of them were publicly shouting themselves hoarse, pointing out at the time that, at the very least, there were serious questions about whether Iraq really posed the threat the Bush administration and other politicians claimed it did.

Jeb Bush said, "…the focus needs to be on the future." We should always focus on the future, but we should never forget the past. I do not think we should let the present moment pass without acknowledging that those who were most focused on the future during the run-up to the war in Iraq were the ones working to stop it from happening.  

In closing, I would like to give credit where credit is due Vice President Al Gore and Illinois State Senator Obama and twenty-one other Democrats like Teddy Kennedy opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and publicly stated they did at the time – all politicians that I would have never voted for.  Bernie Sanders an Independent who was in the House at the time was against the invasion. I only know of one Republican who spoke out loud and clear against the invasion and it was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who is now a Democrat. I have no recollection of Donald Trump saying anything whatsoever in public about invading Iraq before the war began, although I am not sure I even knew who Donald Trump was at that time.

It was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading Democrat members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration supported the invasion of Iraq. There is enough blame to go around in both parties.

The United States does not need Bernie Sanders.

I think Hillary will have to start attacking Sanders for his 1980 era. He was a representative for the Socialist Party which at the time had ties to the Communist Party. He was actually part of the revolutionary Socialist Party. He was tied to a guy name Pulley. They called for solidarity with Iran and Cuba. They wanted President Carter to turn over the Shah of Iran to the mullahs. They both called for eliminating all U.S. Military operations and the C.I.A. They also wanted the rail, oil and automobile industries nationalized. They supported Ortega.  You would like the fact they wanted people to work a 30 hour week and be paid for 40 hours. Sanders said in the 80’s the U.S. was a dying society and the sooner it died the better the world would be. Sanders has proposed raising payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes to help cover all the stuff he wants to give away. I think he may have mellowed since the 80’s, but I am surprised since Hillary is losing to him they are not using the 80’s against him. Of course the young voter would not remember those things and probably would not care. 

I am really surprised the Republican candidates are not going after him harder.  If they think he will be easier to beat than Clinton I think they are wrong. People love the myth of getting something for nothing.

Regardless of what you may have thought of the Shah of Iran he supported the interest of Americans for over thirty years and our relationships in the Middle East were certainly better than they are today. If you do not like the present government medical care you really will not like Bernie Sanders medical care. If the government cannot run V.A. Hospitals how do you expect them to run all the hospitals in the United States? If you work or have friends or relatives working in the oil, rail, automobile industries how well do you think they will do with the government taking control of them? Are you really pleased with Obama's secret Iran deal - Bernie is! If you are upset with the present National Debt how happy will you be with Bernie adding 19 trillion more to it to pay for all his freebies. I don't know about you, but I do not want increased taxes and that is how Bernie will pay for his birth to grave guarantees. 

==The Democrat elitists in the party decided they definitely did not need Bernie Sanders. Even though what they did to keep him out was dishonest it was probably the smartest move they have made in nearly eight years.

Levinson was a spy not a hostage.

The family of the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007, has acknowledged he was working as a "spy" for a rogue CIA operation and accused the CIA, FBI and the Obama administration of "betraying" him by not doing enough to gain his release. I would think that anyone working as a “spy” for any country would understand the risk. Levinson was an FBI Agent specializing in organized crime in the U.S. before his retirement and it is said he was a skilled and meticulous FBI agent.  

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am not a fan of Obama, but I have mixed emotions about the Robert Levinson hostage (spy) case and do not know how much Obama could have done or could do to secure Levinson’s release – if he is still alive. I think it is utter nonsense for some to claim Obama is not interested in the case because Levinson is Jewish.

It was originally reported Levinson was looking into a cigarette smuggling ring for a client of the security consultancy business he had run since leaving the FBI ten years earlier.

Iran denies any involvement in the hostage taking of Levinson and it has been rumored he was being held in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Washington having no evidence of who is holding Levinson, where he is or who holds the key to negotiating his release has not been able to make progress on the case.

The first photographs and video emerged of former FBI-agent Robert Levinson in late 2010. In the video he looked thin, but said he had been treated well by his captors and was badly in need of medicine for his diabetes.  He appealed to the United States government to “answer the requests of the group” holding him. There has since been no evidence that he is still alive.

David McGee, a family lawyer and spokesperson for the Levinson family said, “The CIA and the FBI betrayed Levinson as it tried to hide the fact that he had a long-term relationship with the CIA, spying on Iran's nuclear program and on the terror group Hezbollah in the rogue operation.” Isn’t that normal procedure and you are told that before you take such an assignment. I was in Intelligence Service during the Vietnam conflict and we knew if we were captured in Laos the U.S. Government would deny any knowledge of our being there. You volunteer for those types of assignments you are not forced to take them.

American intelligence officials suspect the Iranian government, specifically its intelligence services, is behind the production of the 2010 images released by the Levinson family as well as a "proof of life" video. Ray Takeyh, a former State Department senior advisor on Iran, told ABC News he believes the Iranian leadership knows where Levinson is.

Dawud Salahuddin an American fugitive was the last person to see missing secret CIA operative Robert Levinson alive in Iran, but he has denied being involved in his mysterious disappearance. Dawud Salahuddin is a suspect in connection with a 1980 murder. Salahuddin fled the United States after the shooting in Maryland of an Iranian exile and he later confessed to the killing and justified the killing by claiming it was a 'jihad’ killing. He also met with Mr. Levinson's family in Iran and claimed to have met with the missing man, but denied knowing anything about his disappearance. I cannot help but believe the meeting between Levinson and Salahuddin has something to do with Levinson's disappearance. It is difficult for me to trust anything Salahuddin would say.  

The CIA paid Levinson's family $2.5 million to pre-empt a revealing lawsuit, and the agency rewrote its rules restricting how analysts can work with outsiders. I do not know if the truth will ever be known by the public and I don’t know if it should be known by the public. The truth could endanger the lives of others. It was obviously worth $2.5 million dollars to keep the facts from coming out. 

Behind closed doors, three veteran analysts were forced out of the agency and seven others were disciplined. The CIA claimed they did not know that Jablonski, one of the three veteran analysts forced out, was paying Levinson to do work for the CIA which was a violation of CIA rules. She should have notified her boss that she had put him on the payroll and they claim she did not.  I would think those forced out and disciplines were simply scapegoats.

Some in the U.S. government believe he is dead. But in the absence of evidence either way, the government holds out hope that he is alive and the FBI says it remains committed to bringing him home.

I believe he is dead and Iran cannot shed any light on the case without admitting to their involvement. What would be the purpose for Iran to continue to hold him now since the truth is known he was a “spy”. How long do you think a person in bad health, as Levinson claimed he was in 2010 live? He has diabetes, was in need of his medication, he has probably has had no lab work or monitoring of his sugar and been eating the wrong food. I am a diabetic and I know what happens when I do not take my insulin at the right time, watch my sugar intake and eat snacks and meals as I am supposed to.

I have a problem calling Mr. Levinson a hostage. He was a spy for the United States and according to international law Iran had every right to arrest him, imprison him and even execute him. My definition of a hostage is a person taken against their will and held for no legal reason. Regardless of the reason a person volunteers for a government top secret job be it the adrenalin rush, money or patriotism you commit to taking the risk of being caught. You understand for national security reasons your government may not admit you work for them. I feel sorry for the Levinson family, but I do not blame Obama or agencies of the U.S. government. 

The Iran hostages should have been home a long time ago!

Several Republican presidential candidates criticized the Obama administration's decision to swap seven Iranian prisoners for The Washington Post's reporter Jason Rezaian and three other Americans on Saturday and I think they were right in doing so. We are all happy to have the hostages released, but I do not think negotiating with a terrorist country was the way to go about it. Their release should have been unconditional because they were not guilty of any international crime.

Our hostages were released from Iranian custody in exchange for seven Iranians who were in prison for crimes they committed and it does not matter to me if their crimes were violent or not. This exchange further proves that Iran is no friend to the U.S. or its allies and Iran continues to get the upper hand in negotiations with the Obama Administration. Obama should not have been in negotiation with Iran to get a nuclear deal while Iran held innocent American hostages.

It is not true that the hostage release had nothing to do with the private nuclear deal because Iran warned Obama in December if additional sanctions were enforced against Iran the hostage swap was off and the nuclear deal was in trouble. Obama immediately from his vacation in Hawaii began the process to delay any announcement of further sanction against Iran. 

Even Hillary Clinton believes the Obama administration should not have thanked Iran for releasing the prisoners (hostages) or for following through on its obligations. Hillary said, “These prisoners (hostages) were held unjustly by a regime that continues to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East.”

The other two Democrat candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said, “The exchange represented progress in relations between Washington and Tehran.” I guess if you call U.S. weakness progress then we have made great advances during the Obama administration.

Even though I am now a Republican I do not think it is fair for Republican candidates to give all or any credit to President Reagan for the release of American hostages when he was sworn in as President of the United States. I think Iran had tired of the issue and President Carter’s administration had laid all the groundwork for the release of the hostages. I will never believe Iran released the 52 hostages because they feared Reagan being elected. I do not think Iran was even fully aware of who Reagan was or what he stood for at the time. Iran then and now released the hostages because they thought it was in their best interest to do so and fear had nothing to do with it. Iran contacted President Carter in September of 1980 with a proposal to release the hostages. I rather think Iran thought they could deal with the next administration better if they changed the tone of the hostage situation.  

Then as now Iran was given money to release the hostages. The agreement that led to the release involved $11 billion to $12 billion ($36 billion in 2015) in Iranian assets that Carter had frozen 10 days after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. The Iranians did fear having to start negotiations over with a new administration and believed that they had gotten most of the benefits they could from holding the hostages. I think the same is true today $150 billion dollars (the exact amount is disputed) in their hands is better than possibly getting nothing if a Republican is elected President. I do not think Iran has any intention of keeping the Obama nuclear deal. The release of hostages military and civilian was all about money and insulting the United States.  

I hope not, but I believe Iran will take more U.S. hostages in the near future. Hostages for Iran are like money in the bank – a bargaining chip for getting more concessions from the U.S. and the West. Let us not kid ourselves Iran releases hostages when it is in their best interest and only when it is in their best interest. When they have gotten all the propaganda mileage and concessions they think they can out of a hostage they grow tired of them and release them, but always take another hostage to start the negotiating process all over again.

The only way Iran or any rogue nation will come to the negotiation table and negotiate fairly is by force. The only force they understand is military force. You have to remove their ability to threaten other nations and keep them from ever having the ability to do so in the future. I think Germany and Japan are examples of that. If Japan or Germany would have been allowed to rebuild their military capabilities soon after the war they would have engaged in future nation building conflicts. National pride at any cost is still prominent among some people in both countries, a foolish pride, that is similar to the racist pride among some groups in America.

Obama announced Sunday following the hostages leaving Iran he will allow eleven companies to remain sanctioned from doing business with Iran and the response from Iran on Monday for his doing so should bring him comfort.  On Monday, Iran’s foreign ministry responded that the, “Islamic Republic will respond to these aggravating and propagandistic measures (11 companies sanctioned) by pursuing its missile program stronger than ever before.” Obama did not keep his word not to add additional missile sanctions, in other words he lied to Iran, so how can we now complain about Iran not keeping their word to honor the private nuclear deal.

I must have missed something during the nearly last eight years because Obama said Sunday when speaking of the hostage release, “These things are a reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with strength and with wisdom, with courage and resolve and patience.” I have seen little strength, wisdom, courage or resolve coming from Washington in a long time. I guess I have seen a lot of patience because when you are weak you have no choice but be patient. Obama’s ‘red line’ remark to Syria’s President did not show much resolve or courage when he failed to follow through with his threat. His withdrawal of troops against the advice of his own military advisors did not demonstrate much wisdom in Iraq and Afghanistan. His bowing to the Saudi king showed weakness from the very start of his administration.

If the United States cannot stand up to Iran a country only slightly larger than Alaska how could it stand up to China? The failure of the U.S. to stand up to Iran for the past 37 years has been a failure on the part of both Democrat and Republican politicians. They must take the blame for the monster they created. 

Obama and Kerry insist that the private accord with Iran provides no room for its ruling clerics to cheat. I hope they are right! But if Obama lied to Iran about sanctions how do we know he is not lying to us about how secure we are. If they are wrong the world will certainly suffer.

Obama's negotiations did not get our Navy personnel released!

Iran's seizure of two U.S. naval ships and President Barack Obama's response show that Iran the country the president hoped would secure his foreign policy legacy has the ability to hold him hostage.

Obama didn’t mention the incident in the Persian Gulf during his State of the Union speech because Obama and his administration did not consider the boarding of the ships and the seizure of 10 U.S. sailors to be a "hostile act." Instead, the president praised Iran and the diplomatic agreement he had made with them in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans do not support his private deal with Iran.  

Even though Iran quickly released the 10 U.S. military personnel it still shows that despite a nuclear agreement with the West, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is willing to board U.S. vessels, take American soldiers into custody, and, according to CNN confiscate the crew's communications and GPS equipment.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s call to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is not evidence to me that relationships between the United States and Iran have improved. Iran was not influenced by John Kerry or Obama they did exactly what they wanted to do. Iran was looking to humiliate the United States and they did. The Iranian state press reported the sailors had been “arrested” for “snooping”. The Obama administration, as they did in during the Benghazi crisis, lied telling us the boats had malfunctioned. The two boats function the next day without any repairs being made to them.

If the Iranian government respected Obama or the United States it would not have taken several hours before the captured sailors were allowed to make contact with their superiors. If the Iranian government feared any retaliation from Obama and the United States they would have immediately called Washington and advised them what had happen and that they were working to resolve the problem. Instead the Iranian government did nothing until they had their humiliating videos and press releases in place.

The incident is just the latest in a series of Iranian provocations since agreeing to the private Obama nuclear deal in July. In late December, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps vessels fired unguided missiles near the USS Truman; the U.S. did not retaliate. Also last month, Kerry wrote to the Iranian government to assure it the U.S. government would waive new visa restrictions passed by Congress, after Tehran objected. The U.S. indefinitely delayed imposing sanctions on Iran in response to its tests of ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations sanctions. The United States will remain hostage to Iran as long as Obama is in office.

Obama’s last State of the Union message was supposed to convey to the American people and the world that we are all safer and more secure because of Obama’s diplomatic achievements. Iran’s flaunting they could take two U.S. Navy vessels without any fear of retaliation did not make me feel safer or more secure.

To my friends in the Philippines if Obama will not stand up to Iran in defense of the United States do you honestly think he will stand up for you against China.

Iran released the U.S. Navy personnel because they knew the American people would revolt if Obama attempted to go ahead with the release of 150 billion dollars while our personnel was still being held hostage. Iran wanted the 150 billion dollars and to show Obama and the United States who is really in charge in the Middle East. They accomplished both!

The Obama’s administration's without knowing all the details immediately began to play down the incident and to seek accommodation with Tehran. That has been Obama’s approach to the Iran deal since its conception even though Iran has continued to escalates tensions with the U.S. and its allies.

Obama’s legacy in my opinion will be that of the first President in my lifetime that did not stand up for the rights of the United States. Iran knows that Obama is looking for the Iran deal to be his crowning legacy and they are playing him for a fool. Obama is in a no win situation and Iran knows that. Obama chose to go to the dance with Iran and as we say in the South, “You have to leave with the one that brought you.” Obama has no choice but stay in bed with Iran or see his legacy go down the toilet.

Something we hear little to nothing about in the media is the upcoming elections in Iran. Iran's parliament and powerful assembly of experts will choose Iran's next supreme leader within a month, which has the ultimate authority over Iran's nuclear program. With a stroke of a pen Obama’s Iran deal can be abolished and they will still have their 150 billion dollars to support more terrorism.

Once again we have been manipulated by our politicians and we have stood by passively as they have done it! Why have we allowed one man, Obama, to negotiate a private deal with a terrorist country that has for more than 35 years wanted to destroy us and our only middle east ally Israel? Will we, the American people, ever have the courage and the guts to take back our country from the Washington elite? 

Note: Iran says seizure of U.S. boats a lesson to ‘troublemakers’ in U.S. Congress,” Iran’s army chief Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said on Wednesday the seizure of two U.S. navy boats and their 10 sailors should be a lesson to members the U.S. Congress trying to impose new sanctions on Tehran. It is reported he went on to say some of the Navy personnel were so frightened they cried.

Political Party Platforms are a joke!

The political parties’ official platforms, written at the national conventions, mean very little or even nothing. These are not things that individual candidates must follow and they are given essentially no attention in the campaigns and certainly not after the votes are cast.

It is very difficult for political parties to maintain discipline over their members.  The people who run for Congress are not picked by the party leadership. They are picked by the voters in primary elections. If the candidates do not want to follow the party platform, there is very little that the party can do about it. We have seen in recent years many examples of “tea party” insurgents defeating Republican incumbents in the primaries even though the party supported the incumbents.

The party cannot force elected officials to follow the party platform and candidates tend to ignore them.  Candidate’s campaign on whatever issues they think will be most effective in getting them elected. Party platforms are no longer important.

Read the 2008 platforms of both parties carefully and you will see they are well-crafted documents that really mean nothing. I am going to use the Democrat Party Platform as an example to prove my point.  

In 2008 the Democratic Party called tax increases ‘investments in America’. They obviously did a good job of making it appear that increasing taxes would increase jobs. Normally voter run from parties that espouse tax increases, but Obama won.   

The Democratic Party stated in the 2008 platform they would provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline. Were the rebates for the purpose of helping American families or friends and contributors of Democrat candidates?

The 789 billion dollar ‘Stimulus Package’ they were proud of in 2008 was no longer called the ‘Stimulus Package’ after it failed to stimulate anything, but the bank accounts of Obama’s friends and supporters. The ‘Stimulus Package’ of the 2008 platform became the’ Recover Act’. Stimulus became a dirty word in Washington. Obama joked about ‘shovel ready jobs’ the stimulus money was invested in that turned out not to be not so ‘shovel ready’ after all. I guess it is easy to make jokes about losing money when it is not your money you are losing.

The Democrats in 2008 promised affordable health care, but did we get it. No we did not. Insurance premiums sky rocketed and continues to increase. We cannot keep our doctor as promised or the health insurance policy we had if we were happy with it as promised. In order to have health insurance coverage policy holders had to be satisfied with high deductibles. If you do not have insurance coverage you have to pay a penalty each year. I live in the Philippine and last year I had to pay over $800 in penalties for not having a health insurance policy. I could not afford a U.S. health insurance policy that would pay hospital expenses abroad and Medicare and government insurance policies do not cover anyone outside the continental United States.

Be careful of the word ‘We’ in platforms. You will find the ‘We’ is ‘You’. They write the platform and the legislation and pass the cost on to ‘You’.

Democrat platforms are always committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why they claim they support unions. In reality they support unions in order to get the union bosses to put pressure on union members to vote for them. In 2008 they claimed when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. Did that happen – wages are stagnated, the middle class is weaker than it has been since the Great Depression. Higher wages are good and needed, but keep in mind higher wages mean higher cost of living. An x-ray in the Philippines cost $7 how much do they cost in the United States? I by no means endorse the low wages paid in the Philippines.

In 2008 the Democrats promised to cut poverty in half within ten year- is that happening? They promised to provide all our children a world-class education, from early childhood through college – college is more expensive now than ever. We will develop innovative transitional job programs that place unemployed people into temporary jobs and train them for permanent ones – are welfare recipients required to participate in work programs or go to school - NO. To help workers share in our country’s productivity, we’ll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation – they made sure illegal aliens got Earned Income Tax Credit.  The majority of adults in poverty are women, and to combat poverty we must work for fair pay, support for mothers, and policies that promote responsible fatherhood – more homes are without fathers today than ever before.

The Democrats said higher taxes would lower gas prices and they would solve the problem of four-dollar a gallon gas with a comprehensive plan and investment in clean energy. How many of Obama’s investment in cleaner energy went bankrupt costing tax payer? Do you really believe higher taxes and bankrupt clean energy companies brought gas prices down to where they are today?

The Democrats promised to make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Their Our Children’s First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, were supposed to improve quality of education and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Their Our Presidential Early Learning Council was supposed to coordinate these efforts. Regardless of the money the government throws at education we are ranked 27 in education worldwide. The Constitution does not provide for such programs. It is my opinion public school education suffers because of teachers unions the very thing the Democrats support. What incentive does a person have to do a good job if they cannot be fired?

The Democrat platform stated “We will invest in American jobs and finally end the tax breaks that ship jobs overseas. We will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to provide for our next generation of innovators and job creators; we will expand the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships and create new job training programs for clean technologies. We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy and provide assistance to automakers and parts companies to encourage retooling of facilities in this country to produce advanced technology vehicles and their key components.” General Motors is moving plants to Mexico as I write this. How many manufacturing jobs have return to America, especially from China? How many trillions of dollars remain in banks abroad because manufacturers will not bring the funds back to America because of high Corporate Taxes? This money being kept abroad could boost United States investment in manufacturing jobs.

The Democrats promised to seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. Do you really believe the Iran deal will do that? Their goal was to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. They did a good job of trying to weaken our ability to respond militarily to a crisis, but fail to tell Iran, North Korea and Russia they were supposed to do the same.

A promise they kept was to not develop new nuclear weapons.  But, they failed to get Russia and Putin on board with their plan. Hillary’s ‘restart button’ plan failed.

The Democrats promised to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future – NO COMMENT!

In 2008 the Democrats promised to support our friends and participate in their stability. I wonder how Israel feels about that platform promise.

They also kept their promise to eliminate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Program and replace it with a system allowing Individual Soldiers to express their sexual preferences openly. I will give them credit for doing that.

The list goes on and on of failed promises in the Democrat 2008 platform. If you took the Republican platform you would find as many failed promises.  Do you still believe a wise voter votes based on what is in either parties platform. They promise during campaigns and do what they want when elected. 

Donald Trump's Muslim proposal may help him and not hurt him.

Nearly every politician from both parties have been critical of Donald Trump for suggesting closing the U.S. to all Muslim immigrants until the officials can get a handle on the Islamic terror threat.  Sounds like a good suggestion to me. If the back room power bosses of the Republican Party, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and the other Liberals think they will hurt Trump by attacking him I think they may be wrong. Let’s get real Trump’s supporters are primarily white, conservative, Christians. I doubt if many Muslims, Blacks or Hispanic will be supporting Trump regardless of any statement he makes. Therefore Trump’s remarks may help him instead of hurt him in the primary elections, but the general election will be a different animal. No other Republican is standing up to Obama on the terrorist issue as Trump is.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Tuesday called Trump a “carnival barker” who should be disqualified from running for president, along with any GOP candidate who doesn’t denounce his remarks. I do not think Donald Trump or his supporters care what one of Obama’s paid hacks says. Josh Earnest says what Obama and his advisors tell him to say. He is not paid to think for himself. Josh Earnest remarks may help Trump in the polls.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump’s remarks go against what the party stands for. I wish Paul Ryan would explain to us what the Republican Party stands for, because I no longer know. As far as I can tell the Democrats and Republican stand for the same thing. The Republican House and Senate have demonstrated they will not use the power of the purse to block or change Democrat (Obama) programs.

The National Republican Committee Chair said, “I don’t agree with Trump. We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism, but not at the expense of our American values.” It seems obvious to me Reince Priebus has lost touch with what American values are.  

A majority (56%) of Americans agree that the values of Islam are at odds with American values and the American way of life. It appears to me that American voters are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything that they think might make us safer. I think more conservative Americans at this time would agree more with Donald Trump than with Reince Priebus, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Linsey Graham and Dick Cheney are saying.  That is certainly what the polls reveal.

A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll released Tuesday revealed that even if the GOP establishment successfully ends Trump’s White House bid, 68 percent of his supporters would vote for him as an Independent, 28 percent said they wouldn’t and the rest were undecided. I tend to believe for the first time in my life I would support an Independent candidate. I would support an Independent Donald Trump because I do not think he would let the Republican and Democrat elected officials push him around and if they tried he would go public as Reagan did and they would not risk that.

Trump’s high poll numbers survived the attacks he received for making inappropriate statements on Mexican immigrants, questioning the heroism of Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war, and suggesting that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly was menstruating (I am not sure that is what he meant) when she asked him tough questions (I think unfair questions) at the first Republican primary debate. He could survive this last comment that has brought on a media storm as he has others.

If Donald Trump should continue to carry the support of the Republican voters and the Republican Party sabotaged his Presidential possibilities I think they would be guaranteeing a win for the Democrats and most likely Queen Hillary.

How fast the Democrats forget their past. Don’t they remember the Iranian hostage crisis? President Carter banned all Iranians from entering the U.S. unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. Some argue that Trump’s plan is different because it bars members of a religious group. I believe the Shite Islamist regime in Iran was and is an Islamic Radical Muslim Religious regime ran by Imam’s.  Donald Trump’s proposal certainly seems similar to me.

 “The Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly,” Carter said in 1980. In addition, the Carter administration began a thorough campaign to deport Iranian students who had overstayed their visas.

The Carter move was aimed at protecting American lives and was not very controversial at the time. Donald Trump’s proposal is aimed at protecting American lives and would not be that controversial if not for the Democrat, Liberals, media and the Republican establishment in Washington D.C. that want to stop Donald Trump.  I think if Donald Trump’s plan was carried out sensibly and diplomatically it would not be controversial with most American.

One media outlet was concerned that CAIR had been offended because the Director of the MUSLIM organization, Ibrahim Hooper said, “We’re entering into the realm of the fascist now.  It should be disturbing to all Americans that the leading Republican presidential candidate would issue essentially a fascist statement.” I am not concerned with what CAIR thinks, since I do not view them as a moderate Islamic group. I am more concerned as to why some are more concerned about what CAIR thinks than what the majority of American thinks.

Journalists have stated that Less than 24 hours after Mr. Obama (in a speech from the Oval Office) urged Americans not to overreact to the terrorist massacre by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino by vilifying Islam and he praised the patriotism of millions of Americans Muslims Mr. Trump called for an entry bans and forced registration of Muslims which will set off a backlash from moderate Islamic Muslims. Perhaps if Obama did not try over and over again to make Americans look like the bad guys in the Radical Muslim Terrorist crisis Donald Trump would not have to propose what he did.

The media has begun to take a tougher stand against Republican front-runner Donald Trump after his campaign promise to keep Muslims out of the country as a means to stop the terrorist threat of ISIS. There have been other times when the press leaned harder on Trump when they thought he had made statements that would disqualify him only to find his statements helped him in the polls.

The Philadelphia Daily News put a photo of Trump with his arm raised in a “Sieg Heil” salute on its front page with the headline “The New Furor.” Michael Days, the editor-in-chief of the tabloid, said he decided to go with the image after receiving outraged texts throughout the day about Trump’s comments.

It was reported, “On the 74th anniversary of the surprise Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese warplanes that brought the United States into the Second World War that Mr. Trump’s anti-Muslim accusations stirred dark memories. Not since then, when tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry – including citizens – were rounded up and forced into internment camps has a major political figure in the United States called for imposing discriminatory treatment on the basis of religion or race.”

I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was President at the time of the Japanese interment and he personally called for it to be done. Then and now are two different times. I would have disagreed with Roosevelt’s decision because the U.S. was not threatened by Japanese Radical Terrorist living in the United States. 

One liberal article stated, “Some Republicans have been stoking the smoldering embers of anti-Muslim fervor in the United States since Mr. Obama launched his bid to replace former president George W. Bush. Mr. Obama, whose Kenyan father and Indonesian stepfather were both Muslims, spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, and has been openly accused of being a closet Muslim by some right-wing Republicans.” I believed Obama was a Christian and I do not recall his father or stepfather ever being on a ballot in the United States so the religious preference of his father or stepfather is of no importance to me. I think the majority of American’s accepted that Obama was a Christian. Lately, I have begun to wonder and I think others have to if we could have been wrong due to Obama’s constant attack on America, Americans and particularly American Christians.  The article even stated “Donald Trump hates Muslim.” I may be wrong, but I have never heard Donald Trump say he hated anyone. I did hear him say that a lot of Muslims around the world hated Americans.

Liberal articles have used Donald Trump’s statement claiming that many Muslims danced and celebrated on rooftops in New Jersey as New York’s World Trade Center’s twin towers burned and collapsed against him. Frankly, I believe Donald Trump was incorrect or exaggerating when he made the statement. I am sure there were Radical Islamic Muslims in every state that were pleased to see the terrorist win one against the United States.

If Donald Trump did lie when he made the statement it pales compared to Obama’s lies – if you like your doctor you can keep him, Bengasi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, the I.R.S. did not discriminate against conservative organizations and all the other lies he has told the American people. It is not right, but all politicians make statements that they think will win them votes when speaking to a particular group of people.

Gulf News, a Dubai-based English-language news outlet took the opportunity to seize on Donald Trump’s remarks and added to them by stating; “Trump’s solution would be to bomb the hell out of ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria.”  I really do not care what the Middle East Muslim media says. If Trump was elected and ordered more effective bombings it would be better than what Obama has done over the past seven years. It seems to me there are Muslim groups in the Middle East fear a Donald Trump administration. They certainly do not fear Obama or the Democrats.

I read, “If you’re a bigot, redneck or white supremacist voter in the US right now, you gotta love Donald Trump. But it you’re a Muslim, an immigrant, a Mexican or Black, then you had better be afraid — very afraid.” I am not a bigot, redneck or white supremacist and I might support Donald Trump. I certainly would fear Donald Trump less than I do Islamic Muslim Terrorist. I do not think any Muslim, Mexican or Muslim need fear Trump if they are here legally and obeying the laws.

Liberals have never been a supporter of Bill O'Reilly on FOX News Channel, until he slammed Trump’s commentary as a "racist diatribe," saying that even former Vice President Dick Cheney was “disgusted” with Trumps statement.  Cheney, speaking on a radio show said Trump’s plan to ban all Muslim immigration, “… goes against everything we stand for and believe in. Religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from.” When someone seems to agree with the Liberals they forget all the times they have said Bill O’Reilly did not know what he was talking about, but all of a sudden he has become an expert and they are quoting him as if he is a prophet.

Dar al-Ifta, Egypt’s official religious body, echoed Cheney’s statement on religious freedom in the U.S. The organization issued a statement saying Trump’s commentary was “… totally erroneous” and that “… such hostile attitudes towards Islam and Muslims will increase tensions within the American society of which Muslims represent around 8 million peaceful and loyal American citizens.” Many thought the San Bernardino Radical Islamic Terrorist and his family were peaceful and it does not appear they were.  I really did not expect a Muslim Middle East religious group to support Donald Trump or his latest comments.

They went on to say, “It is unfair to punish all Muslims because of a group of extremists whose criminal actions are repudiated by Islam,” I do not think all Muslim should be judged by a few radicals, but I do think those that are not radical should be taking the fight to the radicals and not expect non-Muslims to do it for them. I also do not think Egypt is doing such a great job controlling the Islamic Muslim Radicals in their own country so why are they trying to tell us how to deal with our problem.

Donald Trump’s words were more in your face, but are they that far off from what the other GOP candidates who are criticizing Trump have said about Syrian refugees, Muslims, and immigrants.

A short term ban on Muslim visa’s, since the present visa program is not working, sounds reasonable to me. We have got to do be better than what we're doing. Muslim or other people that travel to terrorist countries at the moment should be vetted more than any others and we should have a moratorium on anybody that has been in any terrorist country or anywhere where terrorists are based.

Once we get a workable immigration/visa program we could resume issuing visas to Muslims and I think that is exactly what Trump wants to do. Obama recently said if any Republican has a better idea on a deal with Iran then let them propose it. Donald Trump thinks he has a better idea on Muslim visa and he proposed it and Obama and his henchman did not consider it at all, instead they immediately attack Trump. 

Bill Clinton returned the Democrats to power with some radical ideas for a Democrat – he favored the death penalty and he wanted to drastically reform welfare. Clinton won the election because on every issue that the Republicans had hoped to dominate—balancing the budget, welfare, crime, immigration, and taxes—Clinton staked out a strong centrist position early on. Clinton knew what Americans wanted at that time and he won.

Could Donald Trump win the nomination by adopting some Democrat ideas, by not being as conservative as some in the Republican Party want him to be and by giving Americans what they want at this time?

I have said before I am confused when it comes to the 2016 election, In the back of my mind I cannot ignore that maybe Donald Trump does not want to be President; maybe Trump wants the Republicans to lose the election; maybe it would be more profitable for Trump if Hillary and Bill returned to the White House, instead of a Republican. Donald Trump is a businessman and profit is the world he understands. Trust of any politicians is difficult for me in 2016.

I do not think an Independent Donald Trump could win a National election, but I do believe it would guarantee a loss for the Republican Party. I do not think the Republicans have anything to gain by trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign.  The latest Bloomberg poll shows almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third said it makes them more likely to vote for him. An online Bloomberg poll showed 37 percent among all likely general-election voters support Trump’s controversial Muslim visa proposal.

Can the United States survive Obama?

I hope all the Republican candidates realize the importance of closing our borders to illegal aliens. You read my statement correctly ‘ILLEGAL’ aliens. If they are in our country without the proper documentation they have broken our immigration laws and they are ‘ILLEGAL’.

Donald Trump started the conversation on illegal aliens, closing our borders and building a wall. I hope others will pick up the conversation and if elected see his ideas to completion. It would be difficult for me to support Donald Trump regardless of the fact that he supports many of the things I do. I have a difficult time voting for a man or woman whom I do not respect.

I would think because of the events from last week in Paris, immigration and our open border with Mexico should become the No. 1 issue in America. All the presidential candidates if they are smart will adopt Trumps ideas. Trump is now in command of the most important issue facing America.

Trump in my opinion is mean, vicious, combative, offensive, and bombastic, he doesn’t care about political correctness and he doesn’t care whose feelings he hurts. As much as I dislike him I am beginning to think he is the only person for the job.

It may become necessary to have a Trump for four or eight years not only to clean up the terrorist problems, immigration problems and border problems, but to clean up the messes our lame President Obama has made with his Executive Orders and his ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t think Trump believes he can deport 12 to 15 million illegals, but I do think he is using that as a negotiating tool to get what he will be satisfied with. Trump is not a fool.

What would Trump settle for in my opinion – closing the borders, the wall, no welfare for aliens, and Mexico agreeing to pay the cost of our housing their criminals in our prisons or we will send them back to Mexico immediately.  

You still do not think building a wall and closing our borders will work then tell me why the first thing the Socialist president of France did after a terrorist attack was close the borders. Even a Socialist understood how important it was to control the borders in order to help protect his citizens.

I do not think Donald Trump would allow the Obama-Kerry plan to import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into America to stand. It’s insane to allow thousands of potential terrorists into America. It’s self-destructive. Everyone should know it is a lame idea if Obama and Kerry proposed it. Everything else they have done or proposed like the Iran agreement, withdrawing the troops, downsizing the military has proven to be lame. If taking in the refugees is such a great idea then Obama should tell us how many of them will be living with him and his family in the White House.

I have one more question for our lame President Obama - if we can afford to take in thousands of refugees, house them, clothe them, feed them and provide medical care for them why do we not have the money to take care of our OWN poor and homeless - why do we have homeless VETERANS?

It is the Muslim nation’s responsibility to take care of the refuges. I do think we should offer help to provide a safe haven for them in Muslim nations.

The day before the attacks in Paris, our lame President told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Islamic State had been “contained”. Barack Obama has been thinking about his legacy from the beginning of his presidency. Obama’s aim to end “Bush’s wars” is in shambles. I think his legacy now is he contributed to the threats from the Islamic State. I think Obama’s legacy will be that he was the worst President since Jimmy Carter.

Obama is a speech maker, but he is not a decision maker. His lack of commitment has set the United States back a decade. Do you remember the “red line threat” he gave Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Obama’s position on Iran is dangerous for the United States. It has nothing to do with America’s security and everything to do with him desperately trying to build a legacy around it. The Nobel Peace Prize went to his head. He thought by being passive on terrorist his legacy would be that of a peace maker – he failed! He thinks his passive (cowardice) attempt to negotiate with Iran regardless of the cost will be the key to a legacy of peace maker – he will fail again.

Let us not forget how lowly Iran regarded Carter’s pathetic groveling, they only released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president- a man who the Iranians knew would put a stop to the whole embarrassing episode.

Obamacare continues to fail and the worst is yet to come after Obama has vacated the office - his signature domestic achievement that bears his name is likely to be repealed or be shown to be a disastrous piece of legislation. He thought that would add to his legacy – he failed again.

With his foreign policy in shambles and Iraq being conquered by Islamic fanatics, and his economic agenda having damaged the U.S. significantly and Obama’s dealings with Iran guaranteed to fail his only hope may be Cuba for a legacy.

Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Patton. Until Obama is out of office we should hang a sign in all U.S. airports “Terrorist Welcome!”